How Much Say Should Your Employer Have Over You?

[CSM]

Exactly. A few posts back someone brought up 'this used to be done' perhaps, I guess that is what made unions so popular for decades. Then employers 'got it.' The tide may be turning again.

(At school, filters. Some words set off 'form data refused.)

Isn't it ironic that the school filter allows the word firearm and not the other????

 

[Annie]

Isn't it ironic that the school filter allows the word firearm and not the other????

quite interesting. None of them make sense.

 

[dilloduck]

I HATE smoking, absolutely loathe it. Used to smoke myself and quit 10 years ago. And as everyone knows, a smoker who has been able to quit for 10 years normally has an obnoxiously LOUD voice VS someone who has never smoked. Hey, we're ENTITLED!. Here's mine:
I do not want to smell cigarette smoke anywhere or at any time. I'm asthmatic now due to the few years I did smoke. My family still smokes and they receive NO support from me. If it were illegalized or taxed beyond belief I'd vote YES in a N.Y. second!! Let's have smoking colonies ( a la
Biodome! HA!) for those who can't quit and let them out for regular family visits..Eh?
SNUFF that nasty thang!

tobacco IS already taxed beyong belief--who are you kidding---those smokers you hate pay billions in taxes that benefit non-smokers too!

 

[no1tovote4]

tobacco IS already taxed beyong belief--who are you kidding---those smokers you hate pay billions in taxes that benefit non-smokers too!

They also pay for that "settlement" in the lawsuit that gave billions directly to the states in order to pay for health costs. The states used the money everywhere but for health costs and are now attempting, in many cases, to raise the taxes again to "pay" for health costs related to smoking.

Taxed, taxed, sued and taxed the smoker pays for more government programs than any other group. Amazingly this is a regressive taxation as more poor smoke per capita than the rich do yet it is the Left that really pushes these measures in Legislation and lawsuits.

 

[dmp]

Did you know the company could issue a policy against drinking, too? Yup. If they issue said policy, and find out you've had wine with dinner, you could be fired - UNLESS you happen to be in an alcoholic treatment program at the time you order the Merlot to drink, while eating your spicy tri-tip. Alcoholics - protected.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have to agree with Kathianne on this one. No employer (save the gov't, perhaps) has the right to forbid you from participating in any otherwise legal activity away from the workplace.

 

[5stringJeff]

until Jesus is the only employee ??

He'd be a busy guy!

 

[dmp]

I have to agree with Kathianne on this one. No employer (save the gov't, perhaps) has the right to forbid you from participating in any otherwise legal activity away from the workplace.

...what if you were hired as a Minister, yet frequent strip-clubs?


When an employer hires, they often hire an 'image' of thier company. It's within their rights to control what they public views their 'image' to be.

 

[no1tovote4]

...what if you were hired as a Minister, yet frequent strip-clubs?


When an employer hires, they often hire an 'image' of thier company. It's within their rights to control what they public views their 'image' to be.

When I am at home I am not an image of their company. I do not represent them in any way when I am not working at their place of business. Restrict me all you want at the business but what I do at home is without exception my own business and none of theirs.

 

[dmp]

When I am at home I am not an image of their company. I do not represent them in any way when I am not working at their place of business. Restrict me all you want at the business but what I do at home is without exception my own business and none of theirs.

law is still law.

 

[Annie]

...what if you were hired as a Minister, yet frequent strip-clubs?


When an employer hires, they often hire an 'image' of thier company. It's within their rights to control what they public views their 'image' to be.

I might go along with a 'hire' thing. I mean as a teacher, one has to observe certain priorities, whether on the job or off. This is why many choose not to live in proximity to the school they are teaching at or have a listed phone number. I hear you on that D.

However, in this case which is setting a precedent in the private sphere, they are doing this 'after' the hire, with notice.

 

[5stringJeff]

...what if you were hired as a Minister, yet frequent strip-clubs?


When an employer hires, they often hire an 'image' of thier company. It's within their rights to control what they public views their 'image' to be.

As a minister, you are always "on the job," so to speak, because you are a leader of a church, or church body. It's your job to provide a constant moral and ethical standard to those you minister; therefore, it's understood that you adhere to a higher moral standard at all times. But the vast majority of workers do not fall into this category, and those who do accept it as part of the vocation, not just the job.

Nevertheless, let me rephrase my original proposition:
No employer (save religious institutions and the gov't, perhaps) has the right to forbid you from participating in any otherwise legal activity away from the workplace.

 

[pegwinn]

As a minister, you are always "on the job," so to speak, because you are a leader of a church, or church body. It's your job to provide a constant moral and ethical standard to those you minister; therefore, it's understood that you adhere to a higher moral standard at all times. But the vast majority of workers do not fall into this category, and those who do accept it as part of the vocation, not just the job.

Nevertheless, let me rephrase my original proposition:
No employer (save religious institutions and the gov't, perhaps) has the right to forbid you from participating in any otherwise legal activity away from the workplace.

With respect, you cannot distinguish between them or you just set up for future fights. I still believe this is nothing more than a money thing. Smokers drive up the cost of the insurance he (employer) is paying for. Must have been a lot of cash if he was willing to give a fifteen month notice and foot the bill for therapy. Where do we balance the right of the business owner to run his business? After all if the employer doesn't provide insurance or assistance with insurance, won't the number of people without any insurance just keep going up?

I might go along with a 'hire' thing. I mean as a teacher, one has to observe certain priorities, whether on the job or off. This is why many choose not to live in proximity to the school they are teaching at or have a listed phone number. I hear you on that D.

However, in this case which is setting a precedent in the private sphere, they are doing this 'after' the hire, with notice.

I think the key here is 'after hire'. They all have the option of walking out. AS I understand it, four people did.

 

[Annie]

With respect, you cannot distinguish between them or you just set up for future fights. I still believe this is nothing more than a money thing. Smokers drive up the cost of the insurance he (employer) is paying for. Must have been a lot of cash if he was willing to give a fifteen month notice and foot the bill for therapy. Where do we balance the right of the business owner to run his business? After all if the employer doesn't provide insurance or assistance with insurance, won't the number of people without any insurance just keep going up?



I think the key here is 'after hire'. They all have the option of walking out. AS I understand it, four people did.

Nope, from what I read, many did quit, good for them. The four refused to take the test, for that they were terminated. Again, none of this was under their terms of employment when hired. IF it were a union location, they would have been grandfathered, any new hires would have to abide by said rules.
As we spoke of earlier, if a smoker, not a place to apply.

On the other hand, the insurance thing really carries little weight. I've never worked for a company where health insurance was a benefit that they even asked if I smoked. Group policy rates and all that.

This seems more of a big brother tactic, no less.

 

[dilloduck]

Nope, from what I read, many did quit, good for them. The four refused to take the test, for that they were terminated. Again, none of this was under their terms of employment when hired. IF it were a union location, they would have been grandfathered, any new hires would have to abide by said rules.
As we spoke of earlier, if a smoker, not a place to apply.

On the other hand, the insurance thing really carries little weight. I've never worked for a company where health insurance was a benefit that they even asked if I smoked. Group policy rates and all that.

This seems more of a big brother tactic, no less.

As long as they can afford to be picky I assume they will be. Gonna have to see what the market can bear

 

[Annie]

As long as they can afford to be picky I assume they will be. Gonna have to see what the market can bear

Again, you may see employees have to find a way to protect their rights from employers. This is harkening back to the days of 'corporate plantation' with overlords. Sorry serfdom is dead even in Russia.

 

[Merlin1047]

With respect, you cannot distinguish between them or you just set up for future fights. I still believe this is nothing more than a money thing.

No. It's far more than a money thing. It's a thing about an employer who is a control freak attempting to dictate the actions of his employees while they are not on the job. If this little Hitler wants his employees to act according to company rules 24 - 7, then he should have to PAY THEM - not for an eight hour day, but for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Let me repeat what I said earlier, because it appears that you either fail to understand or refuse to accept the premise that there is a difference between employment and slavery.

Smokers drive up the cost of the insurance he (employer) is paying for.

That is a true statement. Here's a thought - instead of this dipshit with a Napoleon complex attempting to control his employees on their off hours, how about charging the smokers an appropriate surcharge which covers the additional costs they incur? Ah, but it probably massages the bastard's ego when he can be a petty little nazi.

Where do we balance the right of the business owner to run his business?

An employer has the right to expect competent work and adherence to company rules while his people are on COMPANY TIME. Other than that, employers have no "rights". PEOPLE have rights. Something you appear to have forgotten. A person does not sell his rights or his soul in exchange for employment. Civil liberties do not end at the company's front door.

After all if the employer doesn't provide insurance or assistance with insurance, won't the number of people without any insurance just keep going up?

That's an oversimplification. This is not a choice of providing health care or not. Again, charge employees a greater co-pay if they smoke, are overweight, drink, drive race cars, climb mountains, skateboard, ski, sky dive, or drink too much coffee. But no company has a right to tell you what you can or cannot do once you leave the workplace. So long as you are not acting to harm the company or working for a competitor, they have no say in how you live your life.

If you're so fond of employer "rights" (which do not exist) then tell me where this kind of corporate manipulation ends? Next they'll be timing your bathroom breaks and counting the number of sheets you use to wipe your butt.

I think the key here is 'after hire'. They all have the option of walking out. AS I understand it, four people did.

Again, an emphatic NO. "After hire" does not entitle the employer to impose intrusive policies which are unreasonable, an invasion of privacy, or a bar to perfectly legal activities when the employee is not at the workplace. When an employer hires an employee, he purchases the services of that person for specified tasks during a specified time. However, when the workday is done and you leave the premises, you are no longer an employee. The company does not pay you 24 hours a day, so they have no authority to impose their requirements on you unless they want to pay you for that privelige.

When I work for a corporation, I sell my services to them in exchange for a pay and benefit package. It is a business transaction. I provide something the corporation wants, the corporation provides something I want.

They do not assume ownership of me or my life.

 

[manu1959]

you can always thank smokers for paying lots of cash into SS and not using it

 

[pegwinn]

Let me repeat what I said earlier, because it appears that you either fail to understand or refuse to accept the premise that there is a difference between employment and slavery.

I completly understand. I just think you are going waaaaaaaaay overboard. Think back to your days in the service. Not wartime. Peacetime, Garrison duty, complete with a full ration of MickyMouse games you had no control over. That was fouled up. This is nothing. Less than nothing, because you can walk away without penalty.

That is a true statement. Here's a thought - instead of this dipshit with a Napoleon complex attempting to control his employees on their off hours, how about charging the smokers an appropriate surcharge which covers the additional costs they incur? Ah, but it probably massages the bastard's ego when he can be a petty little nazi.

That would work as well. But it aint the route he chose to go. Me, when I get to running a show where I can employ someone, I aint offering any benifits at all. I will pay 20% over market value and let the guy make his own arrangements. So now we got three approaches to the same issue. Point is it's his business. He should be able to run it his way.

An employer has the right to expect competent work and adherence to company rules while his people are on COMPANY TIME. Other than that, employers have no "rights". PEOPLE have rights. Something you appear to have forgotten. A person does not sell his rights or his soul in exchange for employment. Civil liberties do not end at the company's front door.

Something I forgot? Uh Merlin my friend, you are moveing toward the deep end of the pool here. What right has been violated? Which part of the constitution did I miss. He/she has the right to tell the lil wannabe Hitler to kiss his ass and move on. If enough people exercise the right to work elsewhere the lil hitler will go out of business.

Not gonna bother picking apart your entire post. Here's the bottom line. The employee doesn't have the right to work where they wish. Employment is a privelige. I just finished my third job search since retireing from the service. Trust me, getting a job is not a right anymore than smoking is. Once there you, not the employer, decide when or if conditions become worth the hassles of quitting over.

And, If I run the business, then by God I will *run* the business as I see fit. If an employee doesn't like it, they are free to draw on unemployment or flip burgers down the road.

 

[Johnney]

insurance is going to go up regardless. when you get a 5% raise, rates go up 6. (just numbers i threw out there) you cant win.

and how does my smoking off the clock, im my house, car, different state have to do with anything about the company image? im not wearing a sign that says where i work, or have a tattoo across my head about it.

Merlins right, if they have to abide by the companies rules 24/7, pay them 24/7. thats about the most ridiculous thing ive heard in a while. so when can we expect the over weight people to get pink slips? hey its a choice they made (well most of the time its a choice they made, i can understand medical). what about people who cuss off the clock?
wanna kill taxes? leaglize some good old doobage and tax the hell out of it. fucking dopers would pay.