Replies

How would you feel if the "conditions on your employment" stretched into your personal life? What if the Nebraska State government told you that you must drive a certain type of car or if they restricted your ability to take part in legal behaviour on your property?

For example, if they told me I couldn't work more than two days a month on outside employment? If they could fire me if I commit a criminal offense, even if it has nothing to do with my job?

I guess I don't mind, much.

In any case, this is beside the point. Smoking bans are very much related to the business of catering to the public.

"In any case, this is beside the point. Smoking bans are very much related to the business of catering to the public."

Yep, via the enforcement of the govnernment guns. Instead of allowing the property owner to decide wich "public" to cater to, a government imposed ban restricts that choice. When you endorce the use of government to "cater to the public" then we no longer have a constitution!

"For example, if they told me I couldn't work more than two days a month on outside employment? If they could fire me if I commit a criminal offense, even if it has nothing to do with my job?"

Yep, those examples provided by you have a direct relation to your credibility in the feild that you participate, namely educating people's children. If you take on a job outside of the University, you potentially could take to much time on that job and distract from the career you have chosen. Add to that, the potential for you to create intellectual property that the University would consider theirs and I can see why this provision is written into your contract. Being convicted of a crime is understandable as well. It is difficult to have a credible staff of professors if they are all convicted criminals. This could directly hurt recruitment efforts to your University.

Both examples you provide can directly harm your employer and I am sure they were part of the contract that you signed in agreement. Now, with the smoking bans, at the time the property owner reaches an agreement with the government (liscense being issued) the rules said one thing. Now, later the rules are changed and they MUST change the intended use of their property without just compensation. Add to that, no direct harm can be shown to occur by allowing smoking to the enforcing agency of the bans. The government suffers no harm if the property owner decides to allow smoking on their property.

In fact, the government is showing gains by allowing smoking to remain legal. If they had any real concerns or costs, they would just outlaw tobacco usage. Instead, the billions are considered a positive revenue stream and they feel entitled to that money while depriving the property owner of his rights.

Of course, you support this, right? I mean, your clothes don't stink when you get home.