[nuconvert]

Sorry, I missed the other threads. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.

The point is, this guy is a private employer, not a government employer. He has the right to set his own rules.
As I said already, it's a shame that only 19 states allow an employer to hire or fire whomever he/she chooses.

I agree with Stossel. Do you?

[SheLion]

Sorry, I missed the other threads. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.

The point is, this guy is a private employer, not a government employer. He has the right to set his own rules.
As I said already, it's a shame that only 19 states allow an employer to hire or fire whomever he/she chooses.

I agree with Stossel. Do you?

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.

[Mulder]

The point is, this guy is a private employer, not a government employer. He has the right to set his own rules.

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.