Posted on 04/20/2005 5:36:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?
In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.
So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.
"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.
"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."
"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"
That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).
Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.
Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Really? The constitution mentions the relations between an employer and employee?
Not in specifics, but in generalities; -- you should try reading the Preamble for intent:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This employer is not insuring tranquility, nor promoting our general welfare by curtailing the blessings of liberty his employees enjoy.
That doesn't work because there is no control. The employee can quit. No one has a gun to their head.
Huh? Maybe you should reread it.
With all due respect, you need a remedial class on the constitution.
Despite the at will nature, and I know there are some cases to the contrary, there should be a reasonable limit as to OFF work activities.
What if he said, no motorcycles?
What if he said NOBODY can have sex ouside of marriage?
What if he said nobody can go hunting?
What if he said no employee can own a gun?
What if he said no employee can own land? (environwacko clause)
What if he said no employee can own an SUV?
He could not limit political activity because of free speech concerns but I think off hours activity is a freedom of association issue. It is also akin to the fact that society does not allow certain types of contracts. (ie Automatically Pleading Liability in contracts, waiver of bankruptcy right clauses)
Where does this compyany sell their products? Is it under a different name?
I'd say you have it backwards.
Would you agree with me that, barring a law to the contrary, an employer can fire you for pretty much anything? For example, in most states, an employer can fire you based on sexual orientation. A few states have laws protecting sexual orientation, but the fact that states have to pass such laws in order to prevent firings based on that particular out of work behavior leads to the conclusion that firings based on out-of-work behavior are otherwise perfectly legal.
Employment agreements are like contracts- unless there is a specific law to the contrary, the parties involved can agree to pretty much anything.
Unless job performance is affected, why should anyone have that control over another's life, liberty, & property?
An employer has no control over your life, liberty and property. You are always free to quit, after all.
Umm, do you actually know what a statist is? It's the libertarian thugs who will say that. The statist thugs are the ones who support State control over whom one mat fire at ones own business.
Get your thugs right.
The Constitution deals with the relationship between the people and the government, not between private parties.
This employer is not insuring tranquility, nor promoting our general welfare by curtailing the blessings of liberty his employees enjoy.
Private parties do not have any obligations under the Constitution. An employer is no more required to insure tranquility or promote the general welfare than he is required to help you enjoy your 2nd Amendment rights.
If the employer objects to the restrictions placed upon him by our Constitutional system, he is free to move his business elsewhere.
-- I hear Mexico still allows a master/peon relationship.
________________________________
Unless job performance is affected, why should anyone have that 'master/peon' control over another's life, liberty, & property?
That doesn't work because there is no control. The employee can quit. No one has a gun to their head.
And an authoritarian employer can move to Mexico. -- But if they want to operate in the USA, they should do business under Constitutional principles, respecting the individual rights of employees.
Nonsense. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who agree to work together to accomplish a mutual task and share the profits out. Pirate ships of the old Spanish Main were corporations.
Did pirates enjoy limited liability, then? ;)
I did not know he did that..
Fine with me.
What if he said NOBODY can have sex ouside of marriage?
Some religious employers already have this requirement of their employees. Some employers require certain employees to have NO sex (such as Catholic priests)
What if he said nobody can go hunting?
I'm sure PETA requires this of their employees.
What if he said no employee can own a gun?
Gun control groups probably have rules like this. The NRA actually requires its employees to own a gun.
What if he said no employee can own land? (environwacko clause)
Fine with me.
What if he said no employee can own an SUV?
I know of several environmental groups here in DC that forbid their employees from owning any cars.
With all due respect, you need a remedial class on the constitution.
'With all due respect', your remark on needing a remedial class on the constitution merely shows that you can't counter the logic of my comment.
Please cite the exact place in the constitution that addresses employers' obligations.
BTW, that off base preamble stuff is laughable.
respecting the individual rights of employees.
Which right? There is no right to work for a certain employer under certain circumstances. Absent the use of force, no rights are violated. The employee has no right to work under his own conditions. You invented that right, it doesn't exist.
Do you believe that the Constitution covers relations between private parties?
So, if a Wal-Mart employee spends his off-hours running an anti-Wal-Mart website, if Wal-Mart fired him that would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights?
If my boss told me I couldn't own guns at home or go to the range on my free time I would tell him to kiss my ass. I'm not getting paid enough to give up what I enjoy doing in my free time. Maybe the employees that objected to the policy should re-evaluate their situation?
I can well understand respecting the laws laid down at work by the employer............no after shave, no colognes, no eating at one's desk, no smoke breaks, although this is against the law. All employers are entitled to a 10 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon plus lunch. At least Government workers anyway.
But when an employer goes so far as to dictate just what their employees will do on their off hours away from work is going way over the top.
What most non-smoker's do not realize or maybe they do is: long time smokers are not prone to a smoking sickness until they are well into their 60's. Which is usually past the retirement age anyway.
If when a smoker dies earlier then that, there a other mitigating circumstances involved. Many things to consider.
Absent some agreement between the employee and employer, employees do not have a "right" to take breaks during work hours.
Government employees are a different case, of course.
"Do you think that employers should be required to hire smokers?"
I said that smoking is a legal commodity. If a business cannot provide the normal smoking lounges like in the past, then stepping outside the door to relax for a 10 minute smoking break causes no harm to no one.
But it is up to the business owner to lay down the laws that he desires. But when an employer dictates what an employee does on the employee's off duty hours is way over the top and totally out of line.
There is no logic to your positions because there is no facts behind them.
No employer has any obligation to promote any welfare whatsoever much less the general welfare, nor any obligation to insure tranquility, nor secure any blessings of liberty.
Seriously, you have a flawed understanding of the constitution. Actually, no understanding that can be detected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.