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 16th May 2005, 01:44 PM   #321
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
I don't see it as a false analogy at all. When a lot of people play Monopoly, they put the tax money into Free Parking and whoever lands on that square gets it. That's nowhere to be found in the official rules anywhere. It's just something a lot of people do. And that's okay, as long as all of the players voluntarily agree to do it. Anyone who doesn't like it can either persuade the other players that the rule is stupid, or they can go play Monopoly with someone else. That rule is by no means forced upon them. Same thing here.
It's still a false analogy, you just replaced his ball game with monopoly.

To put it another way, NOTHING outside the game of monopoly (smoking, sex, drinking coke, wiping your ass with your left hand) could be considered to be a matter of playing the game, therefore, making rules against such as a rule of the game would be absurd. That's exactly what this guy is doing. He making rules that have absolutely no relation to the playability or function of the game.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 01:46 PM   #322
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
How?
Explaining it would be a waste of time, you've shown a complete refusal to think for yourself and outside the box of your ideals.

Quote:
Yes, there is. You're just pretending otherwise because you're advocating taking choice away.
LOL You're getting dumber.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 01:48 PM   #323
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Suicide (consentual death) is illegal, but consentual sex is not. Since those who argue it is OK for employers to fire employees who do not consent to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or unrelated to their job duties those demands are it would seem perfectly acceptable to require blow jobs from employees.

If the employee gives blow jobs to hold on to their job they are 'consenting' therefore it is consentual sex and not illegal.

As best I can tell I am accurately representing the argument of those who are justifying firing employees who smoke off company property and on their own time. If requiring employees to not smoke on their own time and requiring them to vote as the employer directs are OK, then why not free blow jobs for the upper management?

If I am misunderstanding the position, please clarify your position.
"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html

You have clarified *your* position perfectly. In your mind, rape is on a par with a 'No Smoking ' rule.
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 16th May 2005, 02:00 PM   #324
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=597

Quote:
duress
n. the use of force, false imprisonment or threats (and possibly psychological torture or "brainwashing") to compel someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests. If duress is used to get someone to sign an agreement or execute a will, a court may find the document null and void. A defendant in a criminal prosecution may raise the defense that others used duress to force him/her to take part in an alleged crime. The most famous case is that of publishing heiress Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped, raped, imprisoned and psychologically tortured until she joined her captors in a bank holdup and issued statements justifying her actions. She was later convicted of the bank robbery, but was eventually pardoned by President Jimmy Carter.
No such thing here. If we were to define this situation (the situation in the thread, I mean, the one with the company with the no smoking rule; not the rape) as duress, then duress would include this:

Person 1: Let's sign this contract.
Person 2: Wait a minute—this contract says you get to drive my car three times a week. I don't want that!
Person 1: Well, if you don't want that, then I guess we don't have an agreement and won't make this contract. Good day.

So, has Person 1 comitted duress? No! It would only be duress if he had threatened Person 2 with some kind of harm if he refused to sign. It doesn't have anything to do with the conditions of the contract. Otherwise, any condition would be considered "duress."
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 16th May 2005, 02:06 PM   #325
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Well then please explain your logic. You have defended the right of the employer to fire an employee refusing to vote according to the wishes of the employer as well as the right of the employer to fire employees who smoke on their own time.

You must have me confused with someone else while ignoring everything I say.. I have never addressed a voting issue. I have supported the right of an employer to set conditions for employment, which in this case has to do with smoking.

Please explain your logic that supports these demands from the employer, but that doesn't support any other demand? Why not support mandatory blow jobs? How does this differ according to your logic than mandating how one votes or whether one smokes at home?
Are you really so dense? Do you not understand the difference between voting, smoking and performing fellatio? Never mind, I suspect that you don't.. I bet you are real popular around election time...


When did you stop beating your wife?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 02:06 PM   #326
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No such thing here.
Umm. That's exactly what's happening here.

duress
n. the use of force, false imprisonment or threats (and possibly psychological torture or "brainwashing") to compel someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests.

Employer: You really need to quit smoking, I don't like it.
Employee: I know it's bad for me, but I enjoy it, besides, it's my right.
Employer: Quit smoking or you're fired.

So here we have someone being compelled to act against their interests (quit smoking, giving up freedom) by another person using a threat (termination).
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 02:10 PM   #327
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
So here we have someone being compelled to act against their interests (quit smoking, giving up freedom) by another person using a threat (termination).
Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.
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 16th May 2005, 02:16 PM   #328
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.

Translation: (woe is me) I don't like how my position has been shown to be tyrannical so I'm just going to make non-sequitors and ad homs.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 02:20 PM   #329
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Translation: (woe is me) I don't like how my position has been shown to be tyrannical so I'm just going to make non-sequitors and ad homs.
There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time. There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

Just as the condition of a violation of any terms of a contract is termination of the contract. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM DURESS.

You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.
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 16th May 2005, 02:21 PM   #330
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
He making rules that have absolutely no relation to the playability or function of the game.
Wrong!

Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 02:24 PM   #331
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

Employer: You really need to quit smoking, I don't like it.
Employee: I know it's bad for me, but I enjoy it, besides, it's my right.
Employer: Quit smoking or you're fired.

You might have a point if that was what happened..

It wasn't, and you dont..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 02:30 PM   #332
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time.
No there's not. It's a demand the employer makes and if the employee doesn't give in he can **** off.

Quote:
There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.
No, it's a demand and a decree by the employer.

Quote:
Just as the condition of a violation of any terms of a contract is termination of the contract. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM DURESS.
I never said termination of the contract is a form of duress. The threat of it is when it's used to compell behavior against the employee's interests.

Quote:
You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.


It's good to know you think business owners could legally and morally include sex as a term of employment.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 02:33 PM   #333
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
You might have a point if that was what happened..

It wasn't, and you dont..
Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Read the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 02:35 PM   #334
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
No there's not. It's a demand the employer makes and if the employee doesn't give in he can **** off.
An employer has a job to offer.
An employee has labor to offer.
They have to get to gether and AGREE on the terms of the arrangement. No agreement, no employment.

You have no cause whatsoever to try and paint this as duress.

Quote:
No, it's a demand and a decree by the employer.
It's a condition of the agreement. If the condition isn't met, then there is no agreement.

Quote:
I never said termination of the contract is a form of duress.
Yes, you did! Absolutely you did! That is exactly what you are saying! You're just caught, you've lost, and you're trying to weasel out of 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 16th May 2005, 02:38 PM   #335
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Wrong!

Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...
This is a lie that you're regurgitating.

From the other thread (LadyHawk):

Quote:
Good point, Joshua, however, here's a little more data on the whole topic....

I personally knew Howard Weyers (President of Weyco). Weyco isn't a "health care firm". They're a third party administrator; that is, they process medical claims for self funding employers. They don't have health care providers or clinics or anything of the sort.

I can tell you that Mr. Weyers is a hard working, personable guy...and that the real reason behind this whole not smoking thing has very little to do with looking out for his employees' health. What it does have a lot more to do with it is the fact that Howard's father (or was it his uncle?) died of lung cancer from smoking and he's had a hard-on for the tobacco companies and smokers ever since. He mentioned this to me and several others on many an occasion...years ago. I knew several months ago that he was planning to do this.

True, he's given employees 18 months to comply. Problem is, he's lost 4 talented individuals over his decision. Further, he's not determined how he's going to handle employees' who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke from friends, relatives, etc. He has also stated that he has no intention (currently) to go after those who drink to excess unless they're drunk at work.

In short, the "I'm doing this to improve my employees' health and lower health care premiums' is a smoke screen. Howard just doesn't like smokers. Period.

I'm a reformed smoker but I have a problem with Howard's tact. He's basically changed the rules on his employees. It doesn't seem fair to suddenly come to work one day and find out that your job is on the line for something other than your performance . This is just one of many pet peeves I have with Corporate America lately. Seems it's all about looks and being politically correct rather than attracting and keeping the best talent you can. What's sadder is that Okemos isn't exactly a burgeoning metropolis. It's about as "Green Acres" as you can get. So, to those who say that the Weyco employees have the "choice" to go somewhere else, rest assured...they don't.
More from LadyHawk:

Quote:
Ok. Forgive me, but this is going to be a little lengthy. I've been in the health care industry for over 2o years. Time for a little Insurance 101 training here.

First off, most employee benefit enrollment forms don't even ask if a person smokes. And, it doesn't matter if it does, because most people lie about their smoking, anyway. Ok? So, how does an insurance company determine what the employer's insurance premium payment should be? There are several factors, two of the most important of which are: demographics and actual experience.

To wit: if an employer has 100 employees, 50% of whom smoke, their premium will be raised based on a.) the likelihood that a %age of those 50% will develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases and b.) the actual number ($ amount) of claims filed by the employer's personnel over the last benefit year....regardless of the condition behind the claim. With me so far? Ok...

So, in summary, an employer pays increased premiums based on the actual claims submitted by its employees (claims experience) than on what a given subset of individuals within the employee base does. That's why actuaries have jobs, folks. If employees quit smoking, they may not develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. But, if the remaining population delivers a lot of premature babies, or experiences heart attacks, then the health insurance premium is still going to increase.

Please don't misunderstand me, here. Having quit smoking myself some years ago, I would be the first to tell anyone the benefits of quitting. BUT....I was successful only because I was ready and willing to quit. Mandates from friends and close family had not been successful and only left me resentful and spiteful.

If we hand over the reins to employers to be the moral compass of each of us, look out! How far will we be from having employers mandate other behaviors outside of work? Think about it.
Quote:
Ah, but that it were that easy! See, you can't segregate a group within a group and charge them a different rate than the rest of the group. Why? Because the employer already gets a "group discount" from the insurer.

Insurers are in place to bear risk. Risk is the name of the game. Now, one can certainly attempt to lower risk in an effort to lower premiums and many employers are trying to do this in a more motivational and educational way. But, you must understand that there is no guarantee that the premium will decrease. You can get every employee to quit smoking and still pay a rate hike and the hike will have nothing to do smoking. The employer may not have had a single claim submitted related to lung disease and still pay a substantial increase due to one AIDS or premature birth claim....what do you do? Charge the increased premium to the AIDS victim or the mother?
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 02:39 PM   #336
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Read the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm
So, are you just ignoring the part that says they "left their jobs voluntarily"? Did you miss the part where it said that it was to "keep health costs down" and therefore your claim that it has nothing to do with the employment is bogus? And what about the other article I linked to saying that they were given 15 months notice and assistance in finding another job?
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 16th May 2005, 02:39 PM   #337
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you really so dense?
When did you stop beating your wife?
Very well, since you won't discuss things either, but just want to insult I am done with you as well as CrimeResearch.
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 16th May 2005, 02:39 PM   #338
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
This is the same Tony who claimed to have not mentioned the courts in this thread...what else do you expect?



These folks aren't engaging in discourse, they are just engaging in sophistry.
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 16th May 2005, 02:44 PM   #339
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.

Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.
Well now that makes yourself, D and CR the ones who have resorted to insults.

Have a nice day gentlemen. No point in trying to discuss anything with any of you it appears.

Shane I have defended you as a reasonable and civil guy in the past. I will no longer be doing that.
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 16th May 2005, 02:48 PM   #340
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony


It's good to know you think business owners could legally and morally include sex as a term of employment.
Why can't you and Usename deal with the issue at hand, instead of introducing sex, voting and wiretapping?


Make a good court case for the smokers to get their Job back, without the strawmen and slippery slopes...

Remember, the future of these smokers and their families are in your hands..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 02:50 PM   #341
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
'Insults' being of course, actually linking to the legal definitions of things, instead of accepting your fabricated ones.



Get over yourself, User, this is a skeptic's forum, you came, you saw, you got schooled with facts and evidence.

You aren't the first woo to be 'abused' so, and you certainly won't be the last.
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 16th May 2005, 02:57 PM   #342
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Well now that makes yourself, D and CR the ones who have resorted to insults.

Have a nice day gentlemen. No pint in trying to discuss anything with any of you it appears.

Shane I have defended you as a reasonable and civil guy in the past. I will no longer be doing that.
Lighten' up..


Since you don't know what a ' slippery slope ' or a ' straw man ' is, I should have realized you wouldn't recognize a

Loaded Question

either...

By the way, do you smoke ?

Just curious..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 02:58 PM   #343
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
Get over yourself, User, this is a skeptic's forum, you came, you saw, you got schooled with facts and evidence.
Yes, let's look at your facts:
  • And while you are at it...Grow up
  • These folks aren't engaging in discourse, they are just engaging in sophistry.
  • You aren't the first woo to be 'abused' so, and you certainly won't be the last.

Yeah, your 'facts' are certainly schooling those of us who disagree with you.
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 16th May 2005, 03:16 PM   #344
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
And as long as you you don't click on the links, look at the factual references, address the issues, or back up your assertions...

You can always be right.
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 16th May 2005, 03:29 PM   #345
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Why can't you and Usename deal with the issue at hand, instead of introducing sex, voting and wiretapping?
Freedom and personal rights are the issues at hand. Those are other freedoms that can be subject to employment.

You're trying to skirt the issue but denying they have any significance.

Quote:
Remember, the future of these smokers and their families are in your hands..
No they aren't. I and no other human being has any control over whether they smoke.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 03:31 PM   #346
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
So, are you just ignoring the part that says they "left their jobs voluntarily"?
Some of them did, not all.

Quote:
Did you miss the part where it said that it was to "keep health costs down" and therefore your claim that it has nothing to do with the employment is bogus?
Those are the unsubstantiated claims of the owner of the company and since he has a history of being an anti-smoking nazi, and since the industry (according to Ladyhawk) doesn't work that way, I say he's lying.

Quote:
And what about the other article I linked to saying that they were given 15 months notice and assistance in finding another job?
Didn't see it, can you re-post the link?
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 03:42 PM   #347
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
They have to get to gether and AGREE on the terms of the arrangement. No agreement, no employment.
No they don't, you're stating thoery as fact.

Quote:
You have no cause whatsoever to try and paint this as duress.
Except for the defintion you provided, which is what is happening in this case.

duress
n. the use of force, false imprisonment or threats to compel someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests.

Quote:
It's a condition of the agreement. If the condition isn't met, then there is no agreement.
No it's not. It's a demand, a demand that has nothing to do with the work being performed and entails the surrendering of personal rights.

You're an anti-freedom sonofabitch, you think it's perfectly acceptable for employers to make quitting smoking, mandatory sex, religious conversion and the surrendering of other freedoms as a condition for employment, after all, the candidate doesn't have to do it. It's a voluntary arrangement.

I admit, it's a clever way to for you to allow the government skirt the Bill of Rights. Just let private business enforce the rules you want, but lack the authority to implement.

Quote:
Yes, you did! Absolutely you did! That is exactly what you are saying! You're just caught, you've lost, and you're trying to weasel out of it.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. Believe this if it makes you feel better but you're just demonstrating your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. It's good for a laugh though.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 03:49 PM   #348
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony




Didn't see it, can you re-post the link?
Do you bother to read your own posts..

From the Ladyhawk post you are so enamored with:

Quote:
True, he's given employees 18 months to comply.
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 03:57 PM   #349
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you bother to read your own posts.
The link was shaneK's not mine.

Quote:
shanek

And what about the other article I linked to saying that they were given 15 months notice and assistance in finding another job?
Don't act as a stooge for a fool.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 03:58 PM   #350
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony



Those are the unsubstantiated claims of the owner of the company and since he has a history of being an anti-smoking nazi, and since the industry (according to Ladyhawk) doesn't work that way, I say he's lying.



According to your post

Quote:
First off, most employee benefit enrollment forms don't even ask if a person smokes.
Well maybe in Okemo, But the healthplans offered to me and my wife, by companies like Kaiser and United Healthcare have lower premiums for non-smokers..

In addition The company I work for, pays a cash rebate for non-smokers every year.. I supspect, greedy corporation that they are, that the rebate doesn't amount to what they save..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 04:02 PM   #351
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Well maybe in Okemo, But the healthplans offered to me and my wife, by companies like Kaiser and United Healthcare have lower premiums for non-smokers..

In addition The company I work for, pays a cash rebate for non-smokers every year.. I supspect, greedy corporation that they are, that the rebate doesn't ammount to what they save..
You'll have to take that discrepancy up with Ladyhawk, she's the one with 20 years experience working in the industry.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 04:05 PM   #352
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
The link was shaneK's not mine.



Don't act as a stooge for a fool.
I'll pass on the ad homs.. And really didn't want to add to the regurgitation

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
Wrong!

Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a lie that you're regurgitating.

From the other thread (LadyHawk):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, Joshua, however, here's a little more data on the whole topic....

I personally knew Howard Weyers (President of Weyco). Weyco isn't a "health care firm". They're a third party administrator; that is, they process medical claims for self funding employers. They don't have health care providers or clinics or anything of the sort.

I can tell you that Mr. Weyers is a hard working, personable guy...and that the real reason behind this whole not smoking thing has very little to do with looking out for his employees' health. What it does have a lot more to do with it is the fact that Howard's father (or was it his uncle?) died of lung cancer from smoking and he's had a hard-on for the tobacco companies and smokers ever since. He mentioned this to me and several others on many an occasion...years ago. I knew several months ago that he was planning to do this.

True, he's given employees 18 months to comply. Problem is, he's lost 4 talented individuals over his decision. Further, he's not determined how he's going to handle employees' who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke from friends, relatives, etc. He has also stated that he has no intention (currently) to go after those who drink to excess unless they're drunk at work.

In short, the "I'm doing this to improve my employees' health and lower health care premiums' is a smoke screen. Howard just doesn't like smokers. Period.

I'm a reformed smoker but I have a problem with Howard's tact. He's basically changed the rules on his employees. It doesn't seem fair to suddenly come to work one day and find out that your job is on the line for something other than your performance . This is just one of many pet peeves I have with Corporate America lately. Seems it's all about looks and being politically correct rather than attracting and keeping the best talent you can. What's sadder is that Okemos isn't exactly a burgeoning metropolis. It's about as "Green Acres" as you can get. So, to those who say that the Weyco employees have the "choice" to go somewhere else, rest assured...they don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More from LadyHawk:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Forgive me, but this is going to be a little lengthy. I've been in the health care industry for over 2o years. Time for a little Insurance 101 training here.

First off, most employee benefit enrollment forms don't even ask if a person smokes. And, it doesn't matter if it does, because most people lie about their smoking, anyway. Ok? So, how does an insurance company determine what the employer's insurance premium payment should be? There are several factors, two of the most important of which are: demographics and actual experience.

To wit: if an employer has 100 employees, 50% of whom smoke, their premium will be raised based on a.) the likelihood that a %age of those 50% will develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases and b.) the actual number ($ amount) of claims filed by the employer's personnel over the last benefit year....regardless of the condition behind the claim. With me so far? Ok...

So, in summary, an employer pays increased premiums based on the actual claims submitted by its employees (claims experience) than on what a given subset of individuals within the employee base does. That's why actuaries have jobs, folks. If employees quit smoking, they may not develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. But, if the remaining population delivers a lot of premature babies, or experiences heart attacks, then the health insurance premium is still going to increase.

Please don't misunderstand me, here. Having quit smoking myself some years ago, I would be the first to tell anyone the benefits of quitting. BUT....I was successful only because I was ready and willing to quit. Mandates from friends and close family had not been successful and only left me resentful and spiteful.

If we hand over the reins to employers to be the moral compass of each of us, look out! How far will we be from having employers mandate other behaviors outside of work? Think about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but that it were that easy! See, you can't segregate a group within a group and charge them a different rate than the rest of the group. Why? Because the employer already gets a "group discount" from the insurer.

Insurers are in place to bear risk. Risk is the name of the game. Now, one can certainly attempt to lower risk in an effort to lower premiums and many employers are trying to do this in a more motivational and educational way. But, you must understand that there is no guarantee that the premium will decrease. You can get every employee to quit smoking and still pay a rate hike and the hike will have nothing to do smoking. The employer may not have had a single claim submitted related to lung disease and still pay a substantial increase due to one AIDS or premature birth claim....what do you do? Charge the increased premium to the AIDS victim or the mother?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You were quoting LadyHawk in refutation of Shane...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 04:07 PM   #353
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
You'll have to take that discrepancy up with Ladyhawk, she's the one with 20 years experience working in the industry.
Nope. I'll take it up with you, since you are presenting it as evidence...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 04:09 PM   #354
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
You were quoting LadyHawk in refutation of Shane...
WTF are you talking about? Shane asked ME if I had seen the link HE posted to the article saying these people were offered assistance in finding another job. I merely asked if he could re-post the link because I missed it.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 04:10 PM   #355
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Nope. I'll take it up with you, since you are presenting it as evidence...
No, she is.

She made the posts on another thread dealing with this exact case, all I've done is bring her posts to this thread.
__________________
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 16th May 2005, 05:10 PM   #356
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
WTF are you talking about? Shane asked ME if I had seen the link HE posted to the article saying these people were offered assistance in finding another job. I merely asked if he could re-post the link because I missed it.
Excuse me! I'm sure I missed something..

I just qoted your post where you said I was regurgitating a lie, and offered Ladyhawk's post as evidence..

Are you saying Ladyhawk is lying?

I'm really confused..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 05:45 PM   #357
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,406
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I admit, it's a clever way to for you to allow the government skirt the Bill of Rights. Just let private business enforce the rules you want, but lack the authority to implement.
You hit the nail on the head there. The idea that the market will punish companies that make unnecessary demands on their staff is fine in theory, but it doesn't take into account the complexities of real-world situations. For example, businesses in a deep-south Bible-belt area might make religious observance mandatory.

Of course, in theory this would open the door for a business that didn't make such demands on its staff, but how easy would it be to open such a business in an area where the opposite was the norm? Would the availability of a small amount of labour that would jump at the chance to work for company that made no demands regarding faith be enough to attract these businesses, and would it bring sufficient variety of trades to cover all the non-worshippers' industries? If the answer to these questions is 'no', we would see those who refuse to compromise their beliefs forced - yes, forced - out of their own neighbourhoods, unable to find work due to something that's none of their potential employers' business anyway.

In another thread, Shane said he disagreed with allowing *voluntary* religious observance in schools as undue pressure could be placed on people to volunteer. he had a point, but what he argues here has the potential to create exactly the same freedom-denying situation. As it's corporations not governments doing it, he thinks this is OK.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne 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 16th May 2005, 06:11 PM   #358
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne


In another thread, Shane said he disagreed with allowing *voluntary* religious observance in schools as undue pressure could be placed on people to volunteer. he had a point, but what he argues here has the potential to create exactly the same freedom-denying situation. As it's corporations not governments doing it, he thinks this is OK.
What seems to be the problem with letting this stand or fall on it's own merit ( the pros and cons of a non smoking workforce ) rather than " what if the next thing this employer wants to do, is require employees to wear dog poop under their hats" ?


Uhh, you don't by chance smoke do you?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 16th May 2005, 07:00 PM   #359
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,406
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
What seems to be the problem with letting this stand or fall on it's own merit ( the pros and cons of a non smoking workforce ) rather than " what if the next thing this employer wants to do, is require employees to wear dog poop under their hats" ?
Surely the wider issue is what right employers have to intrude into people's private lives outside the workplace?

Quote:
Uhh, you don't by chance smoke do you?
No
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne 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 16th May 2005, 07:27 PM   #360
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Surely the wider issue is what right employers have to intrude into people's private lives outside the workplace?

I think that is a legitimate concern, but best dealt with as it arises.
I suggest the poor examples offered so far are indicative of just how concerned we should really be..


No
Good for you. ( not that you need my approval )
Having smoked for a long time myself, I really sympathize with those who want to quit and find it difficult.
It is understandable that smokers are pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness, when it comes to these issues. I really don't see the ACLU jumping on this.
Not very PC, and all.
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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
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 04:09 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.