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 don't think the beancounters realize that? (I could even make the case that smokers cost kompanies less, since they die earlier).
In this case, it's not about money. It's about power.
Something that seems to be missing from the discussion ...
He is searching his employees, of course they must consent or br fired.
That seems to be a bit off the edge to me.
Can he decide that no one who owns a gun can work there?
Can he decide that no one who votes republican can work there?
How about ... if you don't shop at the company store? ..
There is some coercion going on here, I agree that it's his company and he should be able to run it as he see fit. But the reality of the times ... our economic evolution since the turn of the century has left an awful lot of power in an awful few hands.
I think there is a dynamic working here that shows us we need to address the position of corporations ect.. in relation to public and private policy.
The fact is ... most people are vulnerable to the edicts of their employer ... yes, theoretically they can go do something else ... but so often that is not really the case.
Indentured servitude ... slavery ... should people be able to sell themselves?
Basically that's what's being discussed here. Can a man sell his freedoms, thusly, can one man buy (with a paycheck) an other mans liberty.
Are the limits to contractual obligations that can be incurred ... especially when there is the coercion of the invisible hand?
Really? So they can fire a 30-year worker the day before he becomes vested in the company pension?
Can they fire a secretary who won't sleep with the boss?
How about a worker that votes Republican, contrary to what bossman tells him to do?
Who is Stossel?
It's his private business and he can do what he wants with it. But I still believe he should have grand fathered this new law of his to cover his long time employees.
But it's one thing to control the employees while on duty, but to control them off duty is going over the top, IMHO.
19 States? Where did you come up with 19 states. To date, I believe there are less then 10.
In a truly free nation, there would be no such thing as a corporation either, right?
After all, a corporation exists solely because of state action (corporate charter laws).
I agree with you. Years ago, I worked for Bob's big Boy Restaurants. 85% of the help smoked. Non smokers just had to deal with the smoke in the green room. It didn'lt matter if it bothered you. They laughed and said you're gonna die of something, don't worry about it.
Thanks for the link.
The guy may be a megalomaniacal little dictator. Someone I certainly wouldn't want to work for.
I still agree with Stossel.
Many folks here think it's okay as long as the state doesn't do it.
What they forget is that without the state, there would be no corporations. And the large corporations have become essentially merged with the state in the last two decades or so.
And statist thugs here will still be proclaiming "hey, you don't have to work there".
This guy is already targeting his over weight employee's. He's a control freak, that's all there is to it. Getting his face in the news for his "five minutes of fame." He and his attorney were on Fox News awhile back.
"Who is Stossel?"
John Stossel wrote the article. He's on TV's 20/20.
"Where did you come up with 19 states?"
The article states there are 19 states other than Michigan. So, I guess there are 20.
Wait till he goes after those who have disabled children because they increase the cost of the companies insurance premiums,due to more freuquent doctors visits.Or maybe he'll target pregnant females next.Gonna cost more for family coverage ya know.Then there's motorcycle riders,older employees,diebetics,phenylketonurics(which two of my children are),etc.,,He can just go down the list and before ya know it,he'll have the "perfect employee".Wait,I think that's been tried before in some country with its citizens,who weren't the "perfect race".
It was already pointed out on another thread that his female employees take off one-two days a month for you know what. Yet that is ok, I guess. I never missed one days work due to that!
How about the lost time for the gals who use this as an excuse to take off? I just shake my head.
No, he isn't a "private employer" (unless it is a sole or joint properitorship).
He runs a corporation, which means it works under special rules set by the state. In exhange, he gets several PRIVLIDGES granted by the state, which include limited liability and so on. In exhange for these privlidges, he should be regulated by the state in such a manner that protects indiviudal Rights in this country.
Corporations have no Rights, only privlidges granted by the state.
Good points in your post. The answer is "no". Sam Adams has a quote to that effect which I'll post tonight.
Show up, do your job and then you are on your own.
Right, and for those who were unable or unwilling to quit, they had 15 months notice to go find themselves employment elsewhere. Most people get two weeks (if that) to pack their stuff and get out the door.
I hate to comment on someone's looks, but this guy is a dried up old prune. And I sure am thankful "I" don't have to work for the likes of him. I am afraid I would have to find another job.
My off time is my time and I don't need some dictator telling me how to live my off duty hours. What's next? Is he going to send troops into his employee's homes at night, catching them off guard to see if they are smoking?
1. In the case of the worker who is fired the day before he/she would be vested in the company pension plan . . . This is one reason why a "company pension plan" really has no place in a modern economy. From the employee's perspective, he'd be better off saving his own money and negotiating an employer match up front -- so he isn't tied to the employer for 30 years.
2. It's kind of funny how the type of incident you describe was far less common before laws prohibiting such things as sexual harassment were implemented, isn't it? There was a reason for this: any company that engaged in such activity even if it were perfectly legal would engender such revulsion in the marketplace that nobody would do business with them. Today, I would venture to guess that sexual harassment is far more of a problem in government -- where the employer doesn't have to worry about pissing off customers -- than in the private sector.
3. The third case is most interesting of all . . . if all companies based their hiring decisions on the political affiliations of their employees, then I am quite sure that within 18 months we'd have a private sector in which 95% of the companies are owned and staffed by Republicans. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that in many industries, political affiliation is THE best indicator of an employee's value to the company.
Quite the contrary.
In The United States of America today we all live, work, *breath* at the pleasure of our government, Top.
Just the way it is.
Don't think so?
Go ahead & get too frisky while raising a stink to *prove* your point & just *see* what happens to you.
There'll be politicians -- & their bureaucrats -- urinalists -- both "right" *&* "left" -- & poverty pimp hustlers -- of ever stripe -- dropping outa the rafters to squelch your butt so fast it'll make your head literally *spin*.
That'll be the end.
...of your company, your business, and your money. ;^)
I'm confused about the 10-20 states. Is this article saying that 19-20 states are states that forbid smoking in the work place? As well as stepping outside at work to grab a cigarette?
I'd like to know which states this article is referring to.
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.