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

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
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.

And as smoking has nothing to do with job performance and skill, and as these costs we are talking are unbelievably minimal (and actually Weyers just has a moral agenda up his ass) those smoking employees are free to take their skills to the company's competitor, whereupon the company will lose more in lost revenue than it ever would have paid out in costs.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
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.

And as smoking has nothing to do with job performance and skill, and as these costs we are talking are unbelievably minimal (and actually Weyers just has a moral agenda up his ass) those smoking employees are free to take their skills to the company's competitor, whereupon the company will lose more in lost revenue than it ever would have paid out in costs.

Unbelievably minimal? What planet are you living on?

Healthcare expenses are eating employers alive and are rising at a rate much greater than that of inflation. More and more employers are unable to offer health benefits because of increasing costs. Hiring healthy employees absolutely makes financial sense for a business.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
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.

And as smoking has nothing to do with job performance and skill, and as these costs we are talking are unbelievably minimal (and actually Weyers just has a moral agenda up his ass) those smoking employees are free to take their skills to the company's competitor, whereupon the company will lose more in lost revenue than it ever would have paid out in costs.

Unbelievably minimal? What planet are you living on?

Healthcare expenses are eating employers alive and are rising at a rate much greater than that of inflation. More and more employers are unable to offer health benefits because of increasing costs. Hiring healthy employees absolutely makes financial sense for a business.

The difference in costs between smokers and non-smokers is what I was referring to as unbelievably minimal. Stay on track, eh?

Next we fire hypochondriacs!

 

[BriGy86]

i didn't read the whole article but i did read far enough to see that the woman wasn't even on the health plan through the company and her boss found out later and still didn't change his mind, he also mentioned that her 14 years of loyal service didn't mean anything

he basicly fired her cause he is a dick

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Eli
Now all they need to do is raise this question with the whole drug test thing.

Even though I quit, it still makes me angry. It is none of my employers business if I like to relax to a bowl, or whatever the fsck drug I want to really, after work as long as I come to work 5 minutes early, leave 5 minutes late and do my job as expected.

It is if he is paying for your healthcare.


Don't blame the complanies, blame the elderly and the rest of Americans who consume too much healthcare.

 

[Rebasxer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Eli
Now all they need to do is raise this question with the whole drug test thing.

Even though I quit, it still makes me angry. It is none of my employers business if I like to relax to a bowl, or whatever the fsck drug I want to really, after work as long as I come to work 5 minutes early, leave 5 minutes late and do my job as expected.

It is if he is paying for your healthcare.


Don't blame the complanies, blame the elderly and the rest of Americans who consume too much healthcare.

No L in companies, anyhow I'd much rather blame the massive greed of corporate America rather than the elderly.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
i didn't read the whole article but i did read far enough to see that the woman wasn't even on the health plan through the company and her boss found out later and still didn't change his mind, he also mentioned that her 14 years of loyal service didn't mean anything

he basicly fired her cause he is a dick

Even if she was, the correct answer is just to make the smoking employees pay a higher premium than the non-smokers (actually the difference between what it costs the employer to provide coverage for smokers versus non smokers). Not to attempt to control the off hours lifestyles of the employees. Rebasxer already framed the issue correctly in his Hobbes v Locke social contract discussion, but it went sailing over the heads of too may subsequent repliers.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
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.

And as smoking has nothing to do with job performance and skill, and as these costs we are talking are unbelievably minimal (and actually Weyers just has a moral agenda up his ass) those smoking employees are free to take their skills to the company's competitor, whereupon the company will lose more in lost revenue than it ever would have paid out in costs.

Unbelievably minimal? What planet are you living on?

Healthcare expenses are eating employers alive and are rising at a rate much greater than that of inflation. More and more employers are unable to offer health benefits because of increasing costs. Hiring healthy employees absolutely makes financial sense for a business.

The difference in costs between smokers and non-smokers is what I was referring to as unbelievably minimal. Stay on track, eh?

Next we fire hypochondriacs!

I can somewhat se Noggin's point though. I believe thats the reason why certain employers pay for gym memberships. For companies where employees spend most of the day and don't get any exercise, paying for gym membership is sort of like insurance and a lot less than the legal fees they would have to pay if someone decided to sue the employer for contributing to bad health. This is America, some people sue for everything.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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.

Right. They could have left their families without a source of income. Principle is far more important to the kids than food on the table.

Honestly, you think unorganzied workers have any power? No. Once they organize they then get crapped on because they are interfering with business.

If I control your purse strings, I control your life. Believe it or not, not everyone can walk out the door and get a new job.

 

[Amused]

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...

Employers have had this freedom for 200+ years in the US. Where is this so called "tyranny?"

Go cry about the sky falling somewhere else. No thinking person will buy your chicken little whining here.

And, yet again, an employer cannot be a "tyrant" by forcing you to do anything you do not want to do. You can leave and find employment elsewhere any time you want.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Right. They could have left their families without a source of income. Principle is far more important to the kids than food on the table.

Honestly, you think unorganzied workers have any power? No. Once they organize they then get crapped on because they are interfering with business.

If I control your purse strings, I control your life. Believe it or not, not everyone can walk out the door and get a new job.

Employees that walk out on employers can cause great financial harm as well.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that freedoms and equality of rights was dependent on relative wealth. According to your logic, the wealthy have fewer freedoms and rights because they can handle a separation from business associates while the poor cannot.

Sorry, you cannot obtain "social justice" by transferring rights from one individual to another. You can be free, or fair. You cannot be both.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

They were given over a year to quit. They have only themselves to blame.
But then again, I have never given into the temptation of smoking, so I do not have any idea how hard it is to quit.
But I believe this was not only a chance to help that particular company, but themselves as well.
I have never met anyone who has quit smoking who regrets quitting.

 

[HumblePie]

Last topic I spoke up with that Amused was apart of, I was in complete disagreement. This one, I'm in complete agreement.

Employeer's are regular people like anyone else. They deserve the same freedom as anyone else. If they don't want to hire you for a job or fire you for a job for any reason, they should be able to, except those protected by law due to complete uncontrollables by a person. Age, sex, race, blah blah. Which only are protected if the person can perform the job. If they can't perform the job, then they aren't protected. This is why you don't see male waiters at Hooters. This is why the boy scouts can ban gays. Heck, even the government has this freedom to a degree. Ever been in the miltary? You screw up there and they don't just fire you, they can put in you PRISON AND FINE YOU. Want employeers being able to do that? Don't beleive me? Article 131 of the UCMJ. I think it's article 131 if I remember correctly. It states no member of the military can participate in sodomy. Basically it states that people in the military can ONLY have sex missionary style. What the heck does that have to do with job performance? Zero.

Guess what happens if you actually get caught having sodomy and tried and court marshalled for it? Yep.. you get fined, and go to JAIL. Why? because you signed a contractual agreement with the military, the employeer when you joined. You break that contract and they can, will, and do jump all over you.

The government doesn't allow those forms of contracts for employeers but they are entitled to fire and hire at will at least. That's their basic rights. It's your basic rights to work or not work at will as well.

To those that say, one day all corporations will do this. Are you that dumb??? LOL. The reason this will never have is competition and a classless society. In America, ANYONE can be their own boss. You don't need to work for someone else to make money. You can do your OWN THING AT ANY TIME. Also, if I noticed all the other companies are firing great workers that smoke, I might start up a business to hire all those people and put the other guy out of business. Guess what, this happens. Happens all the farking time. Don't beleive me? LOL look at the computer game industry. One company forces all the software coders to wear slacks and a tie to work and do things by a regimine. All those people quit or get fired for not following the rules. They all form together a new company and drive the old one out of business or buy them out. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Seriously, the arguements the people come up with in favor of workforce laws amaze me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Right. They could have left their families without a source of income. Principle is far more important to the kids than food on the table.

Honestly, you think unorganzied workers have any power? No. Once they organize they then get crapped on because they are interfering with business.

If I control your purse strings, I control your life. Believe it or not, not everyone can walk out the door and get a new job.

Employees that walk out on employers can cause great financial harm as well.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that freedoms and equality of rights was dependent on relative wealth. According to your logic, the wealthy have fewer freedoms and rights because they can handle a separation from business associates while the poor cannot.

Sorry, you cannot obtain "social justice" by transferring rights from one individual to another. You can be free, or fair. You cannot be both.

By your logic, laws were unjust that protected workers from 18 hour days and dangerous machinery in the English Industrial Revolution.

No one is free because there are restrictions on all of us. Life isn't fair because it isn't. What it comes down to is who has the power to manipulate others, and what restrictions are deemed appropriate in our society. If one acts in a way which casts doubt on the ability to function as an employee, then I understand the employeers point. Ive been the boss, and I have had terrible employees. I've never fired someone because they were fat and I thought they should be thin, or that were gay and I think they should be straight.

Much of the argument is about the absolute right of an employer to fire anyone for no cause at all. His right. I don't believe in it. All rights, and no responsibilities. We tossed out kings over two hundred years ago.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Right. They could have left their families without a source of income. Principle is far more important to the kids than food on the table.

Honestly, you think unorganzied workers have any power? No. Once they organize they then get crapped on because they are interfering with business.

If I control your purse strings, I control your life. Believe it or not, not everyone can walk out the door and get a new job.

Employees that walk out on employers can cause great financial harm as well.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that freedoms and equality of rights was dependent on relative wealth. According to your logic, the wealthy have fewer freedoms and rights because they can handle a separation from business associates while the poor cannot.

Sorry, you cannot obtain "social justice" by transferring rights from one individual to another. You can be free, or fair. You cannot be both.

By your logic, laws were unjust that protected workers from 18 hour days and dangerous machinery in the English Industrial Revolution.

It was not laws that created the 40 hour work week, it was worker demands and unionization. Just as it was not laws that created the myrid of benefits that workers shop for, and employers compete with each other using.

No one is free because there are restrictions on all of us. Life isn't fair because it isn't. What it comes down to is who has the power to manipulate others, and what restrictions are deemed appropriate in our society.

Equlaity under the law is the hallmark of our country. If employees are granted more freedom and rights than employers you have destroyed that equality.

If one acts in a way which casts doubt on the ability to function as an employee, then I understand the employeers point. Ive been the boss, and I have had terrible employees. I've never fired someone because they were fat and I thought they should be thin, or that were gay and I think they should be straight.

That's you. Yet, for some odd reason I bet you'd have no problem firing/refusing to hire a KKKmember who, in his own time, was very active in the Klan.

Much of the argument is about the absolute right of an employer to fire anyone for no cause at all. His right. I don't believe in it. All rights, and no responsibilities. We tossed out kings over two hundred years ago.

It is the responsibility of the worker to make sure he can handle having to look for a new job, just as it is the responsibility of the employer to make sure he can handle finding a new employee. The employee is NOT the responsibility of the employers, and vice versa. Each is responsible for THEMSELVES, not each other.

And WTF is this about kings? WTF does that have to do with anything we've discussed? Employers have had the freedom in this country since it's founding. That line, more than any other, merely exposes your ignorance.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I'll say it again, because people keep ignoring the point - if your real intention is to minimize healthcare costs for unhealthy life choices, then firing people is killing a cockroach with a bazooka. It's complete overkill. Just make them pay the cost difference and move on.

But if your real goal is to tell people how YOU want them to live, then firing them is the way to unethically and immorally exercise your absolute power over them. The capitalist exercising his capital over the serf. It's utter B.S. There is no "choice" here, and what's worse, is the blatant attempt of one person to choose for the other. Ridiculous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
I'll say it again, because people keep ignoring the point - if your real intention is to minimize healthcare costs for unhealthy life choices, then firing people is killing a cockroach with a bazooka. It's complete overkill. Just make them pay the cost difference and move on.

But if your real goal is to tell people how YOU want them to live, then firing them is the way to unethically and immorally exercise your absolute power over them. The capitalist exercising his capital over the serf. It's utter B.S. There is no "choice" here, and what's worse, is the blatant attempt of one person to choose for the other. Ridiculous.

How about their real intention is exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of association?

They are NOT telling anyone how to live. They are merely refusing to associate with people who offend them. And last time I looked, that was a constitutional right granted to every individual in the US, regardless of wealth or means. The smokers are perfectly free to smoke all they want, and the employer is perfectly free to not associate with them because of it.

Your first argument is a good one against LEGAL restrictions on smoking and bans. It is moot in this case.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
By your logic, laws were unjust that protected workers from 18 hour days and dangerous machinery in the English Industrial Revolution.

No one is free because there are restrictions on all of us. Life isn't fair because it isn't. What it comes down to is who has the power to manipulate others, and what restrictions are deemed appropriate in our society. If one acts in a way which casts doubt on the ability to function as an employee, then I understand the employeers point. Ive been the boss, and I have had terrible employees. I've never fired someone because they were fat and I thought they should be thin, or that were gay and I think they should be straight.

Much of the argument is about the absolute right of an employer to fire anyone for no cause at all. His right. I don't believe in it. All rights, and no responsibilities. We tossed out kings over two hundred years ago.

Ahh this is were you were wrong. At that time, England was a CLASS BASED SOCIETY still. If you weren't born to own a business you never could. You couldn't offer competition. As such, employers could do pretty much what they wanted to the secondary class citizens. Why? the workers had no other choice without changing the system, which they did. If you quit a job or got fired back then, you couldn't find work elsewhere because all the people that controlled the money and work talked to each other. They would prevent you from finding a job. You basically got snowballed to death. This also happened in some areas in America at one time. This is why those 5 states that have labor laws set them up. Why? Because the ONLY business in those areas was controlled by a select few. If you didn't like it, you were SOL as an individual. Then people have the bright idea to form up and get back at the employer. This was done with unions and strikes and such. To a degree it got REALLY BAD for both sides and ruined those states economies for a time until the law HAD to step in a mediate.

When you have a competitive atmosphere of employers, a classless atmosphere where anyone can be their own boss, then you don't NEED labor laws. All you need is to let people have the freedom to choose. Choose whom to hire or fire at any time, and whom to work for or not work for for.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: slick230

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.

OK, so what if employers start firing people wo participate in "extreme" sports, like skydiving or rock climbing? These people put themselves in much greater sudden jeopardy than people who smoke. Shouldn't they be held to the same draconian standards?

Actually a lot of sports stars cant even ride a motorcycle or they will be fired...its something they agree to when they sign with a team

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: slick230

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.

OK, so what if employers start firing people wo participate in "extreme" sports, like skydiving or rock climbing? These people put themselves in much greater sudden jeopardy than people who smoke. Shouldn't they be held to the same draconian standards?

Actually a lot of sports stars cant even ride a motorcycle or they will be fired...its something they agree to when they sign with a team

My job has something like this. If you participate in an extreme sport then you lose and can never get again your health care benefits. Part of what I signed when I got hired here. They could just fire people if they want, but removing benefits might as well be like firing.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused
How about their real intention is exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of association?

As long as the capital holders can do whatever they want whenever they want, it's all good with Amused. Same song, different day. Money=rights. You are a colossal bore.

The question isn't WHO they are associating with, it's about them telling people how to live because they have the capitalistic power to do so. As usual you try to couch it in Boortz-esque gobbedleygook.

You spend pages talking about legislation that not only doesn't exist, but isn't proposed.

Ahh why bother. You are the most boorish poster on ATOT. You speak like a young sponge who has soaked up capitlistic dogma for years and is incapable of independent, rational thought that considers not one, not two, but all sides to an issue and all possible solutions.

 

[broon]

It's discrimination and they shouldn't be able to do that to current employees. It really wouldn't be any different than if they fired people for being promiscuous.

 

[TheAdvocate]

To humble pie and the "free markets will correct everything" posters - Free market correction is a GREAT idea in the closed idealistic vacuum. But let's take a stroll back to early 1900's america when the markets WERE unregulated and examine working conditions for the average employee. No, not what they did after work on their own time, like in the instant case, but how their lives were on the clock.

If you know anything about history - brutal hours, unhealthy working conditions, child labor, no redress, low wages, little opportunity, death, sickness, and multi-generational poverty.

No thanks on the completely unregulated markets.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
How about their real intention is exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of association?

As long as the capital holders can do whatever they want whenever they want, it's all good with Amused. Same song, different day. Money=rights. You are a colossal bore.

The question isn't WHO they are associating with, it's about them telling people how to live because they have the capitalistic power to do so. As usual you try to couch it in Boortz-esque gobbedleygook.

You spend pages talking about legislation that not only doesn't exist, but isn't proposed.

Ahh why bother. You are the most boorish poster on ATOT. You speak like a young sponge who has soaked up capitlistic dogma for years and is incapable of independent, rational thought that considers not one, not two, but all sides to an issue and all possible solutions.

Ah, once one reads past the insults, attacks and whining, one finds a central theme:

"Rights are relative to wealth." That's your core argument. Therefore, equal protection under the law becomes moot and is thrown out the window. We now have a reverse caste system in which the wealthy have fewer rights than the poorer classes.

Again, employers cannot, nor do they have the power to tell anyone how to live. The employees are perfectly free to leave and find employment elsewhere. Employees do this every day in this country for their own reasons... yet if it's an employer's reasons, you throw a fit.

Employers have had this right since the founding of this country. Where is the rampant abuse? It doesn't exist. Why? Because employers are as varied in their preferences as employees. There is always a perfect match out there somewhere. By allowing both to find acceptable matches, you foster growth and productivity. Force employers to hire and keep employees they neither want, nor like and productivity will decline.

Your ideas have been tried before, and failed. Communism and the loss of rights in an effort for social justice ALWAYS fails. There is no such thing as "social justice." You cannot lift up one group at the cost of the rights and freedoms of another.

Finally, the practical side: Why would anyone want to work for someone who doesn't want them, or like them?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Communism? Holy Straw Man!

That entire post is utterly ridiculous Amused. Typically, you have a mind with the complexity of a light switch. Either it's pure capitalism or communism. Your attempts to emulate single decision binary thinking are admirably pathetic and humurous at the same time.

We have had unregulated markets. They sucked.

I didn't say wealth=rights. You did. I'm saying it shouldn't equal rights. Maybe in a week you'll have evolved beyond your two dimensional thinking and understand the concept. maybe not.