Corporate Surveillance Of People's Private Lives

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
March 14, 2005

Surveillance on the Job
Fascists in the Machine
By DAVE LINDORFF

We grow up hearing about the glories of America's Bill of Rights and especially of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and association, but the ugly truth is that those freedoms only apply to that narrow sliver of waking time when we are at home or commuting to or from work. During the most important part of the average person's day--those eight or nine hours when she or he is at work--there is no such freedom at all. What you say, wear, or maybe even think, and whom you choose to hang with, can mean the end of job or career. On most jobs, you have to wear certain things and at some even say certain things (like a company cheer!) on pain of losing your job.

And it gets worse. A new trend in which companies are telling employees that if they smoke, even at home, they can be terminated, heralds a brave new world where corporations will begin setting all kinds of behavioral rules for employees to follow off the job if they want to keep it. How far off are we from a time when going to a demonstration on one's free time can be grounds for firing?

My question is, why aren't we freedom-loving Americans raising holy hell about this trampling of our rights? Where's the outrage at our being treated like the citizens of China, Saudi Arabia or Burma on the job?

Forget Jesus. What would Thomas Jefferson say about the new corporate rules of behavior and the new monitoring of workers' private communications and private lives?

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff03142005.html

 

[dmp]

Nobody has the right to work wherever they please. If you don't like the rules of a company you work for, quit.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Nobody has the right to work wherever they please. If you don't like the rules of a company you work for, quit.

does that company have the right to tell you that you must eat fish on friday if the director is catholic? or that you must give up something for lent?

 

[dmp]

does that company have the right to tell you that you must eat fish on friday if the director is catholic? or that you must give up something for lent?

If the 'business' is catholic - yes.

Again...nobody has a RIGHT to work where they want.

 

[Gem]

This goes hand-in-hand with movie stars and musicians feeling that they should be able and encouraged to say whatever asinine, childish, and idiotic thought that pops into their heads, but if a normal citizen has the audacity to respond to that thought negatively, say, by refusing to buy any more of their albums, or refusing to see any more of their movies - suddenly that star is being "blacklisted" or their freedom of speech is being denied to them.

You have freedom of speech. You have the freedom of expression. You do NOT have the freedom to dictate how other people will react to your thoughts, ideas, and expressions.

The only thing a private business must do is make sure that the rules of their company are well known and documents before they start to enforce them. If I am hired at a company with absolutely no knowledge that if I have a drink at a restaurant on Friday night and am seen by my boss I could be fired because the owner is an ex-alchoholic....that is wrong. However, if I am informed that taking this postition means that I am no longer allowed to drink in public because of the crazy boss's rules...then I have no excuse. I have two options 1) thanks the interviewer for her time but say, "I won't be accepting any job that is this restrictive and crazy. or 2) Give up drinking in public in order to acquire and keep the crazy job.

I find rules such as the "No smoking at all, even at home" one, insane and somewhat obscene....it is the private business owner's right to make such an asinine rule. I have the right to call it asinine, and I have the right to not take a job at his establishment.

"But what if you NEED the job in order to live? Most people can't afford to be so picky!" Is, I'm sure a normal response to what I've written, but guess what. The Constitution says nothing about your right to an easy time of it...it says nothing about your rights and privledges (and your boss's rights and privledges) making life simple and convinient for you. In fact, just the opposite...most people understand that living in a society that is supposed to have all these freedoms is difficult, challenging, frustrating, and often...damn hard on the individuals who are living there.

Sometimes you have to make a hard choice...do I value my right to say that Bush is an asshole more than I value how many record sales I might lose? Do I value my right to say that we shouldn't trust anyone named after a sland term for female genitalia to take us to war more than I value my Slim Fast contract? Do I value my right to hold the opinion that Bush is the right man for the job and Kerry is an asshole more than I value the opinion of some of my college friends who still think I'm the insanely liberal person I was in college? Do I value my freedom to be addicted to cigarettes and smoke them at home more than I value the benefits of this job?

Tough choices all....but thats part of what these freedoms we all claim to care about so much entail...making hard decisions in order to maintain EVERYONE'S (even the insane boss's) freedoms.

 

[Itsthetruth]

If the 'business' is catholic - yes.

Again...nobody has a RIGHT to work where they want.

Do you think a corporation/owner should have the "right" to fire a good employee because they don't like his race, religion, sex, personal habits or political views?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

If the 'business' is catholic - yes.

Again...nobody has a RIGHT to work where they want.

you evaded answering my question though. If a company like abc gokart manufacturers has an owner who is catholic, does that company then have the right to fire you if you eat beef instead of steak for dinner on friday nite?

 

[Itsthetruth]

Gem: And what if the employer adopts a "no-smoking, no drinking or other rule regulating your personal life AFTER you have been hired?

If you think employers should have the unrestricted right to fire people for reasons not related to their job performance I just have to disagree with you.

Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line?

 

[no1tovote4]

Gem: And what if the employer adopts a "no-smoking, no drinking or other rule regulating your personal life AFTER you have been hired?

If you think employers should have the unrestricted right to fire people for reasons not related to their job performance I just have to disagree with you.

Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line?

At the point when Unionizing becomes attractive.

Once again, the employee has specific rights. They can quit, they can band together and work to change the rules, or they can shut up and put up with it. What do you propose? Making a law against which direction you think your company should go? If any business made such rules and found they could not hire employees to do the job anymore they would quickly change them back.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

at no point whatsoever should ANY employer have the authority to dictate what you can/cannot do or be who you are UNLESS it directly affects the companies performance/profitability.

 

[CSM]

We have already been down this road in previous threads; companies do fire folks for smoking/drinking/overweight/wrong politics/religion/ or just about anything else they want, especially private companies.

 

[no1tovote4]

at no point whatsoever should ANY employer have the authority to dictate what you can/cannot do or be who you are UNLESS it directly affects the companies performance/profitability.

How much less does the company who requires their employees to quit smoking pay for health insurance? Does it effect their bottom line? It seems that almost any change that they may make can effect their bottom line. Now, can they still hire the employees to get the job done? It appears in that case they can, but in some instances the rules may effect them differently and they will back off from them.

Unless the employees unionize, which they have a right to do, then there is little point in saying what they do is beyond their "rights". Since companies are owned by individuals and those individuals have rights they have the same rights as a company that they do as an individual.

 

[dmp]

Do you think a corporation/owner should have the "right" to fire a good employee because they don't like his race, religion, sex, personal habits or political views?

Employers should have, and in most cases DO have the right to fire people based on their CONDUCT. If their conduct is not the 'image' a company wants of their employees, and the employee understands that image requirement, the business should be, and in most cases IS justified in terminating the employment of offenders. I won't let you nor anyone else side track the issues by throwing up ridiculous "Oh yeah...well what about (insert not-related question)?"

 

[SmarterThanYou]

How much less does the company who requires their employees to quit smoking pay for health insurance? Does it effect their bottom line? It seems that almost any change that they may make can effect their bottom line. Now, can they still hire the employees to get the job done? It appears in that case they can, but in some instances the rules may effect them differently and they will back off from them.

Unless the employees unionize, which they have a right to do, then there is little point in saying what they do is beyond their "rights". Since companies are owned by individuals and those individuals have rights they have the same rights as a company that they do as an individual.

things people do that pose a health risk, thereby costing premium money, affect the business. That does not pose a problem. The problem is giving business THAT MUCH power to fire/hire for any reason whatsoever when it doesn't affect job performance or company profit.

 

[dmp]

things people do that pose a health risk, thereby costing premium money, affect the business. That does not pose a problem. The problem is giving business THAT MUCH power to fire/hire for any reason whatsoever when it doesn't affect job performance or company profit.

What part of "It's nobody's RIGHT to work for whomever they wish" are you having trouble with, bro?

 

[Gem]

SmarterThanYou,

I am fascinated that you are so obsessed with a person's rights...as long as they are the rights of the person YOU are interested in defending! Where are the rights of the private business owner in all of this. Why are the rights of his/her employees more important than the rights of the person who invested their time, energy, money, etc. into starting their own business and want to operate that business in the manner to which they deem appropriate...where is that persons rights?

What if they have found, through experience in the industry, that people who smoke stay out on breaks for 30 minutes instead of the allowed 15 because those people have to go have a smoke, which means chatting it up with the other smokers, then go to the bathroom, get themselves a soda, and get back to work, while non-smokers cut out that "have a smoke" step and make it back to work on time...doesn't that private business owner have the RIGHT to say...hey, its my business...and smokers hurt my productivity?

What if the private business owner notices that because many of his employees are obese and smokers...he is paying more in health insurance fees and losing profits, or is unable to expand his business because he can't afford any more employees....yet he knows that making some health restrictions on his employees would decrease insurance costs...

You seem so deeply concerned about the poor smoking employee who is just trying to get by in the world...but absolutely disinterested in the private business owner who is doing the same thing...trying to get by, trying to keep his business successful, trying to make enough money to expand, to grow, to hire more people, etc.

As I said before, I think not hiring a smoker is ludicrous, I also really hate that businesses are installing fingerprint detection systems to deal with employees constantly leaving early or arriving late...I feel that if you can not control some of your employees...violating the privacy of all of your employees in order to get them under control is a shitty way to do business...but guess what...a private business owner has the right to do these things if they deem it neccessary for their business...and I have the right to not take the job, quit the job, or unionize or group together with other employees in protest if I don't like the changes.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What part of "It's nobody's RIGHT to work for whomever they wish" are you having trouble with, bro?

no part at all, bro, but its not about a right to work for whomever you wish. If that was the case I'd be suing to work for warren buffet right now.

Its about business' not having authority over personal aspects of an individuals life when it does not affect the business. You don't want to sidetrack the argument throwing up ridiculous "Oh yeah...well what about (insert not-related question), until people are hired or fired based on the size of their breasts, color/length of their hair, or smoothness of their complexion. When companies can hire/fire people based on personal idiosyncracies then you've taken away ANY individual freedom and stressed 'conformity'.

 

[dmp]

no part at all, bro, but its not about a right to work for whomever you wish. If that was the case I'd be suing to work for warren buffet right now.

Its about business' not having authority over personal aspects of an individuals life when it does not affect the business. You don't want to sidetrack the argument throwing up ridiculous "Oh yeah...well what about (insert not-related question), until people are hired or fired based on the size of their breasts, color/length of their hair, or smoothness of their complexion. When companies can hire/fire people based on personal idiosyncracies then you've taken away ANY individual freedom and stressed 'conformity'.

There's nothing wrong with asking people to (the next word goes without saying, but I want to make sure ppl don't miss the implication)VOLUNTARILY submit their free will to rules of a particular business or organization.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

SmarterThanYou,

I am fascinated that you are so obsessed with a person's rights...as long as they are the rights of the person YOU are interested in defending! Where are the rights of the private business owner in all of this. Why are the rights of his/her employees more important than the rights of the person who invested their time, energy, money, etc. into starting their own business and want to operate that business in the manner to which they deem appropriate...where is that persons rights?

1. I support everyones rights.
2. The business owner isn't losing a right because he can't fire a hippie based on the length of his hair. If he can't fire the person based on JOB PERFORMANCE, then he's losing a right.

What if they have found, through experience in the industry, that people who smoke stay out on breaks for 30 minutes instead of the allowed 15 because those people have to go have a smoke, which means chatting it up with the other smokers, then go to the bathroom, get themselves a soda, and get back to work, while non-smokers cut out that "have a smoke" step and make it back to work on time...doesn't that private business owner have the RIGHT to say...hey, its my business...and smokers hurt my productivity?

By advocating COMPLETE autonomy over hiring and firing to the business at hand, you WILL end up with complete discrimination practices based on an individuals personal likes and dislikes because of it.

What if the private business owner notices that because many of his employees are obese and smokers...he is paying more in health insurance fees and losing profits, or is unable to expand his business because he can't afford any more employees....yet he knows that making some health restrictions on his employees would decrease insurance costs...

You seem so deeply concerned about the poor smoking employee who is just trying to get by in the world...but absolutely disinterested in the private business owner who is doing the same thing...trying to get by, trying to keep his business successful, trying to make enough money to expand, to grow, to hire more people, etc.

I covered this in an earlier reply. Smokers do incur cost increases to medical premiums. That affects business profitability and cost. I am not against that, however, I have been the victim of the REVERSE of that discrimination. I've worked at a place where almost everyone smoked and they got an extra 10 minutes on their breaks because of their smoking boss buddy. I, as a non smoker, complained about equal time on breaks and was immediately released.

 

[no1tovote4]

things people do that pose a health risk, thereby costing premium money, affect the business. That does not pose a problem. The problem is giving business THAT MUCH power to fire/hire for any reason whatsoever when it doesn't affect job performance or company profit.

It isn't giving them something, it is simply a right that they have.

They have the right to make their rules whatever they wish. However they cannot make people work for them either, if their rules are too harsh they will find they can get no employees and will need to change the rules or that their employees will strike after forming unions.

Saying they have no right is attempting to run every company through the government, that isn't capitalism but socialism. If their employees think they have gone too far they have the right to join together and to strike, until they have reached the point that employees wish to do this they can pretty much make any rule that they want and enforce them if they can.