Posted on 11/29/2006 3:01:47 PM PST by GQuagmire
The net bottom line here, all descriptive terms aside, is the same one that even today most children understand without any formal instruction: in a 'fair' game, or -- generalising -- a ''fair'' society, you do NOT change the rules after the game begins.
Fair enough. One condition any employer will demand of a prospective employee--before the job is accepted, rendering it acceptable according to your philosophy--is that the employee agree to accept any later changes made by the employer to the terms of employment or face termination. The employee knows going in that the terms may be unilaterally changed, and if he doesn't like this condition, he is free not to accept the job, so there is nothing unfair about the employer subsequently changing those terms.
Eating at McDonalds or other fast food restaurants
Smoking
Drinking
Speeding
Getting a traffic ticket
Being overweight
Not excercising
Being Divorced
I'll add, being a professional victim.
You are going to get PAID what you're WORTH. As an employer, it's my decision what to pay you. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. No employer in their right mind will refuse to limit their potential employee pool to such an extent as you have listed. Employers are investors. They spend THEIR money on employees. If you're not worth the money, you won't get hired. If you are worth the money, you will get hired. If you have a skill that's in demand, then you can take your pick of employers. If you have no skills, you won't have many options. If you think you're worth more than somebody will pay you, start your own company.
Yes, what you say is true, but we could carry the anti-smoking madness to heights you don't even seem capable of comprehending.
I stopped hiring ANYONE in 1988. Obviously, I need various kinds of labour for the company to operate; they're all temps and contractors now, have been for 17+ years, going on 18, going on infinity (or whenever the good Lord decides to take me).
Any other brilliant observations? I quite agree with the notion of the employer demanding certain standards of an employee, but disagree completely with the notion of an employer having the ability to dictate the private behaviour of an employee off-site and during the employee's own time.
For ANY reason. Nor have I ever done, nor would. Wanna smoke dope? Couldn't care less, as a general thing. Wanna shoot H? Be my guest, it's your life.
However, the potential quarrels with either are 1) you might get busted and not be able to live up to your agreement with me because you're in chokey, and, 2) if you do, AND you've been doping AND your productivity is falling, measurably (and we have very good metrics for this, thanks) ...you're gone.
And everyone here, temp or contractor, knows all the rules, exactly, before the game starts. It's the only fair and ethical and practical policy there is.
It would be both thoroughly unethical and bloody stupid to change the rules by diktat after putting anyone into a job. I've many failings, first to admit them, but one simply must treat one's associates ethically -- never mind economics, just plain decency rules here, as well as one helluva lot of pragmatism.
LOL...I vote this the best response of the year!
See # 164. Yawn. I've run my own shop since 2 January 1977.
This guy was not singled out. He was given a year's notice along with everybody else. And the offer to help him quit.
And don't worry I'm sure Scotts will be going after fat people next. If it's legal and they can get away with it they will.
Or, you could visit the website. Wouldn't be of interest to you (odds on that are almost exactly 600-1 against, btw), but it's remarkably useful for a very specific set of tasks, very clean, and damned quick even on dial-up, notwithstanding that the data set involved is simply gigantic. We provide precise information to a specific group of folks there, and these folks are highly demanding. To prosper, we must perform. According to our clients, so far to date, we do.
Naturally, it's so simple to do this that absolutely anyone can do, right? (w!)
An a posteriori condition, made at will and at whim by the company subsequent to employment, is simply unacceptable from any standpoint you choose to name, including that of private property.
My ethical and moral decisions are MINE. They are my privaledge as an employer and a risk-taker - a CREATOR of jobs, and should not be subject to any government restriction. I support civil rights legislation restricting discrimination based on such things as race, age, and gender, but I do not support any restrictions on personal behavior. If I decide to change the rules mid-stream, because I no longer like pot-smokers, it's MY COMPANY, MY MONEY, and MY RULES. If one of your contractors called your wife a slut, would you give them a raise?
You're not getting the free market concept. Employers make hiring and firing decisions based on the profit potential of those decisions, in the same way that you make investment decisions. If private employers make the mistake of limiting their employment pool to such an extent that they've weeded out all of the drinking, smoking, fast-food-eating, laundry-washing, tooth-brushing, and hair-combing candidates, how do you expect them to stay in business? There's a reason why business owners make a lot of money, and it's not because they're stupid.
Nothing herein constitutes a contract of employment for a definite period of time. The employment relationship is “at will”, which affords you or the Company the right to terminate the relationship at any time for any reason or no reason not otherwise prohibited by applicable law. The Company retains the right to decrease an employee’s compensation and/or benefits, transfer or demote an employee, or otherwise change the terms or conditions of any employee’s employment with the Company.
I knew when I accepted that the company could change the terms without my consent after I started, and I chose to accept the job anyway. In all likelihood, employees of Scotts, and most other companies, agree to the same thing. Therefore, there should be no legal complaint when the company decides to make seemingly arbitrary changes as Scotts did here.
So for now we will just focus in on the smokers....off duty of course, in this scenario and tomorrow we can go after their lifestyles and what they eat.
Don't take me wrong, I agree with some of what you say. If cigarettes are bad, so aren't hamburgers and french fries?
This should got to SCOTUS....hope it does.
As to, for instance, calling my wife a slut or some other vile term, they'd be plain idiots. She died some years ago. Were she still alive, I shouldn't envy the chap who made such a stupid comment. She'd have had one HELL of a lot of sport at his or their expense, trust me on that! (grinning, thinking about it...)
His or their contract wouldn't be renewed, of course, but not out of pique. If they're that uninformed and/or his or their judgment is so poor as to say something so ridiculous, presumably in public, then speaking broadly, I believe the proper thing to do would be to put a microscope on their performance, and I similarly believe VERY strongly they'd fall short there. A demonstrated lack of logical process is very, very costly when designing a highly expandable and dynamic set of databases, wouldn't you agree?
BTW, cigarettes are not even a banned substance. I agree that they have the right to ban them at the workplace....but getting into what you do off duty?....therin lies the rub.
Don't take me wrong, I agree with some of what you say. If cigarettes are bad, so aren't hamburgers and french fries?
This should got to SCOTUS....hope it does.
If I limited my applicant pool to people who don't eat hamburgers and french fries, then I'm eliminating the majority of my potential profit-makers. It's business suicide. Business owners are smarter than that.
I hope it doesn't go to SCOTUS. The courts have no right to tell me who to hire and fire, except for the existing protected classes established through legislation. I have fat people working for me who do a wonderful job. Likewise, I have black people and Jewish people who make good money for me that I truly love and admire. If I decided to fire the Jewish person because they called my child a fag, I could fire them - not because they're Jewish, but because they created an untenable working relationship.
If I decide it's not worth the extra medical benefits costs to employ smokers, it's my perrogative (it's my money). I happen to be a smoker, so I'm not going to do that because it would show poor leadership (do as I say, not as I do.)
SAJ, I'd like to take you out to dinner and have a good debate, but I'll settle for a late night give and take. I think we're parsing pennies at this point. We both have different business philosophies, but I don't imagine that we're that far apart. I'm really sorry to hear about your wife, btw.
You are really missing the point! Tobacco is legal! I'm pissed that someone can't even smoke outdoors in many places. In some places now, people can't even smoke in their homes.
The next step in the nanny state will be, eating burgers, life style etc. The fat women at work are at major risk for medical problems in the future. Can't you see where this is headed?
Deny the wackos this victory for all of our sakes.
Before you read what comes next, please let me explain that I'm not being crude to insult you, but to prove a point. Let's say that I'm an employer, and you're my employee, and I find out that you have videos on internet showing you having sex with a watermelon. There is no law preventing you from having videos of watermelon sex on the internet. I decide to fire you. Should the government regulate my decision?
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.