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 ...
He is making no such attempt because the employee retains the liberty to disassociate him/herself from the employer who's policy regarding private life is not to his/her liking.
What you are advocating is MORE government control which is direct conflict with the Constitution which limits government control (or at least it used to).
This employer is free to hire who he wishes - how he went about dealing with his long term employees was assinine in my opinion, but he was free to change the policy and the employees were free to accept or reject.
No one violated any rights here that I can see. And in fact the proposed legislation mentioned in the article would actually violate the rights of free association and thus should not be sought.
I hate to break this to you, but the owner of a company will often end up in court even if he does exactly what you say he should do.
Well said.
In that case, your position is bogus. You have no "inalienable right" to employment, nor one to smoke.
Thank you.
This entire issue has driven me crazy - I can not believe how many people are actually advocating for more government control.
As a smoker a change in the law to forbid this type of thing would benefit me - but I still OPPOSE it. And on exactly the same grounds as I opposed smoking bans - too much government control over things that should be left up to the individuals involved.
And on that note - I need to take a break - I have a child that needs tending to!
It's been quite an "enjoyable" discussion!!!
The reason you can't be forced to abide by a murder contract is because murder is illegal. However, the employer here is not demanding that his employees do anything illegal. Employment contracts that limit inalienable rights are enforceable, unless what the employee is being asked to do is illegal. For example, if you sign a confidentiality agreement as part of your employment, the courts will enforce this limitation of your 1st Amendment rights.
Which (assuming that courts are correct to enforce such agreements, as I think they are -- and hope they are, because that stuff provides much of my bread and butter) demonstrates that at least some contracts that limit the exercise of inalienable rights can be legitimately enforced.
It's true that a contract for murder wouldn't be enforceable because it's illegal, but the reason murder is illegal is that the state has a legimate interest in deterring and punishing violations of the inalienable right to life. For similar reasons (including a Constitutional amendment), courts won't enforce a contract under which you sell yourself into slavery. So apparently, at the other extreme, at least some contracts utterly divesting you of an inalienable right can't be enforced.
Now, the possible problem I'm suggesting with our hypothetical employment contract is that it may involve, not so much telling the employees to commit an illegal act, but obliging them to perform the legal impossibility of divesting themselves of an inalienable liberty right.
An agreement not to smoke at work may be a legally enforceable limitation on the exercise of a liberty right, because of the employer's property rights, rights of free association, and so forth. But what about completely alienating your right to smoke, so that you can't do it anywhere or anytime? If an employer terminates your employment for failing to enter into such an agreement or for failing to abide by it, is there a plausible argument that your termination was wrongful because the contract was legally 'void' in some sense? (In fact, might there even be a Thirteenth Amendment argument that enforcing such a contract would amount to the imposition of involuntary servitude by the court?)
Again, I'm not claiming that this is true; I'm just trying to decide whether the argument has merit by making it as well as I can. At the very least, I think it's clear that the argument isn't simply ridiculous on its face, even if it turns out to be wrong.
Your definition is flawed. An inalienable right is one you hold by virtue of being a Human, endowed so by the Creator. As such, it cannot be justly taken from you by another.
You do, however, have the free will to relinquish such rights. For example, you may sacrifice your life for a cause, and be a hero or a martyr. You can work for no pay and be called a volunteer or an "extra". You can give up the right to own possessions, and be called a monk.
You can even give up the right to pursue happiness, and be called "married". ;^) (just kidding)
You have no "inalienable right" to employment, nor one to smoke.
Agreed about employment, but I'm not so sure about the right to smoke (on property where it's not forbidden). That sounds like a component of 'liberty' to me, and the right to liberty is inalienable. (Not that it can't be limited or otherwise regulated, but it can't be simply given up or transferred away.)
Of course that may not mean that employment can't be made contingent on a commitment not to exercise that right; that's what I'm trying to make up my mind about.
Can I sell myself into slavery?
I agree completely. Courts don't overturn a contract because the terms of the contract are unconstitutional, they overturn it because the government has passed a constitutional law making certain conduct illegal.
In the case of the slavery contract, the Con. gives the government the power to outlaw slavery and the government has done so.
However, I do not see the same situation in the smoking hypothetical. The government has not banned smoking, but it also does not have the constitutional power (IMO) to prevent two parties from determining contractually the interplay between smoking and employment. I consider this issue to fall into the area of private relations that the government has no power to regulate.
Nobody can force you to work for them (except the government when it comes to members of the military). However,if you sign a contract whereby you agree to exclusively work for one employer (such as the contracts signed by professional athletes) a court will enforce such contract to the extent that it will issue an injunction against you working for someone else.
Your definition is flawed. An inalienable right is one you hold by virtue of being a Human, endowed so by the Creator. As such, it cannot be justly taken from you by another.
'Inalienable' means 'not able to be alienated'. To 'alienate' means to transfer ownership, and 'alienable' means 'transferrable to the ownership of another'.
You do, however, have the free will to relinquish such rights. For example, you may sacrifice your life for a cause, and be a hero or a martyr. You can work for no pay and be called a volunteer or an "extra". You can give up the right to own possessions, and be called a monk.
Yes, you do, and the employment situation may be like these cases. However, I wouldn't call these cases of alienating a right. If I decide freely to give up my life for a cause, them I'm simply exercising my right, not transferring it to someone else. And if I become a monk and then change my mind, I think you'll have a hard time finding a court that will make me remain a monk.
What about an employment contract under which I agree not to own any possessions for the duration of my employment? If I buy a comic book or something on my own time, and I get fired, do you think I might have a basis for a wrongful termination suit? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm really asking.
You can even give up the right to pursue happiness, and be called "married". ;^) (just kidding)
(Chuckle.)
The employer cannot and has not done this. The employee always has the recourse of not working for that employer, and therefore has not been completely alienated from the ability to smoke.
Nah, I mean real live actual slavery ;)
I do not see the same situation in the smoking hypothetical. The government has not banned smoking, but it also does not have the constitutional power (IMO) to prevent two parties from determining contractually the interplay between smoking and employment. I consider this issue to fall into the area of private relations that the government has no power to regulate.
That's my initial intuition too. But why? What's the significant difference between this case and the others? Can you articulate it?
The employer cannot and has not done this. The employee always has the recourse of not working for that employer, and therefore has not been completely alienated from the ability to smoke.
This approach sounds promising. Why hasn't the employee alienated his right to smoke for the duration of the employment period (even if he gets it back by quitting)?
I agree.
The purpose of the Constitution was to restrain the government, to the extent that it could.
I'd never work for the guy, but he has a right to be a jerk.
That isn't what is being argued here. What is being argued is if you can break the conditions for being a monk, and still demand to remain a monk.
What about an employment contract under which I agree not to own any possessions for the duration of my employment? If I buy a comic book or something on my own time, and I get fired, do you think I might have a basis for a wrongful termination suit? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm really asking.
In my opinion, no. You voluntarily gave up a right to own things as a term of employment, whereupon the employer voluntarily gave you a job. When you bought the comic, in full knowledge of the meaning of "the duration of my employment", you effectively quit.
Of course it does. This guy you called an "ass' is attempting to vilolate the private life & liberty of his employee's.
Nonsense. Tell you what, you can resolve this entire debate. Show me one Supreme Court case where the Constitution was held to limit private, rather than governmental actions.
Miller was held to be violating a 'Constitutional' gun control law by carrying a sawed off shotgun:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
A private citizen cannot violate the Constitution. The Constitution deals with the relationship between government and individuals. That is Con. Law 101.
That is an opinion you've simply made up. I bet you can't cite a source. -- The Constitution is the 'law of the land' and private citizens violate it constantly.. - Almost as much as government.
Okay. I demand the right to come onto your private property and espouse my political beliefs. I demand the right to hold a political rally in your living room. If you don't let me do these things, you are violating my Constitutional rights.
Specious demand. You have no right to 'rally' on my property. -- Miller however had an inalienable right to own that shotgun. No one, government or employer, has the power to forbid that ownership, just as no one has the power to tell employees they can't smoke off the job.
I dunno. How do you look in fetish wear?
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.