Asia Studios Massage
Toronto Escorts

Big Brother Part 2

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
What do you all think about this piece..........
-----------------------------------------

Once workers punch out, companies need to butt out
Cara Stiffler, a smoker, used to work at Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company in Okemos, Mich. She and three other employees left Weyco last month because of the company's anti-smoking policy: Workers aren't allowed to light up on company property - or anywhere else.
"I want to quit (smoking) but I want it to be on my terms, not someone forcing me to have to make that choice," Stiffler told CNN.
The company says it's acting for the good of its workers and to lower health care costs. But refusing to hire smokers, or firing them for lighting up in the privacy of their homes, crosses a line between promoting health and meddling in people's lives. If companies can dictate whether employees can smoke, why not dictate what they can eat, or bar them from sky diving? Obesity affects health costs. Dangerous activities do, too.
Almost 80% of U.S. workplaces ban or restrict smoking. The restrictions have the force of law in seven states. About 350 municipalities ban smoking at workplaces, restaurants or bars.
Banning smoking in public places or workplaces is one thing. Banning workers from smoking off the job is another - except in cases where smoking has a direct and detrimental impact on job performance.
At least 6,000 employers refuse to hire smokers, the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, found. That prohibitionist trend led 29 states to pass laws protecting smokers from workplace discrimination. Unfortunately for smokers at Weyco, Michigan isn't one of them. While Weyco is in the news lately, other employers have taken similar steps to extinguish smoking:
• A Fall River, Mass., policeman was fired in 2003 after someone anonymously reported that he was smoking while off-duty at a party. State law allows police and firefighters to be terminated immediately for tobacco use. Several Florida sheriff's departments won't hire tobacco users, while officials in Pinellas County demand that applicants undergo polygraph questioning and tests for nicotine. Courts have upheld these policies.
• Union Pacific announced a no-smoking policy last year for all employees, on and off premises. Alaska Airlines has long required job applicants to pass a nicotine test.
Companies say their actions are justified because smokers incur increased health care costs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the nation's cost for smoking is $3,383 a year for every smoker, $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical bills.
That's good reason to discourage smoking, but not to justify discrimination. Many lifestyle choices affect health and insurance costs. Health costs related to obesity are $117 billion a year. How about sunbathers who risk skin cancer? What about sexual orientation and habits? What area of life is off-limits to company snooping?
Paying for health insurance shouldn't let employers deny workers the chance to earn a living because they engage in legal activities on their own time. The carrot, such as nutritional and smoking-cessation programs, is preferable to the stick.
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits," Mark Twain noted. Once workers punch out for the day, their bad, but lawful, decisions ought to be their own business. Intrusive companies should butt out.

-------------------------------------------

So, I bet some on the left like letting governments and companies adopt such policies because they feel it would improve public health, and some on the right like it because companies should be allowed to do what they want, and after all, smoking is immoral.

I, personally, as a civil libertarian liberal (yes, they exist), find the idea of testing people for nicotine and making their jobs dependent upon it unconstitutional, immoral, and pretty darn stupid (why screen out qualified people because they smoke?)

I am a nonsmoker, and appreciate the nonsmoking laws in restaurants and workplaces that protect my right to clean air. But, to tell someone they aren't allowed to smoke anywhere during nonwork hours is ridiculous.
 
Y

yychobbyist

If you own a business you can make whatever rules you want so long as they're within the law.

I have no problems with any of this: it violates no one's rights (no one has a right to work or, for that matter, to smoke) and it applies equally to all regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and all those fun things.
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
The problem is, this applies to off work hours also. How far would you go with this? Would you ban workers that have high cholesteral, for example? The companies could argue that your behavior caused it. But once you head down this road, every company will want a genetic screening before they hire anyone, under the guise of keeping their health insurance costs down.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
1
0
In the laboratory.
yychobbyist said:
If you own a business you can make whatever rules you want so long as they're within the law.....
Well yes, but isn't the question, should such rules be allowed under law?

jwm
 
Y

yychobbyist

jwmorrice said:
Well yes, but isn't the question, should such rules be allowed under law?

jwm
Though I'm not an expert I don't think there are any laws which would prevent this. And there shouldn't be.
 
Y

yychobbyist

irlandais9000 said:
The problem is, this applies to off work hours also. How far would you go with this? Would you ban workers that have high cholesteral, for example? The companies could argue that your behavior caused it. But once you head down this road, every company will want a genetic screening before they hire anyone, under the guise of keeping their health insurance costs down.
Possibly. But what's so wrong with that if they choose to do so? In reality, it makes no sense to do such testing because if a business owner wants to exclude all left handed, smoking diabetics with high cholesterol and a propensity for sweets, the only result will be a chronic shortage of workers for that employer.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
1
0
In the laboratory.
Adam Smith would be proud!

yychobbyist said:
Possibly. But what's so wrong with that if they choose to do so? In reality, it makes no sense to do such testing because if a business owner wants to exclude all left handed, smoking diabetics with high cholesterol and a propensity for sweets, the only result will be a chronic shortage of workers for that employer.
A self-regulating market in human rights then? Sounds nice unless you're the one who doesn't get the job. :p

jwm
 
Y

yychobbyist

Well, if you don't get the job then you just sue your parents for giving you genes which limit your employability. It's all perfectly logical.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
1
0
In the laboratory.
Gotta be a joke!

yychobbyist said:
Well, if you don't get the job then you just sue your parents for giving you genes which limit your employability. It's all perfectly logical.
Americanson, is that you? :confused:

jwm
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
yychobbyist said:
Well, if you don't get the job then you just sue your parents for giving you genes which limit your employability. It's all perfectly logical.
And all perfectly perverse. I'm reminded ot the Lenny Bruce line, "Why don't we just get really basic and openly discriminate against ugly people".
 

Coach

Member
Jul 9, 2002
673
0
16
Up Here,ON
I am a nonsmoker, and appreciate the nonsmoking laws in restaurants and workplaces that protect my right to clean air. But, to tell someone they aren't allowed to smoke anywhere during nonwork hours is ridiculous.
I agree, the fact that this goes on in the land of the free is very scary. Too many companies are trying to control people's lives under the guize of insurance costs. Why not ban employees who eat at McDonald's? Coffee drinkers? What next?
I am a non smoker myself and try to lead a healthy lifestyle by eating well, running and working out regularly. I believe it is my best interests to do so, but no way do I believe a company has a right to tell me what to do the minute I leave work.
Scary indeed.
 
Y

yychobbyist

Coach said:
I agree, the fact that this goes on in the land of the free is very scary. Too many companies are trying to control people's lives under the guize of insurance costs. Why not ban employees who eat at McDonald's? Coffee drinkers? What next?
I am a non smoker myself and try to lead a healthy lifestyle by eating well, running and working out regularly. I believe it is my best interests to do so, but no way do I believe a company has a right to tell me what to do the minute I leave work.
Scary indeed.
Do you support drug testing among pro athletes? Isn't that an employer telling an employee what to do the minute he leaves work?
 

Coach

Member
Jul 9, 2002
673
0
16
Up Here,ON
No, I do not support drug testing among athletes (assuming you mean narcotics). I do support testing for pilots, cops and firemen. Professions where an employee who is in a position to cause direct harm to others as a result of impairment. If an NbA'er wants to smoke dope away from the court, I don't care, just as long as they are sober and 100% able to perform their duities.
In my opinion, an employee must be able to perform his/her duities at work. If their lifestyle causes them to be unable to perform, then they will need to correct the problem or lose their job. For example we have many employees in our plant who are heavy drinkers. As long as they show up for work on time and are not under the influence, then they can do what they want
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
Asterix said:
And all perfectly perverse. I'm reminded ot the Lenny Bruce line, "Why don't we just get really basic and openly discriminate against ugly people".
Actually we do discriminate against ugly people. Labour economists have come up with plenty of evidence that attractive (and tall) people get paid more (an they are not just referring to SPs :D )
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
someone said:
Actually we do discriminate against ugly people. Labour economists have come up with plenty of evidence that attractive (and tall) people get paid more (an they are not just referring to SPs :D )
Of course, but I think the key phrase there was "openly discriminate", in other words, accepted policy. His point was that if we're going to discriminate, we should stop being hypocritical and put all of our prejudices on the table, and then see how people like it.

As far as the rest of it, it says more about the health insurance crisis in the US than anything else. Employers in this case are trying to target "behavior" in order to cut costs, even though it has nothing to do with job performance. By that logic they could also demand employees maintain a certain weight, eliminate certain foods or alcohol, require them to workout, eliminate risky physcal activities and so on. The point is, it's none of their business if it isn't reflected at work.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
I find it amusing that those like americanson (I won't say on the right, because I guess we all decided these labels were meaningless), are up in arms when the government intrudes on our private lives, but see nothing wrong with corporations doing it. Explain to me how it is a right for corporations to demand restrictions on what people do in their private lives, if it is not illegal and has no impact on job performance. Henry Ford tried this decades ago, going so far as to send his "police" to worker's homes at night, making sure they weren't out somewhere having too much fun. The whole thing blew up in his face eventually. It's a bit naive to say someone could just find a job elsewhere, especially if such "restrictions" became accepted in an industry as the norm.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
That is a holdover of misguided libertarian claptrap. Makes me feel embarrased to be a rightie when I see such stupid arguments.

The simple truth is that corporations don't have rights, period. Anything done with them is on a contractual basis. Smoking, until specifically outlawed, is a protected activity under the 9th. Do I smell class action here?

Asterix said:
I find it amusing that those like americanson (I won't say on the right, because I guess we all decided these labels were meaningless), are up in arms when the government intrudes on our private lives, but see nothing wrong with corporations doing it.
 
Y

yychobbyist

No you smell second hand smoke.

Are you telling me someone is actually going to argue that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them a right to smoke?

And of course corporations have rights. Whoever would deny that is simply out of step with reality.
 

Coach

Member
Jul 9, 2002
673
0
16
Up Here,ON
Do I agree with the decisions? Not necessarily but as someone posted it's the RIGHT of the PRIVATE corporations to install and enforce whatever rules they feel are necessary and NO Washington has NOTHING to do with it. To close off those who feel "restricted" by the rules can well you know find a new job. Granted sometimes it's difficult living in a small isolated community in somewhere like say Iowa but then just grin and bear it. Besides in Jan. 2004 didn't the Ottawa police or even R.C.M.P. go into a reporters home and seize her files?
Does this mean it's ok to not hire gays, blacks and other minorities? As you state, they can just go to work somewhere else. Right?
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Peeping Tom,
No, corporations have essentially the same rights as individuals, in the US anyway. Not that this is necessarily a good thing.

americanson said:
Asterix. You are technically incorrect in stating that it is not a "right" for PRIVATE corporations to implement rules for their employes. If it wasn't their right then they couldn't do it right? The reason I say rules is becuase that is what they are "rules" not laws. In other words if the rules are violated then the repurcussions will not extend into the legal system get it?
You're right. I don't get it. The example of Nike you gave doesn't really apply to this argument. The issue is not if a corporation can implement certain rules in the workplace, but if they have a right to restrict perfectly legal conduct by employees off the job, when that conduct does nothing to interfere with how their work is performed. I can think of a few situations where the repurcussions would extend into the legal system.

Again, what surprises me most is how you seem to be willing to roll over at the idea of corporations pursuing this, when I'm sure you wouldn't tolerate even a hint of intrusion into our private lives by government.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts