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 ...
I see it now:
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.).
But they do not list those states. This is new to me. They might have the legal right but it hasn't become news worthy yet since they haven't made an issue of it to date.
Can you refresh my mind on just what states those are, Gabz? I can't find anything on what states Stossel is referring to. Outside of CA, Delaware, Maine, Florida, CT, VT, NY. That's all that I can muster up at this point.
Exactly. My husband does not wear the same thing to fix the computers at a poultry processing plant as he does when he has a call at a brokerage firm or bank.
I think this is incorrect. Virtually all American States are employment-at-will, meaning that employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).
Correct, so your answer is,,,, NO, employers should not be required to hire or retain smokers. Correct?
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.
You are entitled to your opinion on that, and also have the freedom to refuse to make an employment agreement with that employer. In other words, you are free to leave. It's the essence of freedom.
As you know, I have always supported business owners property rights to allow smoking or not in their businesses. I also support the freedom of both employers and employees to make an agreement or not as they see fit.
This has become common practice, especially with women under the age of 30. They feel it is their right to take off 1 or 2 days a month for this. Yet I hear of no one complaining about the loss of work they have created with this "excuse."
Would you agree with me that, barring a law to the contrary, an employer can fire you for pretty much anything?
Of course they can; -- yet this does not give employers the power to ignore our individual Constitutional rights.
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.
Contracts that agree to circumvent the Law of the Land are null & void.
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.
As the control freak employer is free to move his business to Mexico.
Studies have found that sick people who come into work are doing their employer a disservice. They infect a whole bunch of other people, which leads to more employees taking time off.
If you are actually sick, you're actually going the right thing in staying home.
Yep. They called those "privateers".
I don't know the list of states - but it is obvious that Michigan is also on the list. I know Delaware is on the list. It has been many years since I was heavily involved in this issue.
Who'll be the next in line at Weyco?
I don't know. If this guy is the control freak I think he is, he will find something else wrong with his employee's I am sure.
Where does it stop?
Does an employer violate his employees' Constitutional right to free speech by requiring him to sign a confidentiality agreement? Does an employer violate his employees' rights against self-incrimination by requiring drug tests? Does an employer violate an employees' right to a jury trial when he fires an employee for getting arrested over the weekend?
Again, the Constitution does not deal with interactions involving private citizens. I don't know where you get this idea.
Contracts that agree to circumvent the Law of the Land are null & void.
What laws are violated when an employer requires his employees to not engage in certain behavior in their off-hours?
As the control freak employer is free to move his business to Mexico.
Sure. Which is exactly what happens when government imposes more and more regulations on who an employer can and cannot fire.
Missouri
I must disagree. Back in the early/mid 90s there were 23 states on the list and now there are only 20. We tried to pass legislation back then in Delaware that would bar employment discrimination in hiring or firing based on legal activities outside the work place and work hours - it didn't fly, thanks to the anti-smoker campaign claiming it was a smokers' rights bill - even though there was no mention of smoking or tobacco in it at all.
Anyway, there is a distinction hidden in there. In a corporation, in the modern sense, the owners of the company - the shareholders - enjoy limited liability for the losses of the corporation. That is, they are only liable for the amount they invested, and that's the most they can lose. If the company liquidates and owes more than it has in assets, the creditors are just out of luck - they don't get to go seize the assets of the shareholders. The reason for that is because the state extends legal protection to the shareholders, and in exchange the franchise pays extra taxes - in fact, in New York,the corporate tax is still known as "franchise tax". In that sense, because the "shareholders" in a pirate operation didn't have legal protection from the state in terms of liability for losses suffered by the franchise, they weren't really corporations in the strictest sense. So there ;)
They really don't "sell" a product - they are some type of a health benefits management company.
Maybe not, but Federal employment law obligates the employer to provide the breaks, nevertheless, just as they mandate minimum wages. They also mandate many other things in the private employer/employee relationship, such as environmental conditions and safety measures.
The Constitution deals with the relationship between the people and the government, not between private parties.
Not so, -- we all live under the principles outlined in our Constitution, and most of us have pledged oaths to support those principles.
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.
Take a look, this applies to you:
The Oath of Citizenship
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
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.
So you claim. Logic dictates otherwise.
I think we're getting our definitions crossed.
Almost all American states are "employment-at-will" which means that an employer can fire an employee (and an employee can quit) for a good reason (stealing from the employer, for example), bad reason (employer doesn't like the fact that you wore a blue shirt) or no reason at all (employer comes in and fires every 10th employee, just for kicks).
In those states, unless you have an employment contract, the only unlawful reasons for firing someone are reasons that are specifically listed in state or federal law (race, gender, age, diability etc.)
The opposite of "employment-at will" is "termination for cause." Termination for cause means an employer can only fire an employee for a specific, legally-allowed reason (such as stealing). There are no American states, AFAIK, that are "termination-for-cause" states.
Actually, your position is the control freak position.
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.