Replies

There is of course the counterbalancing consideration, at minimum one of ethics as well as pragmatism. If Joe Smith, my employee, smokes really nasty cigars at home, not on the job, and I -- the owner outright of the company -- can't stand them and the residual stench, BUT, Joe Smith also is a highly productive employee, makes me lots of dollars from his work, and I never mentioned the stench before I hired him, then I at DEAD MINIMUM am both a hypocrite and a Trotskyite to punish him in any way or form for his smoking of cigars off-site.

You can call me a hypocrite anytime you like. It doesn't change the rules. I, as the employer, am going to make the rules. If I decide the profit from your effort doesn't jive with my dislike for you, for whatever reason, then I can fire you. If you don't like it, invest in your own company and make your own rules.

If he and I had agreed to this before employment, you and I have no disagreement at all. If not, well, sorry, mate, but a unilateral changing of rules in what is necessarily a bilateral arrangement is nothing more than arbitary exercise of power to dictate personal behaviour.

You just don't get it. It's my money, and I make the rules. As long as my rules fall within the law, you can't challenge them, no matter how much you disagree with my decision. I'm paying you for a service, and it's my money. If I don't like you, I can fire you, as long as I don't fire you for a reason (protected status) regulated by federal or state laws. If I decide to fire you because your sweater makes me angry, it's my right and my perrogative.

Suggest you look up Leon Trotsky's (David Bernstein's) writings on the subject. He's quite thorough in his descriptions of the methods of control of private behaviour.

You want me to read Trotsky? I suggest you start your own business.