[wmichgrad]

Ping!

[cripplecreek]

Conflicting rights.

[wmichgrad]

Freedom includes the right to quit your job, but freedom also includes the right not to employ someone you don't want to employ. No one forced Stiffler and Epolito to work for Weyco. But now, they want to force Howard Weyers to employ smokers. He built the company. He owns the company. What about his freedom?

I asked Epolito if she "owned her job." No, she said, but "there's a relationship there."

There was a relationship, that's true. To put it simply, the relationship was that Weyers thought employing Epolito was a good thing and Epolito thought working for Weyco was a good thing. Weyers doesn't own Epolito; she's entitled to pursue her happiness, not his, and if that means smoking, that's her right. But Epolito doesn't own Weyers; he's entitled to live by his values, not hers, and if that means not employing smokers, that's his right. Government smoking bans take away our freedom. But all Weyers did was exercise his.

Well said!

[Thebaddog]

I wouldn't want to work for that wiseacre in the first place. But a job is a privilege and not a right, unless you are in the protected classes. Any guesses as to the complexion of the fired employees?

[PatriotEdition]

"Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help."

Well, if that's the case, I think it's a fair deal. However, had he suddenly made this decision, and expect employees who may have been smoking a pack a day for 20 years to just quit on the dime without patches or gum or anything, I think it would indeed be a conflict of rights.

But being that he did offer 15 months along with assistance in quitting, I think it's fair.

Billy

[2banana]

Wait until people find out that the "gay lifestyle" is much more unhealthy than smoking...

[borntobeagle]

And I suppose next year this employer wil be performing breath tests on those who imbibe in an occasional drink as well.

Following that, he may as well test monthly for sodium levels, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure tests.

What an employee does after his workday is considered private and violates the right of those who desire to smoke, imbibe in alcohol and eat a few snacks.

This is a slippery slope, as far as I see it.

For those of you who have stated that your insurance will be lower, take a look at many companies' insurance plans.

First question that is asked....do you smoke?

[R. Scott]

Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.

In my mind, this makes it pretty fair – if the assistance was effective.

[Dallas59]

Just wait till they find a "tobacco" gene! SMOKING IS A DISEASE! RACSISM!

[Just another Joe]

The guy is a power mad megalomaniac. With that said, I support the right of the power mad megalomaniac to hire whomever he wants.

My main problem with this is that some of these employees had worked for the power mad megalomaniac for many years, smoked, and he did nothing about it.
It seems to me that to be fair, these employees should be 'grandfathered' in.
IOW, any new employee signs the papers that says no smoking, period.

Yeh yeh, policies change, but many times employees are grandfathered in for various things when the policy changes.

[Route101]

Well... take it a step further to where I want it....Only republicans need apply......That's the kind of company I want to work for.......

[The Great RJ]

What an employee does in their off hours outside the work place is NONE of the employer's business.

Our local school board tried to implement a policy that would have prohibited teachers from participating in an after school Bible study for kids hosted by a private group, but in space rented from the school. The concern was that kids might think the school was (gasp) promoting religion if they saw their teacher participating in this program.

The case went all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals with a unanimous ruling throwing out the policy stating that the school district could not in effect limit the rights of teachers in their non working hours.

I see a court challenge to this policy resulting in the same decision.

[Mulder]

If a kompany wants to control what their workers do off the clock, they should pay them.

Or they should surrender their special privlidges granted by the government, and give up their korporate charter and start a sole propreitorship.

[THEUPMAN]

Something that seems to be missing from the discussion ...

He is searching his employees, of course they must consent or br fired.

That seems to be a bit off the edge to me.

Can he decide that no one who owns a gun can work there?
Can he decide that no one who votes republican can work there?
How about ... if you don't shop at the company store? ..

There is some coercion going on here, I agree that it's his company and he should be able to run it as he see fit. But the reality of the times ... our economic evolution since the turn of the century has left an awful lot of power in an awful few hands.

I think there is a dynamic working here that shows us we need to address the position of corporations ect.. in relation to public and private policy.

The fact is ... most people are vulnerable to the edicts of their employer ... yes, theoretically they can go do something else ... but so often that is not really the case.

Indentured servitude ... slavery ... should people be able to sell themselves?
Basically that's what's being discussed here. Can a man sell his freedoms, thusly, can one man buy (with a paycheck) an other mans liberty.

Are the limits to contractual obligations that can be incurred ... especially when there is the coercion of the invisible hand?

[BJungNan]

No employers should lord over their employees behavior off the clock. You got 'em for 8 hours, after that their time - and their lives - are theirs.

Show up, do your job and then you are on your own.

[mojojockey]

Good Article. To me the employer is acting fair; it's no different than saying you don't want people working for you who use drugs.

[Modernman]

That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).

I think this is incorrect. Virtually all American States are employment-at-will, meaning that employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).

[Ciexyz]

I have mixed views on his right to dictate the private lifestyle of his employees.

[gorush]

An employer ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason at any time.

[jwh_Denver]

Can I go outside and have a smoke?