Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The right not to employ someone
JWR ^ | 4-20-05 | John Stossel

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: employment; employmentatwill; freedomofcontract; healthieremployees; ilikethisguy; lowermedicalcosts; ohnonotagain; stossel; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 441-453 next last
To: P_A_I
Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

Yes it does. If it's on my property and I don't want it there it does. If I don't want you on my property for ANY reason it challenges my property rights.

The Constitution/BOR's is our supreme Law of the Land [Art VI], and everyone living in the USA is obliged to comply with those laws; -- furthermore, citizens are obligated to actually support & defend our Constitution.

That's exactly what I am doing by defending property rights.

Specious effort to distract from the issue. Why are you fighting the fact that you have no power to unreasonably restrict my RKBA's?

But I'm not restricting your right. You are restricting my right to control my property. You are the one who doesn't respect my right. You can go anywhere else and exercises your constitutional rights but once my property rights are gone, they're gone.

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

Nothing. I didn't say their was. And I answered the same question before.

why you think you have the power to ban smoking in my home?

I don't think I have that power. I have the power to ban people who smoke from my property. Why can't you see the distinction?

-- I asked if you can explain it, -- Why the silence?

Here is the explanation. Pay attention. I want to keep the power to control my property. I don't feel I need to justify my reasons for it. Maybe I have a bunch of children on my farm and I don't want hunters. Maybe guns are against my religion. Maybe I think you belong to a criminal gang. Maybe I just don't trust you. My reasons are none of your business. The Bill of Rights doesn't require me to justify my reason for asserting my rights anymore than it requires you to justify your right to carry. Do you understand?

Its 'fair' to reasonably exclude me from your property for cause. What's your cause?

Wrong! You DON'T need to any cause to exclude someone. Where did you get that silly idea? Did you read it in the constitution? If we accepted your interpretation of the constitution, then farmers would not have the right to prevent hunters from crossing his land.

Don't you think farmers should be allowed to keep armed hunters off their land? Answer that question.

381 posted on 04/22/2005 9:14:59 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Circular, specious non-answer.

How so? By insisting that you have the right to bring a gun onto my property contrary to my wishes, you are trying to take away part of my control over my property. That isn't a challenge to my property rights?

Our Constitution says we all have a RKBA's. He may not "like" that, but he is bound by it. He is not to unreasonably infringe upon it.

You have no "right" to come onto my property or violate my rules when it comes to access to my property.

Read the clear words of the 2nd.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individual actions.

Let me pose a hypothetical: You come onto my property with a handgun. I tell you to either remove the handgun from my property or remove yourself from my property. You refuse and claim that the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear arms anywhere you please. I proceed to remove you from my property and you resist. I shoot and kill you.

Have I committed any crime?

It is contrary to the 2nd's clear words, -- a form of public policy if you will, -- to infringe on our RKBA's. Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

So, then, I can't eject you from my property for political speech I find offensive so long as you're sitting in your car that is parked on my property?

And this employer is trying to ban smoking by his employees.

Sure. But he's not asking the government to force people to stop smoking. He is simply making smoking a condition of continued employment. No one is forced to give up smoking.

We have an inalienable RtKBA's.. Your position is that private parties can, without reason, infringe upon that right. I say no.

There is no inalienable righ to bear arms on someone else's property, just as there is no inalienable right to free speech on someone else's property.

You still haven't answered the question: Can I kick you off my property if you say things I do not like?

Thank you Ms Brady.

If Mrs. Brady wants to set rules for her private property, that is her right.

382 posted on 04/22/2005 9:18:40 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Our Constitution, in many important aspects, is a social contract.

That's what liberals think! Listen -- the Constitution is not a "social contract", it is a way of limiting government.

More and more you are sounding like a Democrat.

383 posted on 04/22/2005 9:19:03 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

It is important to retain the right to keep people off your property because their are bad people in the world and they might hurt you. Unless you reserve the right to keep anyone off your property for any reason, then you will not have the right to keep bad people off.

There is the explanation. A four-year old could understand that.

384 posted on 04/22/2005 9:29:53 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Our Constitution, in many important aspects, is a social contract. -- You are trying to alter the terms of that contract by infringing on my right to bear arms on the way to & from work.

Not at all.

You're in denial about the facts surrounding the effort of employers to ban guns. It's a blatant effort to 'privatize' gun control, cloaked in 'property rights'.

Even if I ban guns from my property, you are free to have a gun on your way to and from my property.

Not in the real world of massive company parking lots, and no off site parking available.

It's your problem if you can't figure out how to do that and also follow my rules on my personal property. As a private property owner, I am under no obligation to help you exercise your Constitutional rights.

Not true. All citizens are obligated to support & defend Constitutional rights. You keep ignoring this fact. Why is that?

Park elsewhere. Car pool with someone who works at a place that doesn't ban guns. Rent a storage locker across the street. Quit and take another job at a company that doesn't impose such rules. Whatever. It's your problem, not mine.

Again, thank you Ms Brady.. Feel proud of your modern stance.

385 posted on 04/22/2005 9:31:00 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
True enough, but he, just like everybody else in the USA, is bound by our Law of the Land.

What we don't seem to agree on is the interpretation of that law of the land. Your interpretation of the Constitution is very, very peculiar.

386 posted on 04/22/2005 9:35:31 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
It is contrary to the 2nd's clear words, -- a form of public policy if you will, -- to infringe on our RKBA's. Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

But being on my property without my permission does.

387 posted on 04/22/2005 9:39:55 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
"Some property owners don't like guns or are concerned about liability in case of a shooting. That is cause enough."

Thank you Ms Brady.

There he answered your question.

Now you answer a question. Should a farmer have the right to exclude hunters from his land?

388 posted on 04/22/2005 9:42:54 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
You're in denial about the facts surrounding the effort of employers to ban guns. It's a blatant effort to 'privatize' gun control, cloaked in 'property rights'

... Not in the real world of massive company parking lots, and no off site parking available.

There we go. You are afraid of a defacto, private ban on guns. Right. Well yes it could happen in big companies.

But I am concerned about a government ban of property rights. The difference is that there are a lot more private companies than there are governments. And the government has police power, the right to confiscate property, to fine you and to put you in jail.

If the government takes away your property rights, they will be able to purchase your gun rights. That is what happened to the airlines. They cannot operate without permission of multiple government agencies. And so they ban guns on airplanes.

This is happening in a lot of areas. People are being told they have to employ transsexual cross-dressers. Boy scouts and churches are being pressured to hire homosexuals. Businesses and institutions are forced to incorporate or become non-profits to avoid litigation and taxes. And the Faustian contract is that they bargain away their Constitutional rights as a consequence.

If the government has the right to control your property, then your RKBA is gone.

389 posted on 04/22/2005 10:05:37 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Our Constitution says we all have a RKBA's. He may not "like" that, but he is bound by it. He is not to unreasonably infringe upon it.

You have no "right" to come onto my property or violate my rules when it comes to access to my property.

The employer is unreasonably infringing on his employees RKBA's.

Read the clear words of the 2nd.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individual actions.

Not true. You have repeatedly ignored the clear facts of that issue.
All citizens are obligated to 'support & defend'.

Let me pose a hypothetical: You come onto my property with a handgun. I tell you to either remove the handgun from my property or remove yourself from my property. You refuse and claim that the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear arms anywhere you please. I proceed to remove you from my property and you resist. I shoot and kill you. Have I committed any crime?

Nice try at diversion. Locking a gun in my car while at work is the issue.

It is contrary to the 2nd's clear words, -- a form of public policy if you will, -- to infringe on our RKBA's. Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

So, then, I can't eject you from my property for political speech I find offensive so long as you're sitting in your car that is parked on my property?

Another inept effort at diversion. Get some better ploys.

-- And this employer is trying to ban smoking by his employees.

Sure. But he's not asking the government to force people to stop smoking. He is simply making smoking a condition of continued employment. No one is forced to give up smoking.

Check your logic.

We have an inalienable RtKBA's.. Your position is that private parties can, without reason, infringe upon that right. I say no.

There is no inalienable righ to bear arms on someone else's property, just as there is no inalienable right to free speech on someone else's property.

By insisting that I disarm to park while at work, you are unreasonably infringing on my RKBA's.

You still haven't answered the question: Can I kick you off my property if you say things I do not like?

Obviously yes. And you can also kick me off for waving a gun around.

If Mrs. Brady wants to set rules for her private property, that is her right.

Whatever.

390 posted on 04/22/2005 10:15:08 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
You're in denial about the facts surrounding the effort of employers to ban guns. It's a blatant effort to 'privatize' gun control, cloaked in 'property rights'

There we go. You are afraid of a defacto, private ban on guns. Right. Well yes it could happen in big companies.

As I speculated earlier, it could happen everywhere if the legal system changes the 'rules' on liability.

But I am concerned about a government ban of property rights.

We all are, and it hardly helps to agree that employers have a 'right' to ignore our BOR's..

If the government has the right to control your property, then your RKBA is gone.

If employers have the 'right' to control all of our off duty behaviors, then all our rights are gone, defacto.

391 posted on 04/22/2005 11:52:56 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
As I speculated earlier, it could happen everywhere if the legal system changes the 'rules' on liability.

If they change the rules on civil liability we will all become slaves. But that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

We all are, and it hardly helps to agree that employers have a 'right' to ignore our BOR's..

If employers have the 'right' to control all of our off duty behaviors, then all our rights are gone, defacto.

They don't have that right. But they have the right of free association, the right to choose associates, customers and employees for whatever reason. If you tell an employee he can't wear a T-shirt to work, or refuse to hire someone who belongs to the Nazi party, you aren't infringing on his rights, you are asserting your right of free association.

If you take away that right, every decision a property owner makes can get him hauled into court and his property rights are gone.

And if you take away our right to exclude people we don't like, you are taking away the least violent, most civilized way that society has of controlling evil -- the right to shun people that we believe are immoral. That right should never, ever have to be defended in court. We should never have to show "cause" for excluding someone from our property or our employment. That right was there in English common law long before the Constitution was framed and the second amendment written.

So the question to you remains: Does a farmer have the right to exclude armed hunters from his land?

I've given you plenty of time to think about it. Answer that question.

392 posted on 04/22/2005 12:18:08 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Dan Evans wrote:

Should a farmer have the right to exclude hunters from his land?

Most States insist that property be properly posted in order to exclude hunters/trespassers.
Naturally, if a property owner sees you on his unposted land, he can request that you leave.
-- Although some States allow 'fair recovery' of game shot on one property - that dies on another.

393 posted on 04/22/2005 1:04:55 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Naturally, if a property owner sees you on his unposted land, he can request that you leave.

And if he says, "You're welcome to come back if you leave your gun at home"

Second amendment violation?

394 posted on 04/22/2005 3:34:49 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

Nope. I'd guess he wants to protect Bambi. Maybe in order to shoot him himself.

What is our unreasonable employer protecting by banning guns from his employees cars?


395 posted on 04/22/2005 4:07:06 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
You're in denial about the facts surrounding the effort of employers to ban guns. It's a blatant effort to 'privatize' gun control, cloaked in 'property rights'

As I speculated earlier, it could happen everywhere if the legal system changes the 'rules' on liability.

If they change the rules on civil liability we will all become slaves. But that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

1st? We are mainly discussing the 2nd.

-- it hardly helps to agree that employers have a 'right' to ignore our BOR's..

If employers have the 'right' to control all of our off duty behaviors, then all our rights are gone, defacto.

They don't have that right.

You're arguing they have the 'right' to infringe on my RKBA's.

But they have the right of free association, the right to choose associates, customers and employees for whatever reason. If you tell an employee he can't wear a T-shirt to work, or refuse to hire someone who belongs to the Nazi party, you aren't infringing on his rights, you are asserting your right of free association.

But if you tell him he can't smoke at home, or have a gun in his car at work, you are infringing.

If you take away that right, every decision a property owner makes can get him hauled into court and his property rights are gone.

'Take away'? -- He's never had the 'right' to infringe on my RKBA's.

And if you take away our right to exclude people we don't like, you are taking away the least violent, most civilized way that society has of controlling evil -- the right to shun people that we believe are immoral.

Gun owners & smokers are immoral? -- Hmmmmm...

That right should never, ever have to be defended in court. We should never have to show "cause" for excluding someone from our property or our employment. That right was there in English common law long before the Constitution was framed and the second amendment written.

Under english common law, the king got to say who could have weapons.

So the question to you remains: Does a farmer have the right to exclude armed hunters from his land?

Oddly enough, under the old english common law, the common people had a 'right to pass' on most private property, if memory serves.
They couldn't hunt, but they could trespass, as long as they did no harm.

I've given you plenty of time to think about it. Answer that question.

Dream on that I'm at your command.

396 posted on 04/22/2005 4:42:29 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Get back to me when you can construct arguments refuting the actual points I've made,

You haven't made any points. You've merely posited opinions, and claimed them to be facts. Then you compound your error by introducing "supporting" evidence, which doesn't support your contentions. Then, when multiple people have pointed out your errors, you ignore them and repeat the same errors. Finally, when totally defeated by logic, you retreat into imagining those who disagree with your maunderings are "gun grabbers", resorting in the end to ad hominems.

It is futile for me to continue a debate on this basis. I feel as if I'm kicking a puppy that cannot defend itself.

397 posted on 04/22/2005 5:00:45 PM PDT by LexBaird ("Democracy can withstand anything but democrats" --Jubal Harshaw (RA Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

Amusing that you imagine you've kicked a defenseless pup, yet you're the one turning tail..

Our exchange tells the true story, not your baseless bluster. Anyone can read it.


398 posted on 04/22/2005 5:24:54 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Everybody



Here's a good one for all you 'property rights' advocates:


Gun rights don't trump property rights
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view2/1%2C4382%2C595061835%2C00.html


Gun rights don't trump property rights
By Stephen H. Gunn

      What happens when the right to carry a gun collides with traditional Republican Party values like the sanctity of private property and the preference for local control compared to control by a central government? The surprising answer in Utah is that gun rights win. There is perhaps no better illustration than the recent passage of SB48 by the Utah Legislature. That bill was designed to prevent the University of Utah and other state universities and colleges from regulating the possession of guns on campus.

      It was passed over the opposition of the trustees, faculty, administration, staff, students and alumni association of the university. SB48 is yet another extension of earlier legislation that prohibited local governments from regulating concealed weapons in places like government buildings, libraries and parks. The Legislature's stated justification for banning local control is the need for uniformity — the same rationale used to support federal control over some state functions, like education. But although Republicans give lip service to the superiority of local control where the federal government is concerned, the principle is quickly jettisoned when applied to the relationship of the state to its counties, cities, school districts and universities — particularly in matters relating to firearms.

      An even more striking difference between theoretical Republicanism and actual practice can be seen in the willingness of Republican lawmakers to elevate gun rights over private property rights. Again SB48 provides an interesting illustration of this principle. The sponsor of the bill was Senator Michael Waddoups, the Republican majority leader. His original bill, which was passed by the Senate attempted to give gun owners absolute rights over the interests of other persons:

"(P)rivate citizens may not inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." The Senate rejected an amendment which would have made clear the superiority of private property over gun rights. Ultimately the Legislature adopted ambiguous language which leaves unresolved the relationship of gun rights to private property rights.
In so doing, it showed its willingness to pander to the gun lobby at the expense of private property owners.

      SB48 is one in a long line of bills passed by the Utah legislature which seem to state that owners of non-residential private property cannot prevent concealed weapons from being brought on to their premises.
The doctrine that Republican legislators appear to have adopted is that gun rights trump private property rights.

      But perhaps the most startling characteristic of the current crop of Republican lawmakers is their willingness to experiment with the safety of society by allowing guns to be carried nearly everywhere. Again, SB48 illustrates this principle. It prevents state colleges and universities from banning guns in such places as dormitories, classrooms, tenure hearings, public forums, political demonstrations and sporting events. This radical step was taken without any evidence that the arming of the university community was necessary or even safe.

      The University of Utah, like Utah's other colleges and universities, has until now had few problems with violent crime. The Republican response to a violence-free environment is to replace it with one in which guns can be brought on campus, virtually without restriction. The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" has been replaced with the new Republican doctrine of the gun: loosen restrictions until somebody gets hurt. We can only hope the only casualty of this social experiment will be Republican control of the Utah Legislature.

Steven H. Gunn is a former Republican legislative district chairman and a current member of the board of directors of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.


399 posted on 04/22/2005 5:41:44 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
What is our unreasonable employer protecting by banning guns from his employees cars?

Nothing. It's a bad policy but Constitutional. It's like smoking. It isn't good for you but it's legal.

400 posted on 04/22/2005 6:53:19 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 441-453 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson