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 13th May 2005, 08:11 AM   #81
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
1) The Constitution came from the people, not the government.
No it didn't. Our government leaders sat down and wrote the Constitution. Sure the people voted on it, but it did not "come from" them - in fact, many (probably even the majority) of the people didn't even get to vote on it.


Quote:
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.
This is at best semantical nit-picking, if not outright wrong in at least some cases. It gets down to the same thing. If you prefer "the gov't ENSURES our rights" vs "gives" them to us, fine, whatever.

And some rights WERE granted, and certainly not assumed to be in existance.....if they even existed at all. The rights of slaves and women's right to vote, for example.
bigred is online now   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, 08:12 AM   #82
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by username
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.
I assume you mean that this is the way you *wish* it were? Because I certainly can't find anything in the US Constitution, and relevant court rulings that supports these privacy rights you mention...as related to an employer.

The government can protect you from searches by the *government*...but if you want to carry stuff into someone else's property, the government isn't going to stop them from setting rules and requirements to stay there, unless they cross certain lines (as mentioned before, race, gender, etc.) where the greater good outweighs the individual rights of the employer.

So how is it to the greater good for employers to be forced to hire/keep people that they find unsuitable for the job?
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, 08:13 AM   #83
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
[b]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.
This is also an oversimplification. If they deny someone a job because they are ugly, fat, etc etc, they better have more than "we don't like it" as a reason, or they will likely find themselves in court trying to explain how such discrimination is legal.

Quote:
They are also allowed to choose non-smokers.
Likewise.

Quote:
And they are allowed to fire employees who lie about a condition of employment.
That is certainly true, but different than what we're talking about here.
bigred is online now   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, 08:13 AM   #84
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
He is not dictating your behavior away from work...he is testing to see if you lied about a condition of employment.
Nice dodge.

Quote:
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...
No, in the nanny state. The government would permit the firing of someone because they did something "unhealthy".

Quote:
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
You want the totalitarian state. You want the employee to check his personal, constitution and human rights at the door.
__________________
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, 08:14 AM   #85
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Whether or not one smokes is not material to how good or bad an employee will be.
That is simply not true.

Smokers are more likely to be off sick: "Generally smokers have 25 per cent more sick days year than non-smokers." Source: http://www2.netdoctor.co.uk/health_a...mokehealth.htm

And are more likely to die before retirement age meaning that amounts invested in training are likely to give less return. Source: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pearl1938.htm
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, 08:21 AM   #86
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
That is simply not true.

Smokers are more likely to be off sick: "Generally smokers have 25 per cent more sick days year than non-smokers." Source: http://www2.netdoctor.co.uk/health_a...mokehealth.htm

And are more likely to die before retirement age meaning that amounts invested in training are likely to give less return. Source: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pearl1938.htm

This is irrelevant. Employees are not property. What you're talking about logically leads to the employer being able to dictate the employee's diet, their lifestyle, how many kids they have (aka stress level), and their general personal 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
Old 13th May 2005, 08:31 AM   #87
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Wrong on both counts. Let's look at them one-by-one.



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.


If you think you have a right to work for anyone you want, you are deluded. Try going to court and getting them to enforce your "right" to work for someone who does not want to employ you.

Quote:
Since when? I was under the impression that employers did have the right to tell you what to do on the job.
This is pathetic. An employer cannot force you to take a job. If you choose to enter into a contract with him, then he is entitled to expect you to fulfill the contract, in exactly the same way as you are entitled to expect him to fulfill the contract by paying you. Completing a freely entered into contract does not amount to a right to force you to enter into a contract.

Quote:
Not really, it's his company, he's the boss. Since when are employees able to fired their bosses?
They do it all the time. It's called resigning. You are free to choose NOT to work for him.

Quote:
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.
There are certain restrictions placed on his rights - protecting smokers is not one of them, therefore he IS free to choose not to hire you.

Quote:
No, I don't. I want the harmless personal freedom of every citizen to be upheld.
No you don't - you do not want the employing citizen to have the same rights as the employed citizen. You only want rights for certain people, not everyone.

Quote:
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.
Utterly pathetic, but when you have no serious point to make I am not surprised you resort to irrelevant nonsense. You want to dictate to the employer the type of people he can employ by FORCING him to employ smokers whether he wants to or not.
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, 08:38 AM   #88
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
This is also an oversimplification. If they deny someone a job because they are ugly, fat, etc etc, they better have more than "we don't like it" as a reason, or they will likely find themselves in court trying to explain how such discrimination is legal.

People can sue for anything...and courts throw claims out all the time....
Employers only need to rebut prima facie claims of racism, sexism ,etc.

Can you link to a successful court case where an employer was forced to hire a 400 pound jockey, or a smelly salesman, or a smoking employee, when no other factors such as race, were proven to be behind the choice?

It is the employer's call as to what they are looking for, the courts don't force them to be 'fair' and hire people they don't want (with the exceptions as noted).


That is certainly true, but different than what we're talking about here.
That is exactly what we are talking about.

The employer has the right to set conditions of employment, as long as they aren't a pretext for *illegal* discrimination...
And there is nothing illegal about preferences regarding employees who smoke, stay in shape, etc.

Once the employee agrees to those conditions, by either accepting or asking to keep their job, the employer has the right to see if the employee is lying about that 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, 08:40 AM   #89
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
This is irrelevant. Employees are not property. What you're talking about logically leads to the employer being able to dictate the employee's diet, their lifestyle, how many kids they have (aka stress level), and their general personal behavior.
The claim was that whether or not one smokes was immaterial to how good an employee they would be.

Providing evidence that a smoker is likely to take more time off and work for less years is entirely relevant to that argument.

Employers can and do ask about previous sickness record. Why do you think they do that if not to get information on how often an employee is likely to be absent?
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, 08:45 AM   #90
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
This is irrelevant. Employees are not property. What you're talking about logically leads to the employer being able to dictate the employee's diet, their lifestyle, how many kids they have (aka stress level), and their general personal behavior.
No kidding....

But the *workplace* is property, which you are calling for the government to steal from the employer and turn over to anyone who wants to work there.

Obviously there are extreme examples which surpass the employer's rights...

But you are calling for the basic rights of the employer to hire whom they want, *and* to define his or her own political economy, to be stripped away by the government.

stat·ism
Pronunciation: 'stA-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=statism

stat·ist
Pronunciation: 'stA-tist
Function: noun
: an advocate of statism.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=statist

Busted.
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, 08:56 AM   #91
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If you think you have a right to work for anyone you want, you are deluded. Try going to court and getting them to enforce your "right" to work for someone who does not want to employ you.
Ad hom noted.

Quote:
This is pathetic. An employer cannot force you to take a job. If you choose to enter into a contract with him, then he is entitled to expect you to fulfill the contract
Any evidence that the employees in the case at hand entered into a contract, upon being hired, with the employer saying they wouldn't smoke?

In fact, do you have any evidence that most people who get jobs sign and enter into a contract?

Quote:
in exactly the same way as you are entitled to expect him to fulfill the contract by paying you.
No, him paying me has nothing to do with the contract (if there even was one). It has to do with his obligation under the law and my right to get paid for my work.

Quote:
Completing a freely entered into contract does not amount to a right to force you to enter into a contract.
Until you provide evidence, this "contract" stuff is bogus.

Quote:
They do it all the time. It's called resigning.
Bwahahahahaha. So "resigning" is the same thing as firing the boss?

Quote:
You are free to choose NOT to work for him.
No you're not, especially if you have other obligations the money made from that job depends on. Unless you are independently wealthy, NO ONE is free not to work. Unless you're advocating a massive welfare state with tons of benefits?

Quote:
There are certain restrictions placed on his rights - protecting smokers is not one of them.
This isn't about "protecting smokers". That's your problem, you can't grasp the bigger picture.

Quote:
No you don't - you do not want the employing citizen to have the same rights as the employed citizen.
More lying. I want the employer to have the same rights as the citizen. I want the employer to be able to smoke/drink/ do whatever he wants while not on the job. THE EXACT SAME AS THE EMPLOYEE.

Quote:
You only want rights for certain people, not everyone.
No, that's you. You want the employer to have the power to reach into, and interfere with, the personal lives of the employees. You're advocating social engineering via the work place.

Quote:
You want to dictate to the employer the type of people he can employ by FORCING him to employ smokers whether he wants to or not.


So? Dealing with different people is part of living in a free society. He doesn't like it? He can move to Saudi Arabia where slavery is legal and where he can order his slaves not to smoke. You think business interests supercede and override personal freedom, I don't. I think employers should be able to smoke/drink/watch movies/have sex/ do anything they want, just like the employees. You don't, you think the employer should have the power to nullify the personal rights of the general citizen. That's our main difference.
__________________
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, 09:02 AM   #92
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
No kidding....

But the *workplace* is property, which you are calling for the government to steal from the employer and turn over to anyone who wants to work there.
Liar. I've never called for the government to steal the property from the employer.

But you're right, the workplace is property. I have no problem with the owner saying someone can't smoke on his property. Ya know what? The body is also property, so is the home. The owner of the workplace has no business dictating to the owner of the body and the home what goes on in the home or the body.

Quote:
But you are calling for the basic rights of the employer to hire whom they want, *and* to define his or her own political economy, to be stripped away by the government.
No, I'm not. This is a strawman. I'm calling for the government to do it's job and protect the personal rights of the people.

Quote:
stat·ism
Pronunciation: 'stA-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=statism

stat·ist
Pronunciation: 'stA-tist
Function: noun
: an advocate of statism.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=statist

Busted.
Strawman.
__________________
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, 09:07 AM   #93
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
The claim was that whether or not one smokes was immaterial to how good an employee they would be.
For which you have yet to provide evidence. More sick time and death before retirement do not effect on the job performace.

Quote:
Providing evidence that a smoker is likely to take more time off and work for less years is entirely relevant to that argument.
Not really. Unless you can show how that effects their performance?

Quote:
Why do you think they do that if not to get information on how often an employee is likely to be absent?
They do it because they don't look at an employee as a human, but a thing.
__________________
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, 09:13 AM   #94
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch

So how is it to the greater good for employers to be forced to hire/keep people that they find unsuitable for the job?
I think you need to demonstrate how a person's suitability for a job is affected by whether or not the employee smokes tobacco off the job.

I understand that employers need to have the right to determine who they hire/retain for very valid business reasons and I support that.

I don't see how whether one smokes on their own time is relevant to the person's suitability for employment anymore than their skin color or sexual preferences are.

I mean the argument (which I believe is fictitious) has been made that smokers cost the company money in terms of insurance. Well, being a gay male makes one more likely than a hetero male to get aids and require expensive, long term medical care. Should employers then have a right to know the sexual orientation of employees? Should employers have the right to require their gay male employees to strip down and bend over so their anus can be inspected for tearing as proof they aren't having anal sex?

Blacks are shown to be more susceptible to various illnesses/diseases at a younger age than many other races which could cost the health care system more, should this be a reason to discard laws against racial discrimination in hiring practices?

We routinely make exceptions to an employer's ability to hire/fire on a whim or predjudice, but we do allow employers to discriminate on the basis of a person being unsuitable for a position.

This get's back my point, I don't see how a person being a smoker or not on their own time is a valid business concern.

You are welcome to present me with reasons why smoking status is relevant though.
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, 09:25 AM   #95
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
That is simply not true.

Smokers are more likely to be off sick: "Generally smokers have 25 per cent more sick days year than non-smokers." Source: http://www2.netdoctor.co.uk/health_a...mokehealth.htm

First, I doubt this is actually true. The link makes this claim, but they don't provide a citation to any actual study that shows this. I suspect if we knew the actual study such claims are based upon we would find the study questionable. Regardless such a problem is easy to deal with even if true, limit the number of sick days one may have before termination becomes an option for the employer. There are many reasons a person might be out sick more than someone else.


Quote:
And are more likely to die before retirement age meaning that amounts invested in training are likely to give less return. Source: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pearl1938.htm
Well, if that is the case the company saves a boat load since they don't have to pay retirement benefits. I found this source dubious as well since they showed a difference in the death rate for 35 year olds. A chain smoker who started at the age of 12 isn't likely to die from a tobacco related cause that early.

With respect to your links, neither one amounts to more than hearsay since they aren't linked to any credible research. The data in the last cite is from 1938 and right on the site it says that the CDC (a very political organization) claims a 13 year lifespan reduction for male smokers. That would seem to put most smokers dying *after* retirement so no loss to the training budget.
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, 09:36 AM   #96
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by username
I think you need to demonstrate how a person's suitability for a job is affected by whether or not the employee smokes tobacco off the job.

I understand that employers need to have the right to determine who they hire/retain for very valid business reasons and I support that.

I don't see how whether one smokes on their own time is relevant to the person's suitability for employment anymore than their skin color or sexual preferences are.

I mean the argument (which I believe is fictitious) has been made that smokers cost the company money in terms of insurance. Well, being a gay male makes one more likely than a hetero male to get aids and require expensive, long term medical care. Should employers then have a right to know the sexual orientation of employees? Should employers have the right to require their gay male employees to strip down and bend over so their anus can be inspected for tearing as proof they aren't having anal sex?

Blacks are shown to be more susceptible to various illnesses/diseases at a younger age than many other races which could cost the health care system more, should this be a reason to discard laws against racial discrimination in hiring practices?

We routinely make exceptions to an employer's ability to hire/fire on a whim or predjudice, but we do allow employers to discriminate on the basis of a person being unsuitable for a position.

This get's back my point, I don't see how a person being a smoker or not on their own time is a valid business concern.

You are welcome to present me with reasons why smoking status is relevant though.
It doesn't have to be relevant...it only has to be the employer's whim, which, as you mention, is the employer's right.

And no, we do not routinely make exceptions to the right of someone to exercise their whims on their own private property, it has to be proven in court that there is a compelling reason to strip someone of their rights.

In the case of race and employment, the courts used tests, including past harm.

In the case of women, the courts balanced competing rights.

This thread has been going on since January...
On this board full of legal experts, will someone please show me the links to a relevant case where the rights of employees to be fat, or smelly, or to smoke, were given that sort of protected status?
Because last I checked, the courts had been unsympathetic to the arguments being presented here.

If things have changed in that regard, I'd like to learn about it.
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, 09:56 AM   #97
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
No it didn't. Our government leaders sat down and wrote the Constitution. Sure the people voted on it, but it did not "come from" them - in fact, many (probably even the majority) of the people didn't even get to vote on it.
Not "probably". Read and weep:

Population, 1790 Census

Virginia: 747,550
South Carolina: 249,073
New York: 340,241
Rhode Island: 69,112
Georgia: 82,548
Connecticut: 237,655
New Hampshire: 141,899
Pennsylvania: 433,611
Massachusetts: 378,556
North Carolina: 395,005
New Jersey: 184,139
Delaware: 59,096
Maryland: 319,728

Total: 3,638,213

White male population 16 and over, 1790 Census

Virginia: 110,936
South Carolina: 35,576
New York: 83,815
Rhode Island: 16,056
Georgia: 13,103
Connecticut: 60,739
New Hampshire: 36,074
Pennsylvania: 110,559
Massachusetts: 95,433
North Carolina: 70,172
New Jersey: 45,251
Delaware: 11,783
Maryland: 55,915

Total: 745,412

Source

Now, only white men over 21 who owned property could vote in 1787, but let's be generous and include all white men 16 and over, since that's what we have data for.

That accounts for 20% of the whole population.

So, you have a Constitution, written by very few people, voted on by a minority of the people.

Explain to me why this is not TYRANNY???
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, 09:57 AM   #98
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
It doesn't have to be relevant...it only has to be the employer's whim, which, as you mention, is the employer's right.
I didn't argue that it was on a whim. I argued against that position.

Quote:
And no, we do not routinely make exceptions to the right of someone to exercise their whims on their own private property, it has to be proven in court that there is a compelling reason to strip someone of their rights.

In the case of race and employment, the courts used tests, including past harm.

In the case of women, the courts balanced competing rights.
So you are saying in order for someone's rights to be violated there has to be a legal test that shows there is just cause for violating the right?

Quote:
This thread has been going on since January...
On this board full of legal experts, will someone please show me the links to a relevant case where the rights of employees to be fat, or smelly, or to smoke, were given that sort of protected status?
I think you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. Above you argued that rights couldn't be violated unless legal tests determined it was acceptable, in other words due process had been followed. Here you appear to argue the opposite, that rights can be violated unless a legal test has been applied and shows why the individual may retain the right.

Quote:
Because last I checked, the courts had been unsympathetic to the arguments being presented here.
In the early days of racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination the courts weren't on the right side either. Again, people have the right to privacy as it concerns what they do on their own time with their bodies. I do believe the courts have upheld this view. The exception has been illegal drug use. Tobacco is legal.

Whence comes the right to search an employee for evidence of engaging in legal activity in order to make an employment decision?

Again, let's require homosexual males to strip and spread their butt cheeks while we are invading other employee's privacy. So as to not be discriminatory against gays we could just have employers require all men to bend over. Anal sex is a high risk activity and could cost the company lost productivity, lost training dollars, pre retirement death of the employee and all sorts of other really awful things.

The employer has as much right to know if you put cigarettes in your mouth as they do to know if you take dick up your butt.

For the record, an employer prohibitting anal sex isn't prohibitting anyone from being gay, it is just prohibitting an activity known to be more dangerous than other activities. And besides, it is a voluntary contract right? Employers should have this right.

Face it, we aren't a very tolerant culture, we just change the group we are intolerant of from time to time. Presently the zeitgeist is that it is acceptable and even fashionable to be intolerant of smokers, even when they limit their smoking to their private time, in their own home.

That is intolerant to an extreme.
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, 10:13 AM   #99
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
think you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. Above you argued that rights couldn't be violated unless legal tests determined it was acceptable, in other words due process had been followed. Here you appear to argue the opposite, that rights can be violated unless a legal test has been applied and shows why the individual may retain the right.

Uhhmmm... You've crossed the line from discourse to debate tactics...you are making up things I never said, and then arguing against them.

There is a term for that that escapes me at the moment...something to do with a farm perhaps?

I very clearly said that you can't take away the rights of the *employer* without due process.

Then I asked for links to evidence either that such process had already happened, or that there was a court recognized right to smoke.

Let me know when you have some facts to review and discuss.
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, 10:34 AM   #100
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch

Uhhmmm... You've crossed the line from discourse to debate tactics...you are making up things I never said, and then arguing against them.

There is a term for that that escapes me at the moment...something to do with a farm perhaps?

I very clearly said that you can't take away the rights of the *employer* without due process.
I may have misunderstood your argument. Please don't assume that a misunderstanding means I am resorting to dishonest tactics.

Quote:
Then I asked for links to evidence either that such process had already happened, or that there was a court recognized right to smoke.

Let me know when you have some facts to review and discuss.
I think I provided a fair analogy with anal sex.

Anal sex is high risk behavior. Smoking is high risk behavior.

Anal sex is legal, but risky. Smoking is legal, but risky.

Getting cancer can be costly to treat. Getting HIV can be costly to treat. Those who smoke may have a reduced life expectancy. Those with HIV may have reduced life expectancy.

IF a company has the right to inspect the body of employees to determine if the high risk behavior of smoking has been engaged in, does the company also have the right to inspect the buttholes of it's employees to determine if they have engaged in anal intercourse?

If you answer no, please show me the court decision supporting your view.

I do support the right of an employer to forbid smoking on their property. I do support the right of an employer to charge a higher insurance premium to employees who engage in high risk behaviors.

I do not believe any right exists for an employer to know what legal activities an employee engages in on his own time and off company property.
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, 10:38 AM   #101
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
So, you have no links to any facts, but think that dredging up an extreme example and demanding that I provide court cites for your strawman, isn't dishonest?

You've made the extreme assertions here, you provide the evidence.

And while you are at it...Grow up.
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, 10:42 AM   #102
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch

Then I asked for links to evidence either that such process had already happened, or that there was a court recognized right to smoke.

Let me know when you have some facts to review and discuss.
I wanted to respond to this part of your post seperately.

The court recognized right to smoke is that it is legal to smoke.

The courts acknowledge this in their absence of cases finding people guilty of smoking.

Think about the underlying issue here. We are taking employer hiring rights to an extreme. We are basically saying an employer can not only hire/fire anyone for any reason they want, but that they can also require employees to submit to *tests* to ensure they aren't engaged in the prohibitted activity. Legal activities.

Legal has to be emphasized. In the case of women, gays and minorites the courts have said the employer doesn't have the right to base hiring decisions on such factors. Why not? Because the right of the gay, female, or other minority to be treated equally with others trumps the right of the employer to discriminate.

Why should a smoker not have the same rights to be free of unreasonable discrimination as the butt boofers?
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, 10:43 AM   #103
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
So, you have no links to any facts, but think that dredging up an extreme example and demanding that I provide court cites for your strawman, isn't dishonest?

You've made the extreme assertions here, you provide the evidence.

And while you are at it...Grow up.
Ok, so you have now twice insulted me while not adding anything to the discussion.

Discussion (with you) is over.
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, 11:00 AM   #104
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Ok, so you have now twice insulted me while not adding anything to the discussion.

Discussion (with you) is over.
Crimeresearch is trash, there's no need to care about his opinion.

As an aside, I think you make an interesting point with your anal sex analogy. You could also add the other high risk behaviors of playing football, lifting weights, driving a car, going outside in the air pollution, eating raw oysters, unprotected sex, playing pool, going to the beach, flying on a plane, I could go on and on, you get the point. If firing for engaging in high-risk behaviors like smoking is fair game, then it logically follows that firing for any high-risk behavior is fair game. In fact, since everything has an element of risk, you could get fired for anything other than sitting in one spot and doing nothing.
__________________
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, 11:15 AM   #105
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
If firing for engaging in high-risk behaviors like smoking is fair game, then it logically follows that firing for any high-risk behavior is fair game. In fact, since everything has an element of risk, you could get fired for anything other than sitting in one spot and doing nothing.
Boy, am I glad that you can see the point I was trying to make. I always wonder if I am just incredibly unclear or what when I have problems with someone I am discussing matters with.

There is a fundamental trouble I have with the view of those that believe it is acceptable for an employer to make smoking a condition of employment.

Smoking is simply one of many, legal, private behaviors that are simply nobody's business. Whether I engage in anal sex, football or skydiving is none of your business and whether you engage in these activities is none of my business.

Allowing employers to require employees to submit to tests to determine if they are engaging in legal behaviors is to give way too much power to the employer.

I do support the employer being able to govern what takes place on his own property or what the employee does while on company time.

That is where the employer's rights end and the individuals begin. If I am not on the employer's time or property I want to know where the employer gets the right to to regulate my private, legal behavior or subject me to tests as a condition of employment.

Generally this kind of behavior would be viewed as unreasonable. It only becomes reasonable when done to smokers because there is a lot of intolerance toward smokers. If we did it to other people for other behaviors there would be public outrage.
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, 11:22 AM   #106
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
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.
I disagree. In such an arrangement, both parties want something that the other one has. With the system in equilibrium, this will most certainly be an equality of "power." The ony way the system can get out of equilibrium (at least, for very long) is government intervention.

Quote:
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.
But implicit in this is the ability to waive your rights. A right that cannot be waived is no right at all. By accepting employment there, you are accepting the conditions the employer is putting on you. If you don't like that, then either negotiate an employment contract that has more acceptable conditions to you or go elsewhere.

Quote:
I simply don't see any valid reason for...
Our rights are not contingent on whether or not we have a "valid reason" for exercising them. Who decides what reasons are valid?
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, 11:23 AM   #107
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
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.
Funny; every time I had such benefits, they always cost 2-3 times as much as I could get on my own. Of course, they covered things such as chiropractic...
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, 11:25 AM   #108
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 6,843
Touching the OP

Weyco handles the billing for my health insurance company. I’m pleased to hear that they’re taking a hard-a$$ stand against smoking, and making it scary by firing smokers if they catch them.

Smokers will someday become outcasts, breeding only among themselves and dwindling into a small band of malformed wretches hacking and spitting their way to oblivion. Even Europeans may get wise eventually.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett 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, 11:25 AM   #109
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
I get the impression I'm being baited, but wtf I'll answer anyway....
No, it's an honest question. Your post implied the latter.

Quote:
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.
Consider that assault includes things like cutting off ears. And also include the common law. What is your answer?
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, 11:30 AM   #110
Phrost
The Fighting Skeptic
 
Phrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Boy, am I glad that you can see the point I was trying to make. I always wonder if I am just incredibly unclear or what when I have problems with someone I am discussing matters with.

There is a fundamental trouble I have with the view of those that believe it is acceptable for an employer to make smoking a condition of employment.

Smoking is simply one of many, legal, private behaviors that are simply nobody's business. Whether I engage in anal sex, football or skydiving is none of your business and whether you engage in these activities is none of my business.

Allowing employers to require employees to submit to tests to determine if they are engaging in legal behaviors is to give way too much power to the employer.

I do support the employer being able to govern what takes place on his own property or what the employee does while on company time.

That is where the employer's rights end and the individuals begin. If I am not on the employer's time or property I want to know where the employer gets the right to to regulate my private, legal behavior or subject me to tests as a condition of employment.

Generally this kind of behavior would be viewed as unreasonable. It only becomes reasonable when done to smokers because there is a lot of intolerance toward smokers. If we did it to other people for other behaviors there would be public outrage.
That's all reasonable.

But the problem is that you're still taking away the freedom of the business owner to decide who they employ.

It's perfectly legal to crusade for the legalization of child pornography. But as a business owner, the activities of your employees outside of work has a direct effect on your success. If you discovered that a prominent child porn advocate was on your staff, do you really feel you should be forced to keep him? Or if you discovered his activism in part of the pre-employment screening, would you appreciate being forced to ignore it?

The problem is that those on your side of the argument are not concerned with the rights of the business owner, whatsoever.
__________________
"I never intend for my posts to read like I'm aggressive or confrontational, but I am so they do."
Executive Director: Bullshido.net
Fighting BS in the Martial Arts
Amateur No-Holds-Barred/MMA Fighter, Skeptic, Bright.
www.Phrost.com
Phrost 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, 11:32 AM   #111
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I have the right to work for anyone I want,
If you can convince the person to hire you and keep you on.

Quote:
Not really, it's his company, he's the boss. Since when are employees able to fired their bosses?
All the time. It's called "quitting."

Quote:
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.
Actually, yes, he can. And since it doesn't initiate force, it's his natural right. Just because the law is infrigning on those rights doesn't mean you win the argument. You agreed to the terms of employment.

Quote:
No, I don't. I want the harmless personal freedom of every citizen to be upheld.
Except, of course, the harmless personal freedom of employers to choose who they want to have work for them...

Quote:
That's a lie.
No, it isn't. By forcing the employer to keep an employee he doesn't want, you are doing exactly that.
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, 11:35 AM   #112
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Re: Touching the OP

Quote:
Originally posted by sackett
Weyco handles the billing for my health insurance company. I’m pleased to hear that they’re taking a hard-a$$ stand against smoking, and making it scary by firing smokers if they catch them.

Smokers will someday become outcasts, breeding only among themselves and dwindling into a small band of malformed wretches hacking and spitting their way to oblivion. Even Europeans may get wise eventually.

Nice rhetoric.



Quote:
Weyco handles the billing for my health insurance company. I’m pleased to hear that they’re taking a hard-a$$ stand against ******, and making it scary by not hiring ****** if they catch them.

****** will someday become outcasts, breeding only among themselves and dwindling into a small band of malformed wretches hacking and spitting their way to oblivion. Even Spicks, wops, catholics, faggots, kykes and gooks may get wise eventually.
Edited by Darat:  Edited for breach of Rule 8.


Mod WarningEven meant as satirising another Member’s position this post is not acceptable here (see your Member Agreement for further details), if you make any further similar posts it will result in further sanctions.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Darat
__________________
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, 11:40 AM   #113
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 6,843
Re: Re: Touching the OP

Hey, Tony what have you got against spicks, wops, Catholics, faggots, kikes, and gooks? I'm talking about SMOKERS!
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett 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, 11:43 AM   #114
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
No it didn't.
Yes, it did. Read the preamble.

Quote:
Our government leaders sat down and wrote the Constitution.
There were no "government leaders" then. There were 13 separate governments with 13 separate leaders.

Quote:
This is at best semantical nit-picking,
No, it's not. It's the founding principles of this country. We have our rights due to nature; the only purpose of government is to secure these rights, and that is because the people have come together to form a government for that purpose. That's why government's just powers derive from the consent of the governed.

The way it was before, the King had all the rights, and he could give them or take them away as he chose. Our founders were opposed to that. Our government cannot take your rights, because rights don't come from the government. It can only infringe upon them.

Quote:
And some rights WERE granted, and certainly not assumed to be in existance.....if they even existed at all. The rights of slaves and women's right to vote, for example.
The right to vote is completely different, as that would be meaningless without a government anyway. That's not at all what we're talking about.
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, 11:44 AM   #115
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Funny; every time I had such benefits, they always cost 2-3 times as much as I could get on my own. Of course, they covered things such as chiropractic...
Well, I based what I was saying on what I have read on company benefit packages (generally how they are looking for ways to compensate employees with benefits where possible rather than cash because it is generally cheaper) and backed up by the fact that after getting annoyed with our work sponsored health plan and looking at dropping it in favor of private Chani and I found that the best deal we could get on our own would cost us roughly double what we curently paid for the same level of benefits. Maybe our insurance is extraordinarily generous but considering the company, I doubt it.
__________________
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, 11:46 AM   #116
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
You want the totalitarian state. You want the employee to check his personal, constitution and human rights at the door.
No; he wants the employee to comply with the terms that he's voluntarily agreed to.
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, 11:47 AM   #117
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
This is irrelevant. Employees are not property.
No; they are people who have voluntarily agreed to work for someone. If they don't like the conditions of doing so, they're free to go elsehwere. Why you fail to grasp this concept is beyond me.
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, 11:50 AM   #118
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No; he wants the employee to comply with the terms that he's voluntarily agreed to.
But the terms are new, they are not something the employee voluntarily agreed to, when he said yes to the job.
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, 11:51 AM   #119
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
All the time. It's called "quitting."
False analogy.

Quote:
Actually, yes, he can. And since it doesn't initiate force, it's his natural right. Just because the law is infrigning on those rights doesn't mean you win the argument. You agreed to the terms of employment.
No, he can't. This is your support of feudalism seeping through in the guise of "natural rights".

Quote:
Except, of course, the harmless personal freedom of employers to choose who they want to have work for them...
It's not harmless. You're position of allowing oppression in the guise of private power logically leads to social unrest and revolution.

Quote:
No, it isn't. By forcing the employer to keep an employee he doesn't want, you are doing exactly that.
It is a lie. Only when you propagandistically break it down to the most vague of terms (as you've just done) does your position seem desirable. I'm talking about reality, not theory. It is wrong for an employer to fire a woman who refused to have sex with him. Applying your rational of this being merely "an employee he doesn't want" you skirt the issue for the sole purpose of buttressing your ideology. You are dishonest, and you care not for freedom beyond your ideals.
__________________
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, 11:52 AM   #120
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Liar. I've never called for the government to steal the property from the employer.
His business is his property. If you prevent him from doing what he wants on his own property, you are stealing from him. And don't give me any crap about how he doesn't own the employee; the employee is there of his own free will and volition, and can leave at any time he wants to.

Quote:
The body is also property, so is the home. The owner of the workplace has no business dictating to the owner of the body and the home what goes on in the home or the body.
He isn't doing that. He's just deciding who he wants to freely associate with.

Quote:
No, I'm not. This is a strawman. I'm calling for the government to do it's job and protect the personal rights of the people.
Except the right of free association, at least among emplyers.
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
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 04:58 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.