Wanna work better not smoke at all

[rahmota]

Ok now this is taking thigns a bit too far. I just read on the news about the Cleaveland clinic joining the trend of treating smokers as if they where undesireables and not hiring anyone who smokes. Even at home in the privacy or their car or otherwise outside of company time and property. To ensure that they do not the clinic will be testing people for tobacco use as well as drugs. Last time I checked tobacco was not a controlled substance to be lumped in under mary or other stuff. Morality police indeed.

Ok I can understand and accept banning smoking in the workplace or certain public areas. It is not exactly a clean habit but it is a person's choice if they do it in their own area or outside in an area where a person does not have to be enclosed with the one doing it. But to say that a person does not have the right to smoke in the privacy of their own home or at all if they want to have a job. Great choice change your personal habits or we wont employ you.

Scotts Miracle Gro was also mentioned in the article as a company that will not employ people who smoke. Last year they stopped hiring smokers and told all employees to stop or they would be fired.

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to? This may not be the sign of the apocalypse but it is one more chink in the ediface of personal freedoms in america. Where everybody is supposed to be good clean living little obedient sheep instead of individuals with a brain and the ability to choose right or wrong and goof up and make mistakes. Next thing you know Taco Bell will have pianos and you'll get a ticket for swearing in public.....

[Greenday]

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to?

You don't think this already happens? I'm sure there are plenty of places who do this all the time. And since they are private companies, it's not like anyone can tell them otherwise. Besides, if the government steps in to stop them from hiring as they want, what's to stop the governemt from doing to to all companies? Or to stop the government from controlling other parts of all companies?

[rahmota]

Oh I'm sure it does which is why we need more governmental control over companies to prevent them from setting such unfair and discriminatory standards and practices. Its not such a bad idea to set firm rules on what companies may or may not use as hiring and firing practices, behaviors, standards, and profit and price controls. Capitalism and the free market as it stands now is a grossly unfair, exploitive and evil distribution of welath where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle gets squeezed all the harder. Nationalization of some of the more essential companies in the interest of the national good wouldnt be such a bad thing either.

[Boozy]

Besides, if the government steps in to stop them from hiring as they want, what's to stop the governemt from doing to to all companies? Or to stop the government from controlling other parts of all companies?

The government already steps in to tell companies what they can and can't do. You can't refuse to hire someone because of race or religion. Companies can't force people to work on Christmas Day in most cases, pay less than minimum wage, and expose workers to hazardous conditions without safety precautions. If anything, I believe that there aren't enough laws governing employers.

The companies rahmota describes are likely refusing to hire smokers because of the inevitable costs to their health plan and the expenses resulting from missed work due to illness. But the same reason can be used to refuse to hire someone who is overweight, or who has diabetes, or who has disabled children.

Tobacco is a legal substance. Job discrimination based on the private at-home administration of an non-controlled legal substance is wrong.

[KaeZoo]

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to? This may not be the sign of the apocalypse but it is one more chink in the ediface of personal freedoms in america. Where everybody is supposed to be good clean living little obedient sheep instead of individuals with a brain and the ability to choose right or wrong and goof up and make mistakes. Next thing you know Taco Bell will have pianos and you'll get a ticket for swearing in public.....

"Personal freedom" doesn't include an employer's freedom to choose whom he would like to have working for him? But it does include a worker's right to force his employer to accept personal habits that are likely to cost the employer money?

Governments are a much, MUCH bigger threat to personal freedoms than employers (yes, including huge, evil, heartless corporations). If a private company wishes to limit your lifestyle choices, you have the option to disassociate yourself from that company. If a corporation tries to restrict your lifestyle choices, and you don't comply, they're highly unlikely to break down your door, shoot your dog, and place you and your family face-down on the floor with cable-ties on your wrists.

People still do get tickets for swearing in public, in some areas, and they're not written by Taco Bell. But if you start swearing inside a Taco Bell, then they have the right to remove you from their property. That's a personal freedom that Taco Bell's owner's have: they aren't forced to associate with people who will disrupt their business.

[Boozy]

People still do get tickets for swearing in public, in some areas

That's horrifying to me.

Freedom of speech is the most sacred of personal freedoms, and democracy can't function without it.

Americans stand by and watch corporations swallow up the media into huge conglomerates and let it happen in the name of individual freedom. But the only ones enjoying individual freedoms are these corporations. The US now only has the 17th most free press in the world. Explains why the government and their corporate buddies have been able to get away with so much for so long.

[KaeZoo]

As previous response attempts tend to dissolve into long, off-topic rants; let me just say that I couldn't disagree more with the expressed views on corporations, capitalism, the state of our free press, the idea of nationalizing private industry, or the idea of the state meddling in hiring and firing practices.

On topic, I just want to state that increased government oversight and regulation does NOT generally result in increased personal freedom. This is true whether the regulation is of individuals or corporations. It's also true regardless of the intent of the regulation.

In specific, if there was a blanket government restriction against hiring and firing based on an employee's personal habits, even when said habits have an effect on the business, who's going to get hurt more? The big corporations, or the upstart small businesses?

[Boozy]

In specific, if there was a blanket government restriction against hiring and firing based on an employee's personal habits, even when said habits have an effect on the business, who's going to get hurt more? The big corporations, or the upstart small businesses?

Obviously, a lot of things that employees do affect the businesses they work for. Conversely, a lot of things employers do affect employees' lives. The reality is that the balance of power is on the side of the employer. In an economy with high unemployment, its not so easy to walk away from a job. And in an increasingly monopolistic consumer climate, its not so easy to "vote with your feet". This is where the law needs to step in.

I'll say it again: The exact same argument could be used to justify refusing employment to overweight people, people with diabetes, people with children at home (and thus will need more health coverage), and people who engage in other high risk behaviour like unprotected sex or sky-diving.

The exact same argument could also be used to fire existing employees.

How much information about your private life are you willing to give an employer?

If you still don't see a problem with it, then I understand. Its a personal choice as to the kind of society you want to live in.

But personally, I don't want to have a job that allows my boss to ask me what I did on the weekend and then fire me if he doesn't like the answer.

[AFPheonix]

Pretty much. Unless it's something that affects your job performance, then it should not matter to your employer whether you smoke or not.


Now, if you're taking an excessive number of breaks to go smoke, then that's something else.


Part of the problem could be solved if we revamped how we pay for healthcare in this society. If businesses were not responsible for paying into an employee's health care, the business most likely would feel more inclined to hire older people, people with disabilities, and other habits/hobbies that carry inherent risks, as long as they do the job competently.

[MadMike]

I'm a firm believer that what you do off the clock is none of the company's damn business.

Some people will argue that if employee is doing illegal things and the public finds out, and can reflect poorly on the company, so I'm not going to get into that. I can see both sides of that argument, I still lean in favor of the employee in that situation.

At the very least, the company should have no say in any perfectly legal activity that the employees do on their own time.

[rahmota]

Exactly as long as what the person does off the clock is legal and doesnt affect the person showing up, doign their job to the best of their ability then the company has no right whatsoever to interefere in that.

As for the government control being more fearful than megacorps look at where the true power is in this country. Money is power. Many of these ceos are paid more than half of congress put together and certainly more than the president of the united states.

As for the rest Boozy beat me to a lot of it. Small business are already being assimilated or driven out by big chains or otherwise forced to adopt the same business practices against the consumer that the big guys use. The average consumer's choices are already limited and a re becoming more so each year at the hands of the megacorps. And like he said in such a tight employment market what is a person going to do? With at-will employment a reality the employer can fire you for just disagreeing with them or holding the wrong political view and all they have to say or do is come up with some lame excuse that you misbehaved or broke company policy and there is nothign you can do. Consumers and citizens have no rights and powers against the mega corps.

And you are right the discussion about nationalization is not a part of this topic compleately but I would rather live in a world where employers are forced to treat their employees as free and worthy citizens and people than slaves and tools to be used up and thrown away at a whim or because they indulge in a hobby or activity or otherwise hold a POV the company doesnt agree with.

[KaeZoo]

I'll say it again: The exact same argument could be used to justify refusing employment to overweight people, people with diabetes, people with children at home (and thus will need more health coverage), and people who engage in other high risk behaviour like unprotected sex or sky-diving.

Unlike smoking, a person with diabetes cannot choose to stop having diabetes.

And I can see, in some professions, where an employer might justifiably ask that an employee not engage in high-risk behavior in his off time. At the very least, an employer is justified in taking an employee's behavior into account when considering things like promotions. If I'm running a company, and I need someone for a long-term, critical position, then I would be foolish not to take it into account if a person I'm considering likes to engage in high-risk activities in his off time. For example, if I'm considering someone for a position where they had access to large amounts of company money, should I be legally bound to ignore the fact that they like to gamble for huge sums at a casino every weekend? If I own a football team, should I be prohibited from writing a restriction in my star quarterback's contract against riding his motorcycle without a helmet in the off season?

I'm not even arguing in favor of the companies that have instituted smoking bans. I'm simply saying that government intervention against the practice is a very bad idea. Except in very narrow areas, the government needs to stay out of private employment contracts between employers and employees.

[KaeZoo]

As for the government control being more fearful than megacorps look at where the true power is in this country. Money is power. Many of these ceos are paid more than half of congress put together and certainly more than the president of the united states.

Both true and irrelevant.

Sure, look at the money. The relatively small group of people in our Congress exercise control over amounts of money that make the CEO payrolls you're talking about look like a drop in the ocean. And where does the money come from? From people who are forced to pay it, or be thrown in jail. Megacorps at least have to give you something you want before they get your money, but when the government botches its' job, it uses it as an excuse to require even more money from you.

The government has much more control over my life than corporations. If I choose not to give my money to a corporation, or a group of corporations, I can go on living. It's possible to arrange my life so that I never have to buy gasoline, for example. I can grow my own food, buy from local farmer's markets or barter with my neighbors for the things I need. But I cannot be employed, travel, marry, educate myself or my children, or own my land without government approval. If I don't approve of what my government's doing, I cannot freely choose to stop giving them my money.

If my employer doesn't like what I do on my private time, they can fire me. If my government doesn't like what I do on my private time, it can break down my door, threaten me with violence, remove my children from me, confiscate my property and money, and imprison me. It can take away my home or car if they believe I've committed a crime, and it doesn't need to return them even if I'm found innocent. It can provide my local police department with military-grade weapons, vehicles and aircraft to be used against me.

The average consumer's choices are already limited and a re becoming more so each year at the hands of the megacorps.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. In virtually every area that isn't a government-mandated monopoly, consumers have more choices than they've ever had before. Books have recently been written positing that consumers have too many choices.

And like he said in such a tight employment market what is a person going to do? With at-will employment a reality the employer can fire you for just disagreeing with them or holding the wrong political view and all they have to say or do is come up with some lame excuse that you misbehaved or broke company policy and there is nothign you can do.

They can, but most don't. The fact is, employers cannot impose arbitrary employment requirements without paying a price. Companies that make things tough on their employees have to pay more for their labor, experience higher turnover costs, and lose ground to more progressive companies. You can rail against corporations if you want--it's probably a reflex by now--but many national corporations have very progressive employee policies. Look at Disney Corp and their policies toward employees' same-sex partners, for example.

The big corporations you hate aren't, as a rule, going to fire people over political views. Their local management might. Small employers might. Your congressman might. But big corporations don't become big corporations by fussing about what their employees do on weekends---UNLESS it's something that harms the business.

Consumers and citizens have no rights and powers against the mega corps.

Of course they do: they can choose not conduct business with them.

And you are right the discussion about nationalization is not a part of this topic compleately but I would rather live in a world where employers are forced to treat their employees as free and worthy citizens and people than slaves and tools to be used up and thrown away at a whim or because they indulge in a hobby or activity or otherwise hold a POV the company doesnt agree with.

The "slaves and tools" comparison doesn't hold up. Unlike slaves, employees are free to leave their employer any time they want.

There is already a mechanism in place to keep companies from "throwing people away at a whim": companies that do this FAIL. If you're willing to admit that having a good employee helps a company, then it should be obvious that losing a good employee hurts a company. Successful companies do not create policies that cause good employees to leave.

A business that wants to succeed will not create an employee policy that hurts the company. The companies that are putting anti-smoking rules in place are not doing so because they don't like smokers. They're doing it because they believe that the benefits of the policy will outweigh the costs of the policy. They have every right to make that determination. Maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. If they're wrong, their business will be harmed, and later on they'll reconsider.

[rahmota]

In this modern world do you really think you can cut yourself off from all corporate influences and controls? Unless you go compleately amish and withdraw from the modern world you cannot. I'm a farmer. I grow a lot of my own food, I shop yard sales and discount markets. I still have to pay tithe to the oil companies greed because I have to drive anywhere thanks to living in the country. I have a cooperative electrical company but I still have a phone from corporate america. I have simplified my life as much as I can and still be a part of modern america and I still have to deal with corporate america.

And yeah the government is there asking for their share. Unfortuantely they are not in the business of protecting the citizen. This is a plutocracy of the rich and for the rich and who are rich? Corporate leaders. Most of Congress has a vested interest in protecting corporate america because their personal profits would fall congressmen are rich, the days of mister smith goign to washington are over if they ever really existed.

Yeah right there are too many options? BS! If the only options one has are all bad options then what options do you really have? None. I ask you this? Look at all the gas stations in your area. Notice how they are all within a penny or two of each other on gas prices. Thats collusion.That is a lack of options. Biofuels are derided and propaganda is spewed trying to supress them so that the oil companies can continue to rape the public and reap record breaking profits each year. How many stores are there in your area? Big boxes are assimilating and destroying smaller stores not because people are deciding and choosign not to shop small stores but because the big boxes are able to buy cheaply made chinese crap, pass it off as a bargin and undercut others. Yeha its nothign personal just business.

And no the government cannot do all of that as easily as you claim. yes they can harrass and hassle and with probable cause enter into your life in ways that are wrong. These are problems that need to be resolved and can be resolved if people focus on the problems and are not distracted by the bread and circuses that the government throws out to protect the corporate overseers and true masters. They cannot keep your property without due process and renumeration of you. Of course this is fair market value which is set by corporate america.

As for corporations having to be nice and not do things to loose employers thats more bunk and BS. I used to work for a company that had a 100% turnover rate every three months. The nickname was whackyournuts security because of how poorly they treated their own employees. But you know what the company is still in business and doing quite well from what I see on the net. Look at Walmart the amout of lawsuits brought about by employees is amazing yet walmart doesnt appear to be having trouble. In this pitiful job market wageslaves cannot afford to just walk away fom a job (or two or three like some people have to have to just make ends meet) as the company knows they are replaceable. Or that the company will just run understaffed and not care if people dont get the service they think they should because really where else are they goign to go?

Unlike slaves, employees are free to leave their employer any time they want.

Yeah they are free to leave. But companies can give bad references making it harder to get hired. Companies can and do look upon that as a troubled worker and make it harder to get a job. Moving fom one mcjob inot another is the most common thing for people. Wageslavery may not be the same as real slavery but the lack of options is just as real.

Except in very narrow areas, the government needs to stay out of private employment contracts between employers and employees

And I say that we need broad sweeping and directly specific laws and regulations protecting the employees from the employers so that the employees will not be exploited unfairly. So that employers discrimination against employees they do not like or agree with can be stopped. Union representation needs to be increased to help protect the employees. Vital national companies such as the oil companies need to be nationalized in the interests of the greater good so that the grossly greedy rapacious profiteering they engage in can be stopped.

And as for Disney co yeah they are really progressive just some highlights:
(1) Trying to get tighter intellectual property rights in violation of free speech including the stopping of parodies and a reduction in public domain availability of items.
(2)Using college interns as cheap slave labor instead of paying them as employees for doing the same work as employees.
(3)Using sweatshops in asian countries to produce their mass market items. Including human rights violating countries such as cambodia that use children to assemble their products.

Among a plethora of other violations, exploitations and generally abusive policies towards their "guests" and employees. Which are not uncommon among most of corporate america. So they have finally joined the modern world and are "giving" their samegender employees what they deserve, the same basic coverage as everyone else. One of the reasons we need to control the government to control corporate america and ensure a fair and level playing field for all citizens and employees.

[rahmota]

here are a few definitions and factoids for you to consider:

Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally de jure (based on law) voluntarily employed but de facto (in fact) a slave. It describes a condition where a person is compelled to work in return for payment of a wage in order to subsist. Wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power, submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely survive.

1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) live in "severe poverty."

Forty-six million citizens--30 percent more than in 1996--are without health insurance.

While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.

Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.

A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is employed by Wal-Mart, a company notorious for union-busting and widespread use of part-time workers to avoid paying benefits. The discount retail giant is the top private employer in the world, with 1,140,000 workers, more than twice as many as No. 2, DaimlerChrysler, which employs 466,938.

U.S. corporations dominate the Top 200, with 82 slots (41 percent of the total). Japanese firms are second, with only 41 slots.

Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.

Between 1983 and 1999, the share of total sales of the Top 200 made up by service sector corporations increased from 33.8 percent to 46.7 percent. Gains were particularly evident in financial services and telecommunications sectors, in which most countries have pursued deregulation.


globalissues.org