[P_A_I]

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.

________________________________

Unless job performance is affected, why should anyone have that 'master/peon' control over another's life, liberty, & property?

That doesn't work because there is no control. The employee can quit. No one has a gun to their head.

And an authoritarian employer can move to Mexico. -- But if they want to operate in the USA, they should do business under Constitutional principles, respecting the individual rights of employees.

[Protagoras]

You are totally incorrect in your interpretation of the constitution.

Please cite the exact place in the constitution that addresses employers' obligations.

BTW, that off base preamble stuff is laughable.

respecting the individual rights of employees.

Which right? There is no right to work for a certain employer under certain circumstances. Absent the use of force, no rights are violated. The employee has no right to work under his own conditions. You invented that right, it doesn't exist.