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 ...
You ask any Freeper here and I think they would agree it would be strange (and dangerous) for you to to trespass on private property with a gun and expect the government to protect you from getting shot.
You're now imagining I'm advocating trespass & asking for government protection?
Now that is strange..
We should support the Constitution not "principles".
That's my contention, not yours. -- You are advocating some strange 'property right "principle"', one that allows you to infringe on our RKBA's.
Not try to invent new "rights" like the right to armed trespass.
I had an invitation to fish. Whether I'm armed while doing so is of no concern to the owner.
That's what liberals do, they try to find new rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.
Where did you find the 'right' to disarm me?
Nothing strange or unusual about restricting gun owners from private property. It's been legal since day one.
I had an invitation to fish.
You had a conditional invitation -- no guns.
Whether I'm armed while doing so is of no concern to the owner.
It's his property, he has the right to be concerned about anything or anyone on it. What would you do if he booted you off the land because they found out you had a gun -- sue him?
You are on private property with the permission of the owner - you obey his rules.
No, not gun-grabbers in general. People who don't want guns on their property. Or people who don't want to work and play with gun owners. That's different.
Yep. That anti-gun attitude is "different" all right. And encouraged, it will mean the death of our Republic. And you defend it.
Why? Because I believe in property rights and the rights of individuals.
Self defense is a primary individual right, one you claim that 'property rights' can be used to infringe upon. Specious, unreasonable claim.
One way our rights are being taken away is though erosion of private property rights. The legal climate has become so hostile that businesses, churches and private institutions are giving up their rights to the government in exchange for legal protection and protection from taxes. Allowing people to sue because they were "denied" some constitutional right would further this process.
Thus you admit one of my main points: government is encouraging this 'privatization' of gun control. Using a 'property rights' excuse to control weapons is a blatant scam.
As an example, employees often sue for bogus claims of "sexual harassment" leaving it up to a judge or jury to decide if it really occurred. Likewise, an employee could claim he was fired for owning a gun, even if that weren't really the case. The result is the private companies, which used to be a balance against government, are being subjugated to toe the statist line.
Nice reversal of terms. -- Private companies are banning guns in order to conform with the statist line.
You see private businesses and property owners as a potential threat, I see them as a balance against the state. I would rather give property owners and employers more sovereignty over their domain. That way, they are not subject to this legal blackmail.
We have far too many examples of private companies banning guns.. And far too few of companies advocating the RKBA's. -- You are simply in denial on the issue.
That's pretty rude, if nothing else. The man issues an invitation for you to fish on his property, sans weapons, and you would bring them anyway? Blatant disrespect for the owner, who, imo, would be perfectly justified in recinding the invitation when he found out and had you kicked off his property. I'm sure you would agree he would be within HIS rights to do so.
That's my contention, not yours. -- You are advocating some strange 'property right "principle"', one that allows you to infringe on our RKBA's.
Nothing strange or unusual about restricting gun owners from private property. It's been legal since day one.
Specious claim, directly in conflict with our inalienable right to carry arms in self defense, which [incidentally] predate private property rights.
I had an invitation to fish.
You had a conditional invitation -- no guns.
Unreasonable condition to disarm me while fishing. I ignore unreasonable decrees.
Whether I'm armed while doing so is of no concern to the owner.
It's his property, he has the right to be concerned about anything or anyone on it.
So what? He has no 'right' to disarm me.
What would you do if he booted you off the land because they found out you had a gun -- sue him?
Nope, I would 'shun' him, quite loudly. Gun grabbers deserve all the exposure they can get.
That's what liberals do, they try to find new rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.
Where did you find the penumbra type 'right' to disarm me?
Sorry, I respect no 'rule' that disarms me.
Yep, it's rude. So was his 'rule'.
EXCUSE ME?
You're not invited many places are you? Your lack of respect for the property owner is outrageous.
My husband was flabergasted that anyone would so blatantly abuse the rules of another property owner like this.
I know my jaw hit the floor. Geesh!
There is no inalienable right to bear arms on someone else's property, just as there is no inalienable right to free speech on someone else's property.
Not true:
The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions prevents anyone from imposing a condition that is unrelated to the purpose to be furthered.
For example:
In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court upheld that California Supreme Court's ruling that owners of private shopping centers may not exclude persons who wish to engage in nondisruptive speech and petitioning activities.
So, although the Court eliminated part of the property owners right to select users of their property, the Court held it was not a taking because the owners could not demonstrate that an unchecked right to exclude others was a basic part of the economic value of the shopping center.
Thus, - I see an effort to disarm employees in a company parking lot as "unrelated to the purpose to be furthered".
Why should any company have a business 'purpose' to disarm employees.
-- Or, - to prevent them from smoking at home?
I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and my husband even moreso - which is why I posed the scenario to him.
His initial reaction to someone abusing the private property of another are unprintable. His printable reaction was to either leave the weapon home if being unarmed was a condition of the invitation or decline the invitation. Very simple.
And the same holds for this employer, regardless of what I think about his stupid policy, it's his property and no one has a "right" to work for him....you either accept his conditions or find another place of employment.
And you think that's okay? You agree with the court?
But I wonder if it would violate the McCain Feingold act if someone was using your property for political purposes within 60 days of an election. Who would be fined? The property owner who wasn't allowed to toss them off or the squatters on your land?
Government has so many rules and regulations restricting property use they're tripping over their own dick.
Guess what, -- every time some dick tries to infringe on individual freedoms on his private property, some other dick takes him to court, resulting in more rules & regulations.
How bout we just get rid of all the wannabe dicks, -- & their lawyers?
My thoughts exactly...on both counts.
But this Weyco guy is a poster boy for the nanny state if ever I saw one. I wonder how far he's going to push the envelope? Or if that many of his employees are really just "sheeple" that will put up with his baloney to keep their jobs. I know, it's not always that easy, really, but I tell ya, how hard is it to just grandfather in the previous employees? Well, it's not my business (either literally or figuratively, lol) so I guess the point is moot.
GRRRR!
Grandfathering in the current employees would have been the prudent move, IMO. Especially when his claim it was to save on group health insurance costs......that got thrown out the window because one of the fired employees, who had been with the company 14 years was NOT on the company policy.
But you're right he is definitely a nanny state poster boy - but I do give him a little bit of credit - he didn't get the government to do it for him the way so many of them do........
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.