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 ...
This has nothing to do with the state. This is an employment agreement between two private parties.
Telling an employee what to wear while on the job is like comparing apples and oranges in this case. IBM certainly did not tell employees what kind of underwear to wear each night after they got home from work and showered.
This is an issue of an employees paid time versus an employees time off the clock (with the exception of the military).
A no hire policy instituted for new employees who smoke is perfectly legitimate, but forcing long time employees to change their complete lifestyle is over and above a on the job request.
In time, this will become widely accepted, and far more treasured rights and freedoms will be imposed upon.
Just because a corporation is set up in accordance with certain laws does not make it a public entity.
In exhange for these privlidges, he should be regulated by the state in such a manner that protects indiviudal Rights in this country.
Ah, I see. I'll put you down as being in favor of more governmental regulation of business.
Being able to hire and fire whomever you choose does not include hiring, not hiring, or firing someone of a protected class unless you have your paper trail in order.
The fact is only white males can be arbitrarily hired and fired without legal result.
There are indeed limits, -- Constitutional limits, on the 'powers' the employer has over the employee.
Simply put, [unless an employee's behavior off the job seriously affects performance on the job], the employer is Constitutionally obligated to respect the employee's rights to life, liberty & property.
If the employer objects to the restrictions placed upon him by our Constitutional system, he is free to move his business elsewhere.
-- I hear Mexico still allows a master/peon relationship.
You're making a common mistake. "Right to work" refers to states that have union-unfriendly laws. Right to work doesn't have anything to do with employment at will.
"In fact, they were known for precisely that for a long, long time."
I know. That's what made me think of them. ;~ )
Discrimination lawsuits by fired white males are quite common. A bunch of white cops in Atlanta recently won a pretty big case.
And I never claimed they did. I commented on what they DID, not what they didn't do. BTW, it was a comment on IBM, not the philosophy of the question.
This is an issue of an employees paid time versus an employees time off the clock (with the exception of the military).
No it isn't. It's an issue of voluntary agreements between consenting adults.
A no hire policy instituted for new employees who smoke is perfectly legitimate, but forcing long time employees to change their complete lifestyle is over and above a on the job request.
I don't think it's over and above anything. Life is "unfair". Absent force or a legal contract, each side can do what they want. You don't like the employee or his lifestyle, fire him. You don't like the new rules, quit.
In time, this will become widely accepted, and far more treasured rights and freedoms will be imposed upon.
Which rights and freedoms?
Good Article. To me the employer is acting fair; it's no different than saying you don't want people working for you who use drugs.
Really? The constitution mentions the relations between an employer and employee?
Right - I thought was what I was saying. to me they are pretty much the opposite of each other.
"The employer should focus on job performance issues.
This is where you are wrong. The employer should focus on whatever the hell he wants to focus on -- that's what it means when he is the employer. If he wants to make a habit out of firing competent smokers and hiring incompetent non-smokers, then he'll be out of business in a hurry.
Affirmative action, now affirmative life styles. What's next?
We're talking about a private employer here. There's a reason why "affirmative action" is largely confined to government -- it's because in most government jobs the competence of the employee doesn't really matter all that much."
If the owner wishes to stay out of court he/she will focus on performance issues only.
A state can be both right-to-work and employment at will. In fact, states that have strong right-to-work laws also tend to give employers a wide degree of freedom to hire and fire at will. The opposite also tends to be true.
In fact, they were known for precisely that for a long, long time.
It is not quite as strictly enforced, but there is still a dress code, at least there is for the field techs.
Now I'm totally confused........I was basing my comments upon arguments and testimony in the legislature over the years regarding changes some people want to make to laws in Delaware that would preclude and employer from doing what this guy did in Michigan.
I don't like what he did - but I really don't like the idea of more laws to prevent others from doing the same.
Whether they are lax or strict is on a case by case basis.
I can't imagine having one of my employees wear torn blue jeans to call on clients. Unless of course, the clients were wearing them and I thought it would be a better way to connect with them.
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.