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

[Vic]

The real issue is: who's going to want to work at Weyco?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, labor laws are just another way of the government telling its citizens that they don't have to think, they don't have to take responsibility, and the government will do it for them. It is so much easier to control a population that asks you to solve all its problems for them instead of the population standing up for them self. If they stood up to business they might stand up to government next! Then politicians might be held responsible for the bills they vote for.

The only thing that was necessary to keep this from happening was for the majority of his employees to say no, and then walk out. If you will not stand up for what you believe in, why should you expect anyone else too?

 

[salt9876]

Smoking is bad for you, but no1 can tell you to stop especially your boss. Thats like saying that any1 that speeds should go to jail for life.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: salt9876
Smoking is bad for you, but no1 can tell you to stop especially your boss. Thats like saying that any1 that speeds should go to jail for life.

Actually, with certain jobs that involve travelling, you are required to have a clean driver's license before and during your employment there. If not, it is grounds for termination. So either stop speeding, or lose your job.

 

[Rebasxer]

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.

It doesn't matter if there are multiple employers, because were dealing with one employee to employer realtionship, and anyhow, it's not like people who are fired can go out in one day and find the same job with the same benefits to maintain the same quality of life.

Employees are free to find a better employer, but employers are not free to fre employees because they don't approve of their lifestyle

 

[Martin]

here is what I want to see happen:

1. all companies in the US adopt the same stance
2. all companies then move to fire anyone who drinks outside of work
3. all companies then move to fire anyone who doesn't excercise vigorously 7 hrs a week.
4. all companies fire everyone who dares to consume any kind of sugar or fat.
5. etc

maybe at some point you people will wake up and all you tyrant wannabies will see the idiocy of your views...

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Martin
here is what I want to see happen:

1. all companies in the US adopt the same stance
2. all companies then move to fire anyone who drinks outside of work
3. all companies then move to fire anyone who doesn't excercise vigorously 7 hrs a week.
4. all companies fire everyone who dares to consume any kind of sugar or fat.
5. etc

maybe at some point you people will wake up and all you tyrant wannabies will see the idiocy of your views...

Why do companies want employees to be healthy? Doesnt that mean they are gonna have to pay them pension for 20-30 years after they retire?

 

[Jzero]

So....how many people who think this is bad are OK with state/local governments imposing smoking bans in restaurants and other privately-owned but open-to-the-public places?

 

[Rebasxer]

Originally posted by: Jzero
So....how many people who think this is bad are OK with state/local governments imposing smoking bans in restaurants and other privately-owned but open-to-the-public places?

I'm ok with neither, but for different reasons, what I am against are asshat parents smoking w/ kids in the car and all the windows.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Martin
here is what I want to see happen:

1. all companies in the US adopt the same stance
2. all companies then move to fire anyone who drinks outside of work
3. all companies then move to fire anyone who doesn't excercise vigorously 7 hrs a week.
4. all companies fire everyone who dares to consume any kind of sugar or fat.
5. etc

maybe at some point you people will wake up and all you tyrant wannabies will see the idiocy of your views...

Remember that companies need employees to do work. They need to pay employees to keep the economy running. The type of thing can only happen as long as people believe that they are incapable of affecting a corporation.
If you don?t like what a corporation is doing, let it know with your wallet.
If you don?t like what a corporation is doing that you work for, let it know with your feet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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.

You're right, your employer has the right be to be chcken sh!t asswipe if he wishes too and so do you.

It's chicken sh!t to want more productive workers who don't drain your healthcare plan and stink like open ass?

So you claim that people that don't smoke are more productive? As for them smelling like "Open Ass" well I guess I'll have to trust you on that as I never smelled "Open Ass" myself. I guess I travel in a different group than you do.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Jzero
So....how many people who think this is bad are OK with state/local governments imposing smoking bans in restaurants and other privately-owned but open-to-the-public places?

I'm ok with neither, but for different reasons, what I am against are asshat parents smoking w/ kids in the car and all the windows.

Heh. That one hit home. My stepmother used to do that in her Benz. If I cracked my window for fresh air, she threw a tantrum. 2nd hand smoke FTW!

To answer Jzero - totally different issue. Banning smoking in public places isnt limited to a discussion of govt control. The forefront issue there is the invasiveness of smoking. If smoking were truly a single person affecting activity, then the bans would be ridiculous. But it isn't, so they're not. I'm all for individual fredooms, *so long as they dont infringe on the next person's freedoms*.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

Originally posted by: Jzero
So....how many people who think this is bad are OK with state/local governments imposing smoking bans in restaurants and other privately-owned but open-to-the-public places?

I'm ok with neither, but for different reasons, what I am against are asshat parents smoking w/ kids in the car and all the windows.

Heh. That one hit home. My stepmother used to do that in her Benz. If I cracked my window for fresh air, she threw a tantrum. 2nd hand smoke FTW!

To answer Jzero - totally different issue. Banning smoking in public places isnt limited to a discussion of govt control. The forefront issue there is the invasiveness of smoking. If smoking were truly a single person affecting activity, then the bans would be ridiculous. But it isn't, so they're not. I'm all for individual fredooms, *so long as they dont infringe on the next person's freedoms*.

Not totally different issues. You feel that the government should be able to tell business owners whether or not to allow smoking on their own property (essentially, a business decision), but the government shouldn't allow them to be able to only hire and employ non-smokers?

Just like you can find employment somewhere else, you can go eat or drink somewhere else.

 

[serialkiller]

in the end it all boils down to business.... like the saying goes, "This is nothing personal, this is just business."

 

[MetalMat]

thats crazy

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: 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.

The employer gave the employees 15 months to quit smoking.

The employees chose their fate.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: serialkiller
in the end it all boils down to business.... like the saying goes, "This is nothing personal, this is just business."

the smokers are going to cost the company more money when they retire

it all comes down to money

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

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.

It doesn't matter if there are multiple employers, because were dealing with one employee to employer realtionship, and anyhow, it's not like people who are fired can go out in one day and find the same job with the same benefits to maintain the same quality of life.

Employees are free to find a better employer, but employers are not free to fre employees because they don't approve of their lifestyle

Um... actually, they are. Employers can fire at will employees for any reason, or no reason at all. The employee can leave for any reason, or no reason at all. Just like the contract the employee signed when she was hired said.

(Whoops, I'm starting to sound like Amused.)

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: 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.

The employer gave the employees 15 months to quit.

The employees chose their fate.

Ask smokers how easy it is to quit, given any amount of time.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Martin
here is what I want to see happen:

1. all companies in the US adopt the same stance
2. all companies then move to fire anyone who drinks outside of work
3. all companies then move to fire anyone who doesn't excercise vigorously 7 hrs a week.
4. all companies fire everyone who dares to consume any kind of sugar or fat.
5. etc

maybe at some point you people will wake up and all you tyrant wannabies will see the idiocy of your views...

But see, that's the beauty of the free market!

If that happened, no employers would be able to find qualified employees, and the trend would reverse itself. Employers compete for qualified employees, and employees compete for desirable jobs. The free market provides all of these opportunities.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: 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.

The employer gave the employees 15 months to quit.

The employees chose their fate.

Ask smokers how easy it is to quit, given any amount of time.

No need to. I quit after 10 years of smoking.

And if they can't quit in this case, they can find somewhere else to work.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: 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.

No, labor laws are just another way of the government telling its citizens that they don't have to think, they don't have to take responsibility, and the government will do it for them. It is so much easier to control a population that asks you to solve all its problems for them instead of the population standing up for them self. If they stood up to business they might stand up to government next! Then politicians might be held responsible for the bills they vote for.

The only thing that was necessary to keep this from happening was for the majority of his employees to say no, and then walk out. If you will not stand up for what you believe in, why should you expect anyone else too?

Yep. This is exactly right. The employees could have bankrupted that arrogant pseudo-moralistic prick Weyers in a single day. But between the victim mentalities and the current overzealous anti-smoking attitudes that empowered them to turn on each other, they fscked themselves.

 

[yllus]

The boss in that article sounds like a real ass, and I feel sympathy for the fired workers, but I wouldn't have the law structured any other way than the way it is now. You can quit for any reason, they can fire you for any reason. Fair's fair.

If more and more companies start to pull this crap, workers will gravitate away from them and set up their own, or go to a competitor. Or revive the workers' union. In short, our need for freedom is too strong to stamp out - things will balance out.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Jzero
So....how many people who think this is bad are OK with state/local governments imposing smoking bans in restaurants and other privately-owned but open-to-the-public places?

Actually, I'm against that.

The business and patrons should be able to decide that for themselves, just like this issue of employment.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Smoking is bad.

Let's put it this way: It is your choice to smoke, and it is the company's choice to retain someone who is going to cost them more money than someone else, e.g. a non-smoker.