Employees with nicotine in their systems to be fired...

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz
So what would you people be saying if this was changed from smoking to gay lifestyle?

No one can say it is genetic with any certainty.

So lets assume being gay is a choice, would people be willing to let companies fire people based on sexual preference?

Why would you want to work for anyone who doesn't want you to work for them? Do you think your workplace is going to be enjoyable? Do you think you'll have much of a future or chance of advancement?

Why should ANYONE be forced to associate with someone they don't wish to associate with?

Finally, should employees be forced to work for empoyers they don't like? Because if we are to have equal rights and yet follow your lead, employers should have the right to force employees to work for them even if the employee wants to quit.

Your first and second questions are irrelevant. You either believe in some right to do what you want in your own home or you don't.

Third question, once again just rephrasing the first two questions.

The last question is relevant. No, you shouldn't have to employee people you don't like. However, if your boss has no problem with you and thought you did good work. Then years later just happens to find out you are gay, there is no reason to fire you.

I fully believe there has to be some limitations to guarantee some privacy in your own home.

Let me state this one final time:

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

You have every right to smoke all you want... and your employer has every right to refuse to associate with you. NEITHER OF YOU HAS LOST A RIGHT.

You do NOT have a right to employment. You never did. Your employer never had a right to employ you. Employment is a mutual agreement. BOTH sides can terminate that agreement for whatever reason.

My questions are TOTALLY relevant. This has NOTHING to do with privacy. Your right to privacy protects you from GOVERNMENT intrusions. It has NOTHING to do with an employer's (or friend's, or spouse's) right to refuse to associate with you for personal reasons.

I think you are missing a few marbles. Where did I start quoting the constitution. However, I do believe there is some reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. Especially when it involves activities that aren't illegal.

You like to jump to conclusions all over there place.

Your questions are totally irrelevant. Want me to point out why? Why do you care about the reasons someone wants to work at a place that hates smokers/gays/drinkers/fillinblank? The reason someone would want to work there is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, should there be some expectation of privacy in your own home? I believe their should be. Is there a law to enforce that? No.

This isn't a complicated topic. Simply put there is no law to protect privacy in your own home.

 

[Rebasxer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Darkstar757

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
There needs to be a law passed stating that someone cannot be fired for what they do on their own free time. Suppose an employer passed said that women aren't allowed to have sex because they could get pregnant and have to take maternity leave. Would that be legal, in some states, yes. The bottom line is that firing smokers is a slippery slope to becoming North Korea with Coporate America at the helm instead of Kim Jung Ill

Completely absurd.

Employers have ALWAYS had the right to fire people for whatever reason, including moral objections. To act as if this is something new and some kind of new threat to our liberty is patently absurd.

Absurd why because you said so. Thats why this America bud and as a informed voter I will do as much as I can possible to prevent this behavior from becoming the norm.

So you believe your assumed rights trump the rights of the employer?

Fine, to have equal rights we'll pass a law stating that employers can force you to work if you want to quit for a "protected" reason.

Say your boss smokes, and you hate it and want to quit. NO!! You cannot quit. You are forced to work for an employer you cannot stand.

Wait, that's not fair, is it? Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Informed? You're far from informed. You're an ignorant, spoiled voter with a twisted sense of entitlement who would abrogate the rights of others to make up rights for yourself.

That's not even a valid point because physically you don't have to work, you can just not show up, and if he makes you show up by physically sezing you, that's called slavery, not equal rights.

Besides, the rights of the employee should always out weigh those of the employer because the employee has need for those rights to protect themselves from the employer, who has a much larger potential for abuse.

Again, you are not forced to work. Therefore an employer CANNOT abuse you. Forcing an employer to employ you is a form of oppression.

What if a government agent came to your house with a maid and said: You MUST hire this woman? What if the government forced to to shop only at certain stores and employ the services of only certain people against your will.

Again, employement is a MUTUAL agreement. BOTH MUST have the right to terminate at any time.

So it's opression if an employer can't fire people for lifestyle choices out side of work, but it isn't opression if an employer fires someone for being a democrat. Employers have the right to hire people at will, but do not have the right to fire. They should use the first right, the right to hire to make sure that they are getting a person they think suitable.

Employers have the right to hire or not hire anyone they like, but they damn sure shouldn't have the right to fire people because they don't like a lifestyle choice that does not affect their work performance. If they do, that's called tyranny. And I think everyone here in America feels the same way about tyranny.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz
So what would you people be saying if this was changed from smoking to gay lifestyle?

No one can say it is genetic with any certainty.

So lets assume being gay is a choice, would people be willing to let companies fire people based on sexual preference?

Why would you want to work for anyone who doesn't want you to work for them? Do you think your workplace is going to be enjoyable? Do you think you'll have much of a future or chance of advancement?

Why should ANYONE be forced to associate with someone they don't wish to associate with?

Finally, should employees be forced to work for empoyers they don't like? Because if we are to have equal rights and yet follow your lead, employers should have the right to force employees to work for them even if the employee wants to quit.

Your first and second questions are irrelevant. You either believe in some right to do what you want in your own home or you don't.

Third question, once again just rephrasing the first two questions.

The last question is relevant. No, you shouldn't have to employee people you don't like. However, if your boss has no problem with you and thought you did good work. Then years later just happens to find out you are gay, there is no reason to fire you.

I fully believe there has to be some limitations to guarantee some privacy in your own home.

Let me state this one final time:

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

You have every right to smoke all you want... and your employer has every right to refuse to associate with you. NEITHER OF YOU HAS LOST A RIGHT.

You do NOT have a right to employment. You never did. Your employer never had a right to employ you. Employment is a mutual agreement. BOTH sides can terminate that agreement for whatever reason.

My questions are TOTALLY relevant. This has NOTHING to do with privacy. Your right to privacy protects you from GOVERNMENT intrusions. It has NOTHING to do with an employer's (or friend's, or spouse's) right to refuse to associate with you for personal reasons.

I think you are missing a few marbles. Where did I start quoting the constitution. However, I do believe there is some reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. Especially when it involves activities that aren't illegal.

You like to jump to conclusions all over there place.

Your questions are totally irrelevant. Want me to point out why? Why do you care about the reasons someone wants to work at a place that hates smokers/gays/drinkers/fillinblank? The reason someone would want to work there is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, should there be some expectation of privacy in your own home? I believe their should be. Is there a law to enforce that? No.

This isn't a complicated topic. Simply put there is no law to protect privacy in your own home.

Simply put, the freedom of association extends to employers every bit as much as it does to you. There are people who do things in the "privacy of their own home" that you disagree with, and therefore choose to not associate with them. Why should it be any different for an employer?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz
So what would you people be saying if this was changed from smoking to gay lifestyle?

No one can say it is genetic with any certainty.

So lets assume being gay is a choice, would people be willing to let companies fire people based on sexual preference?

Why would you want to work for anyone who doesn't want you to work for them? Do you think your workplace is going to be enjoyable? Do you think you'll have much of a future or chance of advancement?

Why should ANYONE be forced to associate with someone they don't wish to associate with?

Finally, should employees be forced to work for empoyers they don't like? Because if we are to have equal rights and yet follow your lead, employers should have the right to force employees to work for them even if the employee wants to quit.

Your first and second questions are irrelevant. You either believe in some right to do what you want in your own home or you don't.

Third question, once again just rephrasing the first two questions.

The last question is relevant. No, you shouldn't have to employee people you don't like. However, if your boss has no problem with you and thought you did good work. Then years later just happens to find out you are gay, there is no reason to fire you.

I fully believe there has to be some limitations to guarantee some privacy in your own home.

Let me state this one final time:

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

You have every right to smoke all you want... and your employer has every right to refuse to associate with you. NEITHER OF YOU HAS LOST A RIGHT.

You do NOT have a right to employment. You never did. Your employer never had a right to employ you. Employment is a mutual agreement. BOTH sides can terminate that agreement for whatever reason.

My questions are TOTALLY relevant. This has NOTHING to do with privacy. Your right to privacy protects you from GOVERNMENT intrusions. It has NOTHING to do with an employer's (or friend's, or spouse's) right to refuse to associate with you for personal reasons.

I think you are missing a few marbles. Where did I start quoting the constitution. However, I do believe there is some reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. Especially when it involves activities that aren't illegal.

You like to jump to conclusions all over there place.

Your questions are totally irrelevant. Want me to point out why? Why do you care about the reasons someone wants to work at a place that hates smokers/gays/drinkers/fillinblank? The reason someone would want to work there is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, should there be some expectation of privacy in your own home? I believe their should be. Is there a law to enforce that? No.

This isn't a complicated topic. Simply put there is no law to protect privacy in your own home.

Simply put, the freedom of association extends to employers every bit as much as it does to you. There are people who do things in the "privacy of their own home" that you disagree with, and therefore choose to not associate with them. Why should it be any different for an employer?

Wow you are really passionate about this. Do you run a company or something?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Darkstar757

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
There needs to be a law passed stating that someone cannot be fired for what they do on their own free time. Suppose an employer passed said that women aren't allowed to have sex because they could get pregnant and have to take maternity leave. Would that be legal, in some states, yes. The bottom line is that firing smokers is a slippery slope to becoming North Korea with Coporate America at the helm instead of Kim Jung Ill

Completely absurd.

Employers have ALWAYS had the right to fire people for whatever reason, including moral objections. To act as if this is something new and some kind of new threat to our liberty is patently absurd.

Absurd why because you said so. Thats why this America bud and as a informed voter I will do as much as I can possible to prevent this behavior from becoming the norm.

So you believe your assumed rights trump the rights of the employer?

Fine, to have equal rights we'll pass a law stating that employers can force you to work if you want to quit for a "protected" reason.

Say your boss smokes, and you hate it and want to quit. NO!! You cannot quit. You are forced to work for an employer you cannot stand.

Wait, that's not fair, is it? Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Informed? You're far from informed. You're an ignorant, spoiled voter with a twisted sense of entitlement who would abrogate the rights of others to make up rights for yourself.

That's not even a valid point because physically you don't have to work, you can just not show up, and if he makes you show up by physically sezing you, that's called slavery, not equal rights.

Besides, the rights of the employee should always out weigh those of the employer because the employee has need for those rights to protect themselves from the employer, who has a much larger potential for abuse.

Again, you are not forced to work. Therefore an employer CANNOT abuse you. Forcing an employer to employ you is a form of oppression.

What if a government agent came to your house with a maid and said: You MUST hire this woman? What if the government forced to to shop only at certain stores and employ the services of only certain people against your will.

Again, employement is a MUTUAL agreement. BOTH MUST have the right to terminate at any time.

So it's opression if an employer can't fire people for lifestyle choices out side of work, but it isn't opression if an employer fires someone for being a democrat. Employers have the right to hire people at will, but do not have the right to fire. They should use the first right, the right to hire to make sure that they are getting a person they think suitable.

Employers have the right to hire or not hire anyone they like, but they damn sure shouldn't have the right to fire people because they don't like a lifestyle choice that does not affect their work performance. If they do, that's called tyranny. And I think everyone here in America feels the same way about tyranny.

An employer cannot be a tyranny. He has no ability to take rights away from you, or oppress you because... wait for it... you are not forced to work for him. You are free to leave at any time.

Abrogating an employer's freedom of association IS tyranny. You have now used the one entity able to be an actual tyranny (the government) to rob the employer of their rights and freedom of association.

And, yet again, this right to fire at will is NOTHING NEW. Employer's have had this right since the founding of this country. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or ANY of the founding fathers writings mentioning anything about limiting an employer's rights to fire at will. Why? Because an employer is a private citizen and has all the rights YOU do. If you maintain YOUR right to freedom of association, the employer MUST maintain their's.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Codewiz
So what would you people be saying if this was changed from smoking to gay lifestyle?

No one can say it is genetic with any certainty.

So lets assume being gay is a choice, would people be willing to let companies fire people based on sexual preference?

Why would you want to work for anyone who doesn't want you to work for them? Do you think your workplace is going to be enjoyable? Do you think you'll have much of a future or chance of advancement?

Why should ANYONE be forced to associate with someone they don't wish to associate with?

Finally, should employees be forced to work for empoyers they don't like? Because if we are to have equal rights and yet follow your lead, employers should have the right to force employees to work for them even if the employee wants to quit.

Your first and second questions are irrelevant. You either believe in some right to do what you want in your own home or you don't.

Third question, once again just rephrasing the first two questions.

The last question is relevant. No, you shouldn't have to employee people you don't like. However, if your boss has no problem with you and thought you did good work. Then years later just happens to find out you are gay, there is no reason to fire you.

I fully believe there has to be some limitations to guarantee some privacy in your own home.

Let me state this one final time:

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

You have every right to smoke all you want... and your employer has every right to refuse to associate with you. NEITHER OF YOU HAS LOST A RIGHT.

You do NOT have a right to employment. You never did. Your employer never had a right to employ you. Employment is a mutual agreement. BOTH sides can terminate that agreement for whatever reason.

My questions are TOTALLY relevant. This has NOTHING to do with privacy. Your right to privacy protects you from GOVERNMENT intrusions. It has NOTHING to do with an employer's (or friend's, or spouse's) right to refuse to associate with you for personal reasons.

I think you are missing a few marbles. Where did I start quoting the constitution. However, I do believe there is some reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. Especially when it involves activities that aren't illegal.

You like to jump to conclusions all over there place.

Your questions are totally irrelevant. Want me to point out why? Why do you care about the reasons someone wants to work at a place that hates smokers/gays/drinkers/fillinblank? The reason someone would want to work there is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, should there be some expectation of privacy in your own home? I believe their should be. Is there a law to enforce that? No.

This isn't a complicated topic. Simply put there is no law to protect privacy in your own home.

Simply put, the freedom of association extends to employers every bit as much as it does to you. There are people who do things in the "privacy of their own home" that you disagree with, and therefore choose to not associate with them. Why should it be any different for an employer?

Wow you are really passionate about this. Do you run a company or something?

What do you have against equal rights?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: slick230
Your body is not your own anymore

Good!

The State of Georgia charges higher premiums for its employees who smoke.

I used to smoke and I am all for anything the encourages and even forces people to quit smoking. The only thing I wish is that I never started.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Amused
An employer cannot be a tyranny. He has no ability to take rights away from you, or oppress you because... wait for it... you are not forced to work for him. You are free to leave at any time.

Abrogating an employer's freedom of association IS tyranny. You have now used the one entity able to be an actual tyranny (the government) to rob the employer of their rights and freedom of association.

And, yet again, this right to fire at will is NOTHING NEW. Employer's have had this right since the founding of this country. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or ANY of the founding fathers writings mentioning anything about limiting an employer's rights to fire at will. Why? Because an employer is a private citizen and has all the rights YOU do. If you maintain YOUR right to freedom of association, the employer MUST maintain their's.

I agree with a number of the points you made, but it seems that by your logic, our equal employment opportunity laws (Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.) should be thrown out the window as well. Should employers be given the right to fire at will any person for any reason, even if that reason is color, race or age? As a private citizen, the government cannot force me to not be racist and not hold prejudices. Can it force that same will on employers?

(Sorry if it sounds like I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm just curious about how you feel about such laws).

 

[Rebasxer]

Originally posted by: Amused

An employer cannot be a tyranny. He has no ability to take rights away from you, or oppress you because... wait for it... you are not forced to work for him. You are free to leave at any time.

Abrogating an employer's freedom of association IS tyranny. You have now used the one entity able to be an actual tyranny (the government) to rob the employer of their rights and freedom of association.

And, yet again, this right to fire at will is NOTHING NEW. Employer's have had this right since the founding of this country. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or ANY of the founding fathers writings mentioning anything about limiting an employer's rights to fire at will. Why? Because an employer is a private citizen and has all the rights YOU do. If you maintain YOUR right to freedom of association, the employer MUST maintain their's.

The noun form of tyranny is tyrant

This has basically turned into a Hobbes v. Locke debate on the social contract. You seem to think that an employee works for an employer out of will. An employee works because they need money to live, not because it's their choice. If an employer deprives people of the right to live by denying them money, because of a personal choice, than it is tyranny because it is an exercise of absolute power over a persons right to live.

And the employer has freedom of association, because he can choose who he wants to hire. It's just like a divorce, if a man marrys a woman, and then later finds out who she really is, ie he finds out that she has a chronic drinking problem along with gambling, than he can choose to divorce her and no longer associate with her, but the man is gonna pay out his ass for the divorce.

Consequentially, if an employer makes a bad choice in hiring someone, but has no recourse to fire them because they perform optimally, than they can fire that person, but in most states it would be a wrongful termination and the employer would have to pay.

My argument is that wrongful termination laws should be national, rather than in the 30 states that have them, because an employer should be responsible for exercising his freedom of assocation right after he had already made a contract with the employee.

 

[Aharami]

firing them outright is a bit extreme, but i'm all for charging them more on healthcare costs for keeping that bad habbit, or dropping them health insurance altogether.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: slick230
Where does it end?

Gattaca.

Freaking spooky. I would have called that movie scenario far fetched just a few years ago. Now it seems pre-destined.

Yet another example of class struggle - the haves trying to tell the have nots how to live. Yes, it is that simple.

Privacy should be a balancing test. Non-work performance affecting lifestyle choices should NOT be greater than an employer's right to know. This one gets more complicated thought becaus eof the adverse health effects and the employer paying a portion of the health premiums.

 

[Xylitol]

It's all fine with me
I live in CA-so no smokin inside so dont really care

 

[joshw10]

I can pretty much support this. I didn't read the article but I dont see why you'd have to fire someone for being a smoker, just don't provide them with healthcare benefits and make it a rule not to smoke on the job.

Can I propose though banning coffee from the workplace, since it does raise blood pressure and results in lost productivity from excess bathroom breaks.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Health care is what put GM in the coffin.

Other companies are catching on.

Smokers are a dying breed. This will just make them disappear a little quicker.

Not in China....

Hygene and non-smokers are nonexistent there.

 

[Crescent13]

:thumbsup:

I think this is a good idea! Now people can't go around destroying their bodies, other peoples bodies (second hand smoke), and the environment.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Health care is what put GM in the coffin.

Other companies are catching on.

Smokers are a dying breed. This will just make them disappear a little quicker.

Not in China....

Hygene and non-smokers are nonexistent there.

This is Chinas way of keeping health care and social security down for old people. Let them smoke and the government wont have to worry about people over 60 because they will all be dead.

 

[KK]

What about if the employer did the opposite, and allowed employees to smoke in the company's buildings. My take on that would be the same, the company has a right to do what it wants. nobody's forcing any one to work there.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: joshw10
I can pretty much support this. I didn't read the article but I dont see why you'd have to fire someone for being a smoker, just don't provide them with healthcare benefits and make it a rule not to smoke on the job.

Can I propose though banning coffee from the workplace, since it does raise blood pressure and results in lost productivity from excess bathroom breaks.

You would have benefitted from reading the article... they don't smoke at work. They were fired for refusing to take a breathalyzer to test if they'd been smoking when they weren't at work.
And you're ignoring the fact that coffee is rich in antioxidants, helps fight diabetes and colon cancer, and has other health benefits.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: poncherelli2
why is obesity protected?

Probably because some court decided that obesity is a disability and is protected by ADA.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Amused
The sense of entitlement in this country is amazing. The twisted sense of "rights" is also amazing.

Think about this, for you and your employer to have EQUAL rights, you MUST be able to quit at any time for any reason and your employer must be able to fire you at any time for any reason.

Change that either way, and the rights become UNEQUAL.

If your employer loses the right to fire you at any time for any reason, you must lose the right to quit at any time for any reason.

How would those of you opposed to this policy feel if employers were able to FORCE you to work for them against your will?

Well, if you think that idea is absurd, why would you think it is just to force employers to hire/employ people they don't want to?

Finally, the OP is absurd. Your body IS still yours. You are free to smoke all you want and that employer is free to not associate with you.

This policy is the epitome of freedom. Taking away the employer's right to not associate with smokers is the epitome of oppression.

How dare you bring logic and reason to a discussion fueled by emotion.

So if I fire you, you are no worse off than me?
People are forgetting that. That is why there are labor laws. That is why there SHOULD be labor laws.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
:thumbsup:

I think this is a good idea! Now people can't go around destroying their bodies, other peoples bodies (second hand smoke), and the environment.

PA eh? I'll be over in a few hours, and I'm going to police all your activites. I'm going to forcably prevent you from doing anything that might pose a threat to your body, other peoples bodies, and the environment.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
There needs to be a law passed stating that someone cannot be fired for what they do on their own free time. Suppose an employer passed said that women aren't allowed to have sex because they could get pregnant and have to take maternity leave. Would that be legal, in some states, yes. The bottom line is that firing smokers is a slippery slope to becoming North Korea with Coporate America at the helm instead of Kim Jung Ill

Suppose I decide to run a brothel in my spare time.

Or run a ponzi scheme out of my house.

Or suppose I decide to engage in a campaign against my employer on my own time.

My employer shouldn't be able to fire me for any of that?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
There needs to be a law passed stating that someone cannot be fired for what they do on their own free time. Suppose an employer passed said that women aren't allowed to have sex because they could get pregnant and have to take maternity leave. Would that be legal, in some states, yes. The bottom line is that firing smokers is a slippery slope to becoming North Korea with Coporate America at the helm instead of Kim Jung Ill

Suppose I decide to run a brothel in my spare time.

Or run a ponzi scheme out of my house.

Or suppose I decide to engage in a campaign against my employer on my own time.

My employer shouldn't be able to fire me for any of that?

Brothels are illegal for the most part in the US.

A ponzi scheme isn't illegal, but unethical. Wasn't Ponzi originally arrested for mail fraud?

Engaging in a campaign against your employer would result in a conflict of interest, and such activities would probably be outlined in your employment contract.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Amused

An employer cannot be a tyranny. He has no ability to take rights away from you, or oppress you because... wait for it... you are not forced to work for him. You are free to leave at any time.

Abrogating an employer's freedom of association IS tyranny. You have now used the one entity able to be an actual tyranny (the government) to rob the employer of their rights and freedom of association.

And, yet again, this right to fire at will is NOTHING NEW. Employer's have had this right since the founding of this country. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or ANY of the founding fathers writings mentioning anything about limiting an employer's rights to fire at will. Why? Because an employer is a private citizen and has all the rights YOU do. If you maintain YOUR right to freedom of association, the employer MUST maintain their's.

The noun form of tyranny is tyrant

This has basically turned into a Hobbes v. Locke debate on the social contract. You seem to think that an employee works for an employer out of will. An employee works because they need money to live, not because it's their choice. If an employer deprives people of the right to live by denying them money, because of a personal choice, than it is tyranny because it is an exercise of absolute power over a persons right to live.

Your argument only works if there's only one employer in the marketplace.

Employees are free to find another employer if they don't like their current employer. Your argument is groundless.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Amused

An employer cannot be a tyranny. He has no ability to take rights away from you, or oppress you because... wait for it... you are not forced to work for him. You are free to leave at any time.

Abrogating an employer's freedom of association IS tyranny. You have now used the one entity able to be an actual tyranny (the government) to rob the employer of their rights and freedom of association.

And, yet again, this right to fire at will is NOTHING NEW. Employer's have had this right since the founding of this country. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or ANY of the founding fathers writings mentioning anything about limiting an employer's rights to fire at will. Why? Because an employer is a private citizen and has all the rights YOU do. If you maintain YOUR right to freedom of association, the employer MUST maintain their's.

The noun form of tyranny is tyrant

This has basically turned into a Hobbes v. Locke debate on the social contract. You seem to think that an employee works for an employer out of will. An employee works because they need money to live, not because it's their choice. If an employer deprives people of the right to live by denying them money, because of a personal choice, than it is tyranny because it is an exercise of absolute power over a persons right to live.

Your argument only works if there's only one employer in the marketplace.

Employees are free to find another employer if they don't like their current employer. Your argument is groundless.

I believe that not hiring smokers is an acceptable business practice. The issue I take with this specific example is that the owner/manager instituted this policy after the terms of employment were already established.

For the people that have job security in mind, it's going to be much harder to establish that so late in life and after having to find a new job after being with the company for over a decade.