IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags fired , smoke

Reply
Old 12th May 2005, 08:59 PM   #41
SezMe
post-pre-born
Moderator
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,178
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Then they'll all be shooting themselves in the foot, closing themselves off from a pool of good workers. This would leave the door wide open for competition to come in, grab these good workers, and give the other companies a run for their money. Heck, those workers themselves could even get together and do it.
I am responding to the sentence I underlined.

I can think if no greater example of the theoretical correctness of the libertarian view and no greater example of the practical incorrectness of that same view.

There are a number of reasons why this is impossible from a practical view. I will list some, but I am sure there are many more.

One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?

Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry. OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?

And so on ..... This is, IMO, one of the central problems of libertarianism and shanek ignores it with most of his posts. The libertarian solution may be theoretically true (although that is also often not true) but practically it is just plain silly.

Shanek, take my example of 1000 shoe factory workers who have been laid off from factories around the USA. Now, how the hell are they ever going to form a competitive enterprise?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2005, 09:33 PM   #42
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 60,800
Quote:
Originally posted by Phrost
Wow, that's a great slippery slope argument you've got there.

OMG what if they start executing anyone who's ever looked at a cigarette???#!111

Libertarians believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. If I chose to smoke, and the culture shifted in such a way that nobody was hiring smokers, I guess I'd either give it up, or employ myself.

Either way, it's not my place (or yours) to abuse government to force business owners to hire people who have traits they may not like. If you want to apply pressure to them, do it through the free market (don't buy their products) or through freedom of speech (organize boycotts, protests, etc).
My last employer would have fired me the instant he found out I was gay. Should I accept that as part of freedom of the bloody market?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2005, 09:53 PM   #43
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by Gulliamo
In most US states this is not a true statement about public companies. Example: "Their business, their right" does not give them the right to avoid the hiring of minorities. Many states have "right to work" laws which prevent this kind of thing. Whether or not it will be enforced when it comes to cigarettes is yet to be seen....

Ummmm... No.

'Right to work' refers to the right to work without being forced to join a union...it in no way turns control of the company over to the employees.

Protections for minorities, older workers, pregnant women, etc. are *exceptions* to the bedrock principle that the owner of the company can generally hire whomever they please.

The courts will recognize the investment that an employee has made in their job over the years, but as long as these employers follow the rules, they can probably fire these smokers, under current standards.

People have been denied jobs for being left handed, out of shape, too ugly, not smart enough, etc.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 01:59 AM   #44
ingoa
Surfing on the relativistic brain wave
 
ingoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 494
Sex is the major contribution factor to HIV and STD's.

Not all cars have the best statistic on accidents.

There are sports that have higher risks for accidents than others.

All this leads to higher health care costs.

So will be the best worker the guy/girl that does not have sex, drives a standard Toyota and has Nordic walking as his favourite sport? What will do THAT to suicide rates?

My company pays for my work. The work is what they get. They don't pay for the rest of my time. An employer cannot regulate legal activities when he's not paying for it.
__________________
Suum cuique

I have no prejudices. I hate everbody!
ingoa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 02:19 AM   #45
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
Quote:
Originally posted by Sushi
So you have a problem with people running their own businesses and hiring who they want?

Nobody has ANY sort of a privilege to be able to work at my store, your store, or any other store. How is this different from asking Ned to run to James' house for you to pick up your pet puppy for you and giving him 10 bucks for his time instead of asking George, because you don't like him?

Hell, I wouldn't hire a scientologist!
No, I don't have a problem with people running their own business and hire (and fire) who they want. Because I do, for example.

And asking someone I like more than someone else to pick up my pet puppy is not the same like an employer asking workers to open their briefcases or take tests because they might have smoked a cigarette at home.

I think it is more or less a human dignity, commensurability issue to me. If a guy is suspect to have stolen something, then it is okay if the police searches his briefcase. But a) not the employer and b) not because he might have smoked in his car while driving to work.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 02:44 AM   #46
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
This I agree with...but that's the problem with government-run healthcare. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.
Patently false.

We have state-run health care in Denmark, yet people are increasingly health-conscious.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:20 AM   #47
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by Gulliamo
In most US states this is not a true statement about public companies. Example: "Their business, their right" does not give them the right to avoid the hiring of minorities. Many states have "right to work" laws which prevent this kind of thing. Whether or not it will be enforced when it comes to cigarettes is yet to be seen....
The government does not give us rights. Our rights do not come from them or any human authority. The businesses have the right to do so; it's just being infringed by these government practices.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:24 AM   #48
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by Shera
On the contrary, it appears to me that the company is violating privacy rights and acting illegally.
What privacy rights? It's not like they're spying on people at home. They're requiring them to take a test at work as a condition of employment.

And how are they "acting illegally"?

Quote:
What right do they have to regulate free (vs. enslaved) people's behavior when they are not currently involved in a business transaction with this company (whether it be driving a company truck or calculating some accounting transactions for the company for pay during agreed upon business hours) or to search private property?
A job is a voluntary arrangement between an employer and an employee. Either side has the right to put whatever conditions they want to on this arrangement, and if the other side doesn't agree, the agreement can be terminated. That's all that's going on here. As long as they didn't sign a contract agreeing that they wouldn't do this, they can do it.

Quote:
Often in most communities there are less jobs available then people looking for work.
That's just not true. Short-run, it goes in cycles, with the part of the cycle where there are less jobs than people being the shorter part. Long-run, the economy goes for full employment, and so the number of jobs and the number of people who want them are equal.

As long as, of course, you don't have a government destroying jobs with regulations, the Minimum Wage, licensing laws, zoning, etc...
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:26 AM   #49
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by SezMe
I am responding to the sentence I underlined.

I can think if no greater example of the theoretical correctness of the libertarian view and no greater example of the practical incorrectness of that same view.

There are a number of reasons why this is impossible from a practical view. I will list some, but I am sure there are many more.

One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?

Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry. OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?

And so on ..... This is, IMO, one of the central problems of libertarianism and shanek ignores it with most of his posts. The libertarian solution may be theoretically true (although that is also often not true) but practically it is just plain silly.

Shanek, take my example of 1000 shoe factory workers who have been laid off from factories around the USA. Now, how the hell are they ever going to form a competitive enterprise?
How do you think every other business got started?

Did they pop up fully formed overnight?

Why are smokers incapable of doing what they and everybody else has been doing for hundreds of years?
Jaggy Bunnet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:29 AM   #50
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by SezMe
One problem is information. Suppose I work in a shoe factory and get laid off for smoking. How the hell am I going to find other shoe factory workers who have also been laid off for the same reason?
Start your own shoe store. Most of them will come apply.

Quote:
Another problem is the issue of barriers to entry.
Most of which are government-induced.

Quote:
OK, suppose I find 1000 other workers who have been laid off for smoking. They will be from all over the country (world?). How the hell can they afford the capital to start up a new business?
There will be a number of them laid off in your area; a lot of people smoke. There will be enough of them nearby to make this a going concern.

But you're laboring under a misapprehension...the idea is not, nor is it necessary, to get every single person laid off for smoking. The idea is to start a competing business and try to attract the workers you can. Since you're not requiring that people stop smoking, you will have a larger pool of workers to choose from, putting you at a distinct advantage over your competittion.

Practically, it works. It happens in the real world. Not as often as it would if we didn't have government meddling in businesses, but it does happen. Denying it is just plain silly.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:30 AM   #51
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
My last employer would have fired me the instant he found out I was gay. Should I accept that as part of freedom of the bloody market?
Yes. And you should also accept as part of the freedom of the market your ability to speak out and say what a scumbag he is. Let people know about it. It may attract some of the right-wing loonies, but I have a feeling it will cause him to lose more business than he gains.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:38 AM   #52
Kerberos
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,577
Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
The government does not give us rights. Our rights do not come from them or any human authority.
Where do they come from then? Little green aliens? The tooth fairy? Or perhaps they're writen in the stars? Please provide evidence.
Kerberos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:46 AM   #53
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Don't feed the derail please.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 05:52 AM   #54
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
What if it were a black business owner who fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK and burning crosses in his own time? Would you still be outraged?
Good comparison.



It would not break my heart if this happened personally, but the idea of trying to dictate someone's lifestyle away from work is absurd. If you want to jack up their health care costs if they smoke, that's one thing. But if it doesn't affect their work or other's work (ie they're not smoking in the office etc)....I can't even believe it's legal.
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:02 AM   #55
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kerberos
Where do they come from then? Little green aliens? The tooth fairy? Or perhaps they're writen in the stars? Please provide evidence.
As I have explained to you numerous times, they come from our own intellect, the fact that we are able to evaluate decisions and be responsible for their outcome.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:04 AM   #56
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
It would not break my heart if this happened personally, but the idea of trying to dictate someone's lifestyle away from work is absurd. If you want to jack up their health care costs if they smoke, that's one thing. But if it doesn't affect their work or other's work (ie they're not smoking in the office etc)....I can't even believe it's legal.
Are you saying that, by default, all human behavior should be criminalized unless it's specifically sanctioned by law?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:21 AM   #57
Kerberos
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
Don't feed the derail please.
You're right. sorry, I'll cease and desist. I can always tkae this fight with Shanke on a more appropriate thread.
Kerberos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:35 AM   #58
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Then how did you interpret the phrase, "how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock"? To me, that smacks of a demand for government intervention.
Shane, here is the whole paragraph:
Quote:
The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.
So clearly, without cherry-picking, the phrase is simply an accurate observation. Baker even followed it up with both sides' positions in relation to such answers. Yes, it does smack of people wanting government intervention, but not from the poster or any one else on the DB (which is Nyarlathotep's original point you were refuting).
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:47 AM   #59
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
So clearly, without cherry-picking, the phrase is simply an accurate observation. Baker even followed it up with both sides' positions in relation to such answers. Yes, it does smack of people wanting government intervention, but not from the poster or any one else on the DB (which is Nyarlathotep's original point you were refuting).
Okay, perhaps I misread it.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:52 AM   #60
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Are you saying that, by default, all human behavior should be criminalized unless it's specifically sanctioned by law?
Is that supposed to make any sense at all?

I think what I was saying was clear.
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 06:58 AM   #61
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
The government does not give us rights. Our rights do not come from them or any human authority. The businesses have the right to do so; it's just being infringed by these government practices.
This simply isn't true. Check the Constitution for starters The gov't in fact outlines and enforces a wide variety of rights, which in fact they've increased over the years. Of course it works both ways, as they also restict our rights in various ways as well.

But since smoking is quite legal, I don't see how (legally, never mind logically or morally) a company can get away with denying someone a job or even firing them for smoking, UNLESS they can show it impacts the company in a direct, negative way...and "we don't like it" doesn't exactly qualify. Even then it could be debatable, depending on the specifics.
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:02 AM   #62
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
Is that supposed to make any sense at all?
I'm asking which way you think it should be: that anything not specifically made illegal is legal, or anything not specifically legalized is illegal?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:04 AM   #63
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
This simply isn't true. Check the Constitution for starters
1) The Constitution came from the people, not the government. 2) The Constitution does not grant rights. Read it. All rights are assumed to already be in existance. It doesn't give us the rights; it specifically prohibits the government from infringing on them.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:06 AM   #64
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Being fat is quite legal..being left handed is legal...being ugly is legal...being less smart is legal...
And employers are allowed to choose smart, attractive, slim, right handed employees all day long.

They are also allowed to choose non-smokers.

And they are allowed to fire employees who lie about a condition of employment.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:14 AM   #65
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Like I said in the other thread. Stuff like this is crap. This guy should be sued and be put out of business. This is not a feudal state, you are not the property of your boss, therefore, the boss has absolutely no right dictating your personal behavior, it's really as simple as that.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:23 AM   #66
Beth
Philosopher
 
Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And if all of them decide they won't hire pipe smokers?

Well, you can give that up.

What about if they decide not to hire anyone who ever smoked a pipe?

Good thing Libertarians believe in welfare, eh? Whoops!
Maybe all those pipe smokers could band together and open a speakeasy (an illegal bar) where people can both smoke and drink. That'll get them off the streets anyway!

Beth
Beth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:23 AM   #67
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Like I said in the other thread. Stuff like this is crap. This guy should be sued and be put out of business. This is not a feudal state, you are not the property of your boss, therefore, the boss has absolutely no right dictating your personal behavior, it's really as simple as that.
He is not dictating your personal behaviour. You are perfectly free to choose to smoke or to choose to work for him. You just can't choose both.
Jaggy Bunnet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:26 AM   #68
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
He is not dictating your personal behaviour. You are perfectly free to choose to smoke or to choose to work for him. You just can't choose both.
Hence, he's dictating personal behavior. Your post is classic double-speak.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:28 AM   #69
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
As I have explained to you numerous times, they come from our own intellect, the fact that we are able to evaluate decisions and be responsible for their outcome.
Really? You argued the exact opposite point here:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, where do they come from? God? Or are they natural laws?
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
For the fiftieth time, it doesn't matter, so long as the rights are considered to exist outside any human authority. No government can grant them or take them away. And neither can any international authority. We have these rights because we have the ability to make decisions, act upon them, and be responsible for their consequences.
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
If the rights exist outside any human authority, who gave them to us? How did they come into existence?
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No one. We just have them. As I have said to you time and time again, and said so in the very post you just replied to, we have them because we are capable of making a choice, carrying out, and accepting the consequences.
Source
I asked you who are considering them, but you never answered. Now you have: Rights are a social construct.

And any social construct can, of course, be changed. They do not exist outside any human authority.

But you also say that they do.

I'm confused. Or, maybe you are.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:35 AM   #70
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm confused. Or, maybe you are.
It's cognitive dissonance. It's his way of both wanting personal rights and totalitarian capitalism (aka the mythical freemarket), which as this case shows, is impossible. Unbridled private power is just as much a danger to freedom as government power.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:39 AM   #71
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
While I do support the right of employers to hire or not hire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish (not counting the anti discrimination laws) I do have a problem with the testing.

I can support drug testing for safety reasons for some jobs such as those that involve driving, operating dangerous machinery etc, but I don't see that someone who smokes cigarettes at home poses any safety risk to anyone.

I also don't like this indiscriminate testing, I think what is inside a person's body is not something that ought to be subject to searches without due process. I don't believe the coercion of employment is a justifiable reason to require someone to waive rights over what is in their body.

The interior of the employee's home is not subject to a search, why should the inside of their body be?
username is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:43 AM   #72
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Hence, he's dictating personal behavior. Your post is classic double-speak.
You have no more a right to work for him than he has a right to force you to do so.

You have the choice of whether he is the sort of person you want to work for, he has the choice of whether you are the sort of person he wants to employ.

Both of you have freedom of choice. Nobody is dictating to anybody. What you want is a right to choose your employer without the employer having a similar right as to who he chooses to employ. It is YOU who proposes giving someone the ability to dictate anothers behavior, not me.
Jaggy Bunnet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:43 AM   #73
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally posted by geni
Don't unions exist in the US?
Yes, but their power varies from state to state.
__________________
Why stay sane in a sick world?
Nyarlathotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:47 AM   #74
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Like I said in the other thread. Stuff like this is crap. This guy should be sued and be put out of business. This is not a feudal state, you are not the property of your boss, therefore, the boss has absolutely no right dictating your personal behavior, it's really as simple as that.
He is not dictating your behavior away from work...he is testing to see if you lied about a condition of employment.

In the nanny state, the government/courts would step in and force the mean old boss man to hire and keep any employee who wanted the job...

But thankfully, we don't live in the kind of totalitarian state that Tony is rooting for, where working hard to own a business means that you check all of your rights at the door, and let the government run your company into the ground with employees you don't want forced down your throat.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:55 AM   #75
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You have no more a right to work for him than he has a right to force you to do so.

You have the choice of whether he is the sort of person you want to work for, he has the choice of whether you are the sort of person he wants to employ.
I agree with you in theory, just not in practice.

First, there is rarely an equality of power in employment negotiations. An employment contract is a negotiation. For negotiations to be fair an equality of power needs to be present.

Second, I believe the role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. Individuals have a right to privacy in terms of searches of their home, body and personal effects. To allow an employer who has more power in the negotiation than the employee to require the employee to waive those rights is something I believe government has an obligation to prevent.

Third, I think there are limits as to what information an employer has a right to know about the employee. Whether or not one smokes is not material to how good or bad an employee will be.

Lastly, requiring smokers to pay a higher premium for their health insurance is always an option.

I simply don't see any valid reason for an employer to be able to test/search anyone to find out if they are smoking anymore than I believe an employer has the right to know how many sexual partners the employee has had, or whether they enjoy getting tied up and whipped in the bedroom.

An employer can say 'no sex on the job' just as they can say 'no smoking on company time'. That is fair.

Peeking into their private time is not fair nor do I believe it ought to be legal.
username is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 07:58 AM   #76
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally posted by Shera
Or sharecroppers.

Just one more reason why heath insurance should be directly purchased by the end consumers, employers should have absolutely no part in this transaction.
Actually, I don't think that employer sponsored health insurance as part of a benefit package is such a bad idea. Generally, your employer can get you on a group plan that gives you much more insurance for the same amount of money than the employee can generally get on his own.

So the employer is giving something to the employee that is worth much more to that employee than it costs the employer to provide it. i.e. The ability to get insurance that costs $400/month that would cost the employee $600/month to buy on his own might be worth $200 to the employee, witht the employer mostly paying administrative costs. So the employee gets insurance $200/month cheaper and the employer has found a way to make his pay & benefits package $200/month more attractive so it seems pretty win-win to me.
__________________
Why stay sane in a sick world?
Nyarlathotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 08:00 AM   #77
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,684
This just seems weird to me.

I've worked for a fair number of companies, from a stuffy 100-plus-year-old financial institution to small IT startups. I just can't picture any of them having the sheer chutzpah to try something like this. Even those who declared the "right" to conduct random drug screenings never actually employed it.

But then, I'm one of those guys who's hostile to office dress codes; if a company I worked at came out with a policy like this, I'd look for a new job ASAP. And I don't even smoke.

(Of course, the company I work at now is pretty lax. There was an incident around the time I started where an employee was smoking a joint in the parking garage--it got caught on security camera. He received a stern warning not to do it on camera again.)
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 08:01 AM   #78
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
I'm asking which way you think it should be: that anything not specifically made illegal is legal, or anything not specifically legalized is illegal?
I get the impression I'm being baited, but wtf I'll answer anyway....

If you're talking in a strict sense ie the "specifically" part: neither. For ex. it isn't SPECIFICALLY laid out anywhere (excluding maybe some obscure local law) that it's illegal to whack somebody's ear off, but clearly that's illegal under more general terms of assault or what have you.
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 08:03 AM   #79
Glacian
Student
 
Glacian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Oh, yes, that's worked so well with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine...and it worked so well for alcohol in the '20s...
Well, alcohol won't remain in your system so random drug tests at work wouldn't do smack for that, and they, for the most part, can do a fairly decent job in testing people for coke and marijuana in the work place - how about tobacco? I don't think this is a fair comparison because, while illegalizing it wouldn't stop people from growing tobacco in their own yards or that sort of thing, it would effectively justify companies putting it under their "no tolerance" drug policies, testing for it, and firing people who show up positive.

That would pretty much solve the problem here, it'd just open its own can of worms. Personally though, I think it's a can of worms worth opening. To hell with cigarettes, they don't do anyone any good and I'd bet the main reason most people smoke is simply because they are incapable or haven't put forth sufficient effort to quit. Nearly every smoker I've known has mentioned dozens of times "Oh...I'm going to quit..." "Oh...I know it's bad for me..." If people think they have the "right" and "free will" to smoke, i cast serious doubt on that when they have an addiction as strong as a cigarette addiction.
Glacian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2005, 08:10 AM   #80
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You have no more a right to work for him than he has a right to force you to do so.
Wrong on both counts. Let's look at them one-by-one.

Quote:
You have no more a right to work for him
I have the right to work for anyone I want, just as I have the right to own a $50,000,000 masion. Do I have the qualifications to work for anyone and everyone? Do I have $50,000,000? No, but that doesn't change the fact that I have the right to those things.

Quote:
than he has a right to force you to do so
Since when? I was under the impression that employers did have the right to tell you what to do on the job.

Quote:
You have the choice of whether he is the sort of person you want to work for.
Not really, it's his company, he's the boss. Since when are employees able to fired their bosses?

Quote:
he has the choice of whether you are the sort of person he wants to employ.
No he doesn't. He can't choose not to hire me if I'm a black guy, he can't choose not to hire me because of my religion. He can't fire me for having kids, or going to the bathroom, getting married, reading certain books.

Quote:
Both of you have freedom of choice.
Yes, we do. I (and he) can choose to smoke, he (and I) can choose whether he (we) wants to run a business or not.

Quote:
Nobody is dictating to anybody.
Yes, he is.

Main Entry: 1dic·tate
Pronunciation: 'dik-"tAt, dik-'
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dic·tat·ed; dic·tat·ing
Etymology: Latin dictatus, past participle of dictare to assert, dictate, frequentative of dicere to say -- more at DICTION
intransitive senses
1 : to give dictation
2 : to speak or act domineeringly : PRESCRIBE
transitive senses
1 : to speak or read for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record
2 a : to issue as an order b : to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c : to require or determine necessarily <injuries dictated the choice of players>

Quote:
What you want is a right to choose your employer without the employer having a similar right as to who he chooses to employ.
No, I don't. I want the harmless personal freedom of every citizen to be upheld.

Quote:
It is YOU who proposes giving someone the ability to dictate anothers behavior, not me.
That's a lie. I never once said the employer couldn't smoke/read/have kids/get married/ or do anything he wants while not on the clock. I suppose you're now going to say that because I think an employer shouldn't be able to rape his employees that I am dictating his behavior.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.