Where There's Smoke, They're Fired

ABC 20/20 ^ | 4/8/05 | John Stossel

[Scothia]

[Scothia]

That said, if it's his company, and it's not a right to work state, then he is free to set policy how he sees fit, even at the whining of the employees. They are free to seek employment elsewhere.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else is just smoke in the wind.

[MilspecRob]

You have no idea.

This "President" would have a weekly staff meeting with VP's Directors & Managers, he would scream & curse and us collectively then go up and down the table for individual beratment. I put up with this for 9 long months, then totally lost it and got up and said "Buddy you can just go "F" yourself and shame on all of you for putting up with this!" and went to my office to pack up. My director came running in and told me to go back and apologize. After a brief but colorful chat with him, security walked me out.

[Mears]

bump

[mc6809e]

Employees should NOT have their employment held to any conditions that hinge on their private, legal "behaviors" beyond their "normal working hours" unless they have legally signed, in advance of said employment and as a condition for it, an express agreement (a "contract," if you will) to that effect.

This is much better. It's seems you concede that, at least under certain arrangements, an employer can make certain requirements of the employee that extend beyond normal working hours and in places outside work.

I'll concede also that there may be limits on the employer as implied by a sort of default contract when the employee and employer begin a relationship.

The difficulty comes when trying to determine what is in this default contract. You seem to suggest that the default agreement includes or ought to include a promise that the employer shall not consider habits, actions, behaviors of the employee outside work as cause for termination.

Maybe. But this excludes too much. It seems unreasonable to restrict, for example, a black employer from firing an employee if he discovers the employee is a member of the Klan.

How about this: have the state create explicit default contracts, but allow employer and employee to modify them as they see fit. If most people agree that the default contract should include a clause restricting the employer to the extent you ask, that's fine by me so long as the employer is permitted to remove the clause with the agreement of the employee.

What I object to is the idea that the employer and employee be required by law in all cases to use the standards set by the state.

[A Jovial Cad]

I agree with much of your analysis. The analogy of a Black employer firing an employee whom he/she discovered was a member of the Klan is certainly something I would never have a problem with--I'd fire such an employee, too, without hesitation.

All of which begs the question: why did it take a nearly three hour flamefest to sort out that we're not nearly as far apart in our thinking as our previous back and forth repartee would indicate? Passionately held beliefs and quick keyboard fingers sometimes lead to rancorous misunderstandings...and I'm as guilty of it as anyone on this thread, I'm sorry to say.

For the record: Though I stand by my opinion about this matter, I regret some of things I posted to you in this thread. Much of it was hyperbolic, unfair, and needlessly antagonistic. It was wrong, and I apologize.

Peace.

[endthematrix]

Great post! Thank goodness some sensible words to read!

[CSM]

"You must have missed the part where smoking employees actually cost him more money."

Actually that is his claim, but it is not true. One of the fired employees was not even part of the insurance plan he offered. That employee was part of their spouses health plan and cost Weyco nothing for coverage. That leads to the conclusion that that particular smoker cost his company less! As a result, the new hire that will replace this particular smoker will cost him a premium.

That said, it is his private company and he should be able to descriminate as he sees fit. All business owners are free to make decisions like this that will close off a major part of the market to their business. He publicly stated he would like to become a benefits provider for the big 3 US auto manufacturers. With this move, he has completely shut out that market.

[bigdcaldavis]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll point out a few :

- Employers cannot fire employees for ownership of firearms, as such actions would be a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

- Employers cannot fire employees for ownership of computers and televisions, as such actions would be direct violations of the 1st Amendment's "freedoom of speech/press" clauses. NO EMPLOYER is allowed to infringe on your free speech rights (with the exception of sexually harassing language and/or hate speech in the workplace).

- Employers cannot fire employees who do not attend church, as such an action would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment's "freedom of/from religion" clause.

I would say that forcing employees to become strict vegetarians (mandatory vegetarianism will be law when the one-world government dictatorship arises) infringes on religious freedoms, as the Bible considers forcing vegetarianism to be a Doctrine Of Devils, and I have heard that Islam actually FORBIDS vegetarianism (I'm not too sure of that, so could somebody clarify?).

[bigdcaldavis]

Your employer probably does NOT have the right to force his/her employees to become vegetarians because of the possibility of infringing on a person's religious beliefs. I think Christianity condemns forced vegetarianism, and I have heard that Islam condemns vegetarianism altogether. So if he employs Christians and/or Muslims and institutes a "go vegetarian or be fired" policy, (s)he could get in VERY serious legal trouble.