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 ...
My take on it is that a court would not call this giving up an inalienable right because even if the contract is enforced, the employee can walk away at any time. A contract to be murdered or for slavery would not give the employee such a choice if it was enforced by the court.
As part of their employment, people give up plenty of inalienable rights. For example, if you exercise your inalienable right to run a website critisizing your employer, you'll find yourself kicked to the curb.
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.
Aha. Good point.
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.
That sounds plausible to me too, and it's certainly the way I'd analyze it if I weren't engaging in a 'first principles' discussion of Constitutional legal philosophy.
But it's not all that easy to say just exactly why this is the case, is it? Not that you're doing a bad job at it; in fact you're articulating your reasons quite well. But I don't think it's as trivial and obvious as it looks at first glance.
Miller was convicted of violating a law, not the Constitution. In any event, nobody there was claiming that the Constitution prevented Miller from owning a gun. The question was whether the law limiting his right to bear arms violated the Constitution. It was a question of whether the Con. limited the GOVERNMENT. Try again.
Specious demand. You have no right to 'rally' on my property.
Following your logic, of course I do. The Constitution recognizes my inalienable right to assemble with other Americans. According to you, the Con. covers interactions between private citizens. So, if you prevent me from holding a political rally in your living room, you are harming my Con. rights.
I have been making this case incessantly, but it is ignored by those who either want to debate minutia or invent "rights" to be enforced by violence or the threat thereof.
Many people who claim to be conservative are kindred spirits with liberals. They are both "Hooked on violence". They both want government to use force to compel others to do what they want.
Liberals are always trying to invent rights which do not exist, and in this case, they agree with some on this thread.
The constitution is easy when you just make things up as you go along and then claim you are the protector of it.
As part of their employment, people give up plenty of inalienable rights. For example, if you exercise your inalienable right to run a website critisizing your employer, you'll find yourself kicked to the curb.
Yes indeed. That's not a complete elimination of one's freedom of speech, however; it's a limitation or restriction, but I can still talk freely about other matters. Not smoking at all seems more 'extreme' than this.
My take on it is that a court would not call this giving up an inalienable right because even if the contract is enforced, the employee can walk away at any time.
So far this looks like the best argument to me. If it's correct, then the employee who agrees not to smoke anywhere ever hasn't really 'alienated' a right but has merely agreed to a Draconian restriction of it in order to secure a benefit to which he's not entitled by 'right' and can acquire only by contract.
How about if the employer makes continued employment conditional on celibacy? Any different?
An employer ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason at any time.
A private citizen cannot violate the Constitution. The Constitution deals with the relationship between government and individuals.That is an opinion you've simply made up. I bet you can't cite a source.
I can. Start with Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), which held that the Constitution bound the federal government and nobody else (not even the states). Similar cases followed the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, lest anyone think that amendment bound private parties. The requirement for 'state action' is a basic part of current Constitutional law and there's no sign at all that any court anywhere is looking to change it.
The Catholic Church requires that of its priests.
I don't see the difference. You have an employer who wants the employee to not exercise a certain right while employed and you have an employee willing to give up that right in exchange for a material gain. The relationship can be dissolved at any time, so there is no issue of the employee being forced to remain celibate.
You have no "inalienable right" -- to smoke.
Then go on to admit:
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.
Exactly my point. Thanks.
Where will you be sending your hourly bill for all this legal research? LOL
You have an employer who wants the employee to not exercise a certain right while employed and you have an employee willing to give up that right in exchange for a material gain. The relationship can be dissolved at any time, so there is no issue of the employee being forced to remain celibate.
That's the way it seems to me too. And there doesn't seem to be any problem (Thirteenth Amendment or otherwise) with the court's enforcing the 'celibacy clause' during the period of employment, nor does there seem to be a cause of action for wrongful termination if the priest breaks his vow and gets defrocked. If the 'smoking' case is like that -- and it does sound to me as though it is -- then it doesn't look like the Constitutional objection will hold up.
Gotta go -- thanks for the interesting and thoughtful chat.
Where will you be sending your hourly bill for all this legal research? LOL
Hee hee. Guess it's pro bono.
Later, all.
Me too. Too many hypocrites on this thread.
So, you are claiming that smoking is a right that the Creator endowed us with, on par with life, self defense, association and worship? Balderdash. Inalienable rights are those which define us as Humans and destroy the human condition when repressed.
I still hold to both statements, and declare that there is no relationship between the two. Smoking is not something which defines the Human condition.
Nobody cares about this unless they are in the targeted group.I'm sure the responses would be a little different if they went to work and the boss told them they were fired for being religious,Republican/conservative,a gun owner,drinker or any other legal activity one takes part in.
Yet we are the statists....
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
Miller was convicted of violating a law, not the Constitution.
Word games. -- He was convicted of violating a 'Constitutional' law.
In any event, nobody there was claiming that the Constitution prevented Miller from owning a gun.
Yes they were. -- They were claiming he couldn't own that shotgun.
The question was whether the law limiting his right to bear arms violated the Constitution.
No, the question was whether he violated that 'law'. The USSC said he did.
It was a question of whether the Con. limited the GOVERNMENT.
Not according to the USSC's decision. Read it, and -- "try again".
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.
Following your logic, of course I do. The Constitution recognizes my inalienable right to assemble with other Americans. According to you, the Con. covers interactions between private citizens.
So, if you prevent me from holding a political rally in your living room, you are harming my Con. rights.
Another specious demand. You're simply arguing, without basis, that rallying on private property is an inalienable right, akin to owning weapons or smoking if you got em. -- Poor example, try again.
It is the case, because there is no force or coercion involved. Employment is a voluntary arrangement, and when one side ceases to abide by the arrangement, there are only two possible outcomes.
1) The contract, having been violated by one of the parties, is void and the employment ends.
2) Force, or threat of force, is employed to make one of the parties comply to the new conditions. This force, when used by the employer, is called slavery. This force, when employed by the worker, is called "laws bought and paid for by Unions and/or the ACLU".
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.