RSS 2.0 FeedShould Your Employer Be Able To Fire You If You Smoke At Home ?
by Doug MataconisA local television station in Florida has a report about an employer that refuses to hire people who smoke, even if they only do it in the privacy of their homes:
ORLANDO, Fla. — A growing number of companies in Florida are forbidding their workers from smoking not only at work, but also in their private lives.
Westgate Resorts, the largest private employer in Central Florida, has banned smoking and won’t budge from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke.
“When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place,” Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.
Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend — a heavy smoker who died of cancer.
“If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you, then we are going to tell you that if you want to work for our company, you will not smoke,” Seigel said.
Central Floridian Ava Bryant said she was called by a recruiter for Westgate and told not to come in for an interview because Westgate won’t hire smokers.
“I call it discrimination,” Bryant said. “I’m not an avid smoker or a constant smoker. I just said I smoke. Sometimes I may pick up a cigarette and smoke.”
Well, Ms. Bryant, you are right, it is discrimination; it just happens to be perfectly legal discrimination, and Westgate’s owner makes clear that he’s willing to base his employment decisions on more than just whether or not you like to light up every now and then:
“Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory, we will do,” Seigel said. “If you are an alcoholic and we have the right to fire you, we will do so. And if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you, we will do that, too.”
“That sounds like discrimination,” Cooper said.
“Well, I’m saying that anything that is not discriminatory,” Seigel said. “If it is, we can’t do very much about it.”
Seigel obviously doesn’t want to be tagged with the word “discrimination”, but that’s because the word has become associated with things like racial and gender discrimination which are both illegal and subject to severe public disapproval. But discrimination merely means that one prefers one thing over another — if I like Diet Coke with Lime as opposed to all other soft drinks, I am discriminating against Diet Pepsi. Discrimination is a part of life because people make choices — it only becomes tagged with the connotation of being right or wrong because of value judgments that society makes about the preferences that someone has expressed.
So what about the value judgments that Westgate is making ? You can say its unfair of them to fire or refuse to hire someone because they might smoke a cigarette or two at home on the weekends, or because they enjoy a few drinks when they get home at night, or because they’re overweight. But, does that make it something that should be illegal ?
In order to answer yes to that question, you have to effectively argue that it’s wrong for people to make choices of any kind because every choice is, at it’s essence, discriminatory. But if we didn’t make choices, then living a meaningful life would be impossible. Put simply, there are things, and people, that people like better than others. That’s part of life and no amount of legislation or litigation is going to change it.
You are discriminating Mr. Seigel, and you have every right to do so.
People make value judgements all the time based on all manner of things. This is nothing new. It only matters to busy bodies who think that they know what is best for you without even asking or even meeting you.
Comment by tkc — November 8, 2007 @ 1:25 pmMr. Seigel should set the criteria for working for his company as he sees fit. And if he misses out on some great worker simply because the guy smokes then he has no one to blame but himself. If he loses business because smokers don’t like his policy and won’t associate with him then that is Mr. Seigel’s problem too.
I agree with tkc…so what if he discriminates? Actually, if Mr. Seigel’s company has employer-provided health care it makes economic sense for him to discriminate, considering that smokers drive up health care premiums for the company and other employees (same as overweight people, drug addicts or alcoholics do). Actions have consequences and this is simply one of them. The only time it’s a problem is when it’s the government judging right and wrong on consensual personal choices but individuals have every right to do so.
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 2:18 pmYes, and if Mr. Seigel is gay, you may only have gay lovers if you want to work for his company. Give me an effing break.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 2:28 pmJohn,
If those are the rules he wants to set for his company, then that’s his business.
If it means that people don’t want to work for him, those are the consequences he will have to face for his decision.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 8, 2007 @ 2:35 pmDoug, his business is his business, his business is not minding my private life. Now, if he wants to pay me 24 hours a day, we can talk.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 2:58 pmJohn,
This all comes down the the question of whether employment is a right for workers. A libertarian would argue that it is not and that an employer has the right to determine what conditions he wishes to set in his workplace, since he’s usually the one footing the bills and taking the risks. If Seigel want to discriminate against smokers, or gay, or whites, or American citizens or whoever else, that’s his right to free association…even if those choices are stupid and self-destructive. Let him bear the consequences of restricting his work force and if you’re not happy with Seigel’s choice you have every right to look for work elsewhere and give the benefit of your labor to his competitor.
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 3:20 pmI’m a smoker, and I say absolutely. I’ll take my talent to where it’s valued.
Comment by Brian T. Traylor — November 8, 2007 @ 3:33 pmUCrawford, darn tootin’ Seigel has a right to determine conditions in ‘his workplace.’ My house and my free association is not be be messed with by him or anyone else – unless he wants to pay me for 24 hours a day to live by his rules – then we can talk.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 6:27 pmJohn,
Both you and Mr. Seigel have the right to negotiate whatever terms you believe are appropriate for your employment. From the sound of it, you are willing to give up certain activities if you are paid a large enough premium. If he is willing to pay a sufficient premium, then you will both be satisfied. If he is not, you walk away in search of an employer who offers terms you find more agreeable.
This is the very essence of free will and free association.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 6:51 pmJeff, not hardly. He won’t pay me for 24 hours, yet he wishes to enslave me to his wishes for 24/7. Perhaps you think he has a right to tell my wife and kids who smoke, too, not to smoke because I’d be inhaling second-hand smoke. Nor can I go to any establishment were smoking is allowed. No guys, he does not have these rights over me simply because he employs me.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 7:56 pmJohn,
Let me see if I can break this down for you. Let’s say you currently make $55,000 a year. You decide you want a new job, so you go interviewing. You find a job you really like, and enter into negotiations for pay. You tell them you want $130,000 a year. They say, “Sure, but you have to quit smoking. In order to ensure that you are holding up your end of the bargain, we will randomly test you for nicotine.” Now, if you take the job with those conditions, are you “enslaved” to him? Or did you did make a rational, mutually beneficial agreement? If you don’t quit, doesn’t he have the right to end the association?
Comment by Nick M. — November 8, 2007 @ 8:21 pmJohn,
If I offered to pay you $100 per week if you stop smoking, would you do it? If not, would you do it for $150 per week? $200?
Presumably, there’s some amount ($Q) that would persuade you to quit, but maybe it’s a complete dealbreaker and we could never reach a voluntary agreement. If it’s a dealbreaker, the whole discussion is moot. If there can be no voluntary agreement, the only just resolution is for each party to walk away.
Let’s say the fair market value for the position I wish to fill is $L per week. You are qualified for the position and all else being equal, you’re content to accept $L as compensation for your labor.
What is unjust about an employer offering you the position $L + $Q with the understanding that you would quit smoking?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 8:23 pmWell there Nick and Jeff, you didn’t answer my question about my wife and kids smoking and afflicting me with second hand smoke.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 8:45 pmHowever, it looks like you folks are more concerned with some employer’s (imagined) rights over the rights of the individual to live his life as he chooses as long as he harm’s no one.
Are you boys sure you ain’t from the government and are only here to help?
Sorry, John. I meant to and forgot. It depends entirely on whether you have the legal right to enter them into contracts. I think you do, but I could easily be wrong on that account. Either way, though, the decision is for you and your family to make.
You keep implying that you are under some sort of obligation to accept the employer’s terms. You are not. You are completely free to walk away. That is why it is a voluntary agreement and not “enslavement”.
Just the opposite. You are the one suggesting that government should step in and regulate the government. We want the government to stay out of it completely. The decisions are entirely between you and the prospective employer.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 9:18 pmThat’s mighty fine footwork you got going there, Jeff. How could it possibly be up to my family and me to make a decision if the employer demands that no one in my family smokes, that I may not go anywhere where there are people smoking and if I do he can fire me. The dangers of second hand smoke doncha know. This is similar to what the Nazi position was regarding smoking.
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 10:04 pmI would also challenge you to find a statement I made that even remotely suggested I want government intervention.
The only one relying on government is the employer using legal discrimination against smokers. Again, these are the same tactics used by the Nazis.
John –
Speaking of footwork, you’re doing a mighty fine job of avoiding the question of why your ability to walk away from a job, since employment is voluntary, isn’t enough protection here.
Seriously, no one has to work for this moron (Siegel), just as no one has to patronize his businesses. It’s his choice to cut off his nose to spite his profit margin. Later, when he finds all the talent, smoking and non-smoking, are leaving his company because of the infantile way he treats employees, he’s free to sit around and wonder what the hell just happened.
Comment by Quincy — November 8, 2007 @ 10:14 pmBecause you’re neither a slave, nor an indentured servant. You would be able to choose between three options:
- Accept his terms
- Refuse his terms and seek employment elsewhere
- Negotiate other terms
None of those options involve anyone coercing you. You are deciding which option is best for you and your family, just like the employer is deciding which option is best for him and his family. If no mutually beneficial arrangement is found, you sever the relationship.
Ok, here’s a scenario and you tell me what you believe should happen next.
Your employer tells you he no longer wishes to employ individuals that smoke. Period. No exceptions.
You refuse. Or maybe you lie and pretend to quit, but he somehow finds out.
He fires you. Maybe you report to work anyways, but he reminds you that he no longer wants your services and refuses to pay you.
What do you believe should happen next?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 10:39 pmJeff, you simply ignore my question: If an employer has a ‘right’ to demand an employee not to smoke, where does it end, does he also have the ‘right’ to demand that he not be exposed to second hand smoke in his own house or at any public event?
Comment by John Newman — November 8, 2007 @ 10:49 pmThe employer has no rights over you. The employer has no rights over you. Do as you wish. He cannot force you to do anything.
Is that clear enough?
Here’s what he can do: He can decide how he wants to spend his money. If he doesn’t want to spend his money on an employee who smokes, by what right can you or any institution tell him he must?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 11:04 pmJohn Newman,
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Let’s say that you find out that the owner of the supermarket you regularly shop at is a big supporter of a cause you hate, and moreover bankrolls one of the more hateful groups involved in the issue.
Do you have the right to shop at a different store?
Because that is what an employer is doing when they fire you to hire a non-smoker. They are simply choosign to shop at a different store for their labor. This particular emloyer is boycotting people who smoke. Regardless of whether it is a good idea or not, he is well within his rights.
Comment by tarran — November 9, 2007 @ 3:40 amI understand where you are coming from Doug, but I have made a couple of objections on my page. I am sympathetic to your points, but I am still concerned with the ramifications of not allowing some sort of protections on individuals.
Comment by David Wilson — November 9, 2007 @ 5:25 amJohn I agree with you, no-one owns your body apart from yourself.
I do recall another intolerant person who wanted perfection.
Oh I see where, the word Liberty comes from, only in this it is taking the Liberty
Comment by mandyv — November 9, 2007 @ 6:06 amI’ll ask again, if the boss says you can only have gay sex if we hire you at the widget factory, you either agree or you don’t. And it is perfectly reasonable for the employer to require you to change your lifestyle or life choices if you want his job.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 7:23 amI don’t think anyone here would say that’s “reasonable”, John, but he’s free to make stupid decisions.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 7:27 amYeah, I agree. A boss is legally allowed to impose such a condition for work, but don’t be surprised if noone goes there to work and the factory loses money.
Comment by TanGeng — November 9, 2007 @ 7:35 amJeff, why is he ‘free’ to make stupid decisions and I’m not? While he may be the employer, he is not paying me for nothing. This is an even exchange for the labor I provide and the payment I receive for that labor. Where does he get the option of having an upper hand or putting stipulations on a mutual exchange. Legal discrimination? Is that like ‘zero tolerance’ which is actually 100% intolerance.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 7:43 amJohn,
“darn tootin’ Seigel has a right to determine conditions in ‘his workplace.’ My house and my free association is not be be messed with by him or anyone else – unless he wants to pay me for 24 hours a day to live by his rules – then we can talk.”
Unless you were working from home, I suspect Mr. Seigel would own the place where you work and he has a right to determine who does or doesn’t enter his workplace.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 7:57 amAnd if Mr. Seigel is also providing health care for his workers, he also has a vested economic interest in forcing them not to smoke. Why do you think everybody on this site hates socialized medicine?
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 7:58 amYou are, John. You’re free to make the stupid decision of accepting his offer. You’re also free to make the smart decision of telling him to kiss off.
Likewise, I’m going to make the smart, albeit late, decision to discontinue responding to someone who is talking without listening.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 8:02 amJohn,
“Jeff, why is he ‘free’ to make stupid decisions and I’m not? While he may be the employer, he is not paying me for nothing. This is an even exchange for the labor I provide and the payment I receive for that labor. Where does he get the option of having an upper hand or putting stipulations on a mutual exchange. Legal discrimination? Is that like ‘zero tolerance’ which is actually 100% intolerance.”
You’re free to make decisions as well. You’re free to quit working there (thereby depriving him of your labor and experience), you’re free to quit smoking, you’re free to demand extra compensation from him for inconveniencing you, you’re basically free to react to his stupid policy by penalizing him in any number of ways as an individual. What you don’t have the right to do is demand that he provide you with unconditional employment and force him to set your ideal working conditions in his workplace. The government, I’d argue, doesn’t have that right either in a free society.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 8:04 amUCrawford, and there you have it:”forcing them not to smoke.” Using force is not my idea of free mutual exchange, but it seems to be acceptable and defended by most here.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 8:07 amCongratulations, John. You asked the same question enough times and finally got someone to misspeak.
UCrawford did not actually mean that any sort of force was permissible. The employee/employer relationship. You insist on whatever terms you want. The employer can insist on whatever terms he wants. If you come an agreement, great. If not, both parties walk away.
If you still cannot comprehend our perspective, please try harder or walk away.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 8:14 amJeff wrote:
If you still cannot comprehend our perspective, please try harder or walk away.
I’ll take that to mean that your perspective is the only one that is allowed and like Mr. Seigel’s policy, smoker’s aren’t allowed.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 8:23 amThat’s an unfortunate way to take it, but suit yourself. A more literate interpretation would be that we expect participants to make a reasonable attempt at understanding opposing viewpoints.
You have peppered us with the same restated question while ignoring all of our questions, analogies, and thought experiments.
This entire conversation has been a waste of everyone’s time.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 8:37 amI really don’t think it is reasonable to allow employers to discriminate on race. Ideologically it is ideal, but ideals need to stand up in real life.
Comment by David Wilson — November 9, 2007 @ 8:47 amThe practicality of this can be seen in the effects it has on people, particularly given the historical institutionalization of race, sex, and orientation discrimination.
John,
“I’ll take that to mean that your perspective is the only one that is allowed and like Mr. Seigel’s policy, smoker’s aren’t allowed.”
I did misspeak…the only way in which what Seigel did could be considered force is if you consider working for him to be a right. It isn’t. He has the right to set work conditions in his workplace using any methods short of violence (a criteria that a no-smoking policy doesn’t rise to because he’s not the government and his workers have the ability to walk away). So I’ll change my comment to say “Seigel has an economic interest in demanding that his workers not smoke.”
“I’ll take that to mean that your perspective is the only one that is allowed and like Mr. Seigel’s policy, smoker’s aren’t allowed.”
I think what Jeff is saying is that people who don’t bother to read the arguments people have written aren’t particularly welcome and their positions aren’t very respected. We take our time to consider our arguments and discuss our positions with you, and when you obviously don’t read or think through what we’ve written we rightly take it as a sign of either disrespect or a lack of intelligence on your part. And he’s right…we’ve continually explained how what Seigel is doing is within his rights and you haven’t listened because you keep repeating them without addressing the comments. That’s what’s called argumentum ad nauseum and it’s not an indicator of a valid position, it’s a logical fallacy.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:04 amAnd by “repeating them” I mean your original position remarks, which you’ve yet to address the very valid criticisms of.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:07 amDavid,
I think that it’s not reasonable for the government to discriminate based on race, but I think that the right to free association for private individuals is very reasonable both ideologically and in real life. The ability to choose who you wish to engage in transactions with is the very essence of a free society, even if people who engage in racism are a bunch of idiot mouthbreathers.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:18 amThis entire conversation has been a waste of everyone’s time, says Jeff.
Well, no one forced you to participate.
However, I do find it disturbing that a place with the name Liberty in it would argue for an employer’s right to control a person’s lifestyle off the clock.
Where is the liberty in being forced to decide between being employed or not being employed because of a lifestyle choice. Where is the mutual benefit? It seems to me you are saying that there is no end to what an employer may require an employee to do even when off the clock, simply for employment. Oh, yes, but the prospective employee has a choice not to take the job. But is there no point where it is unreasonable, even cruel on the part of an employer. From what I gather from your perspective is no, nothing is off limits. What you are suggesting is that anti-liberty is liberty in the right to choose if you take a job or not. I ask again, is there anything an employer can not demand of an employee.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 9:20 amYou are suggesting an employer is within his rights to demand an employee never gamble, never eat ice cream, never take a drink, never watch football, never go to church, never listen to rap music, never participate in a political campaign or anyone one of a million legal activities. At least not if he wants that job. I say it is ludicrous for this to even be a factor in exchanging a service for pay.
I agree an employer should be able to demand anything from his employees when they are on the job, but not when they are off the clock.
John,
“From what I gather from your perspective is no, nothing is off limits.”
Actually, we pretty clearly drew the limit at violence and the threat of violence. Smoking bans by a private employer don’t qualify because employment is not a fundamental human right. There’s that whole not listening thing we were telling you about.
“You are suggesting an employer is within his rights to demand an employee never gamble, never eat ice cream, never take a drink, never watch football, never go to church, never listen to rap music, never participate in a political campaign or anyone one of a million legal activities.”
Yup, as long as those bans don’t involve violence or the threat of violence. In fact, if I were his competitor I’d love the fact that he did something that stupid because it means there’s an opening to hire all of his employees away and drive his company under. Well, all of his employees except the ones who were too stupid or incompetent to get jobs somewhere else anyway. That’s what the “invisible hand” of the free market is all about…socially desirable outcomes (like driving stupid busybody business owners out of business) are achieved by allowing individuals to make their own choices.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:42 am“However, I do find it disturbing that a place with the name Liberty in it would argue for an employer’s right to control a person’s lifestyle off the clock.”
That’s because property ownership and the freedom to non-violently do with your property as you choose are fundamentals parts of liberty. Arguing against that (which you’re doing) is an anti-liberty position. Seigel didn’t say you can’t smoke in your house, he just said that if you choose to you can’t have a job at the company he owns.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:46 amIf you don’t like that an employer would do something like that, then you’re always free to start your own company. Then you can hire all the smokers (or whoever else) that you want.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 9:51 amAttaboy, now you’re catching on!
You’re most right that I engaged you out of my own free will and I fully accept all consequences of that. It was a bad decision, but it was my bad decision. I’m sure I’ll make a few more before I go to bed tonight. :-)
Oh, and here’s where I cut my losses. See ya around, UC. If you’re bored, leave this thread and find a way to help RP. :-)
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 10:05 am“That’s because property ownership and the freedom to non-violently do with your property as you choose are fundamentals parts of liberty” UCrawford
No one is arguing that he doesn’t have a right to his property ownership and freedom to do what he wants with HIS property, but what you are saying is that by simply working for him you give up your property rights (what you can ingest in your own body and in your own home) to him. And this is what you call freedom & liberty?
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 10:11 amExplain to me how he can impose his will when you are on your own time in your own home.
“No one is arguing that he doesn’t have a right to his property ownership and freedom to do what he wants with HIS property”
Actually, you are. You’re saying that he shouldn’t be able to hire and fire who he wants. He owns the business, if he doesn’t want to hire smokers that’s his right of property ownership and you’re saying that should be denied to him.
“…what you are saying is that by simply working for him you give up your property rights”
No, what I’m saying is that employees without an ownership stake don’t have any property rights regarding that business. If they’re unhappy with how he’s doing business they can quit. That’s the limit of their rights in regards to his business. They could try to bring their concerns up to the employer and convince him to change his mind, but since he has every right to fire them for doing so that’s not so much a right as it is a strategy.
“Explain to me how he can impose his will when you are on your own time in your own home.”
He can’t, and he’s not doing that. He’s imposing his will on people when they’re at work (therefore on his property) by setting behavioral conditions about who can work there. It’s no different than firing somebody for being an addict or a habitual shoplifter or a convict, or a pedophile or whatever else. Companies and private individuals have the right to decide who they do and don’t employ. Employees can bitch about it (for which the employer is within his rights to fire them) or they can leave. As long as violence or the threat of violence isn’t being used in the application of these rules the employer is violating nobody’s rights.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 10:27 amMr. Seigel has changed his mind. In order to work for him you MUST smoke three packs of Camels a day.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 10:30 amif you don’t want to, you won’t get hired. It’s his property.
If he wants to do that, he’s free to. If you’re an employee and don’t like it, complain or quit. If you’re not an employee but want a job, I guess you’d better get your tolerance up or look elsewhere for employment.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 10:40 amMy job mandates I wear a suit and tie every day. No difference between that policy and your hypothetical. The employer’s just not allowed to hold you down so he can shove the cigarettes in your mouth without your consent, same as my employer’s not allowed to dress me without my consent.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 10:42 amUcrawford, at least you are consistent. Just one problem. How does this work for employees that smoke who were hired before he found out he could legally discriminate. Would not firing them after they had been hired and he knew they smoked, be coercion on his part if he fired them and a breach of contract since he hired them knowing full well they smoked.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 10:55 amJohn,
It depends on what the terms of the contract are.
Outside of a written contract that provides otherwise, why shouldn’t an employer be free to hire and fire for whatever reason they wanted ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 11:11 amJohn,
It would only be a violation of their rights if they had a signed contract (for individuals or as a result of collective bargaining) that specified reasons for termination and he breached it with his new policy. That’s the only point at which I think the government should be involved because it’s fraud and I believe the government has the right to intervene in situations of fraud. Most jobs, however, don’t have that and employees serve solely at the discretion of the employer…which is fine because the owner of the property has the right to set conditions for employment. If the employees only have an implied understanding of what the boss does and doesn’t permit when they agree to take the job they don’t have a standing to bitch because they should have gotten it in writing.
Like I said, it’s not really any different from firing somebody because they do something outside of the company that the employer doesn’t like that may have nothing to do with job performance (e.g. public drunkenness, rape, murder, pissing on a church, writing in to online blogs). Property owners have a right to determine the uses of their property. Their decisions may not be rational, but they have the right to make them. And choosing which employees to hire and fire clearly falls under that.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 11:13 amIt is disheartening that you support ‘legal discrimination.’
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 11:31 amJohn,
I don’t support legal discrimination, I support the right of individuals to free association and the rights of property ownership. I find it disappointing that you choose to characterize my argument with a blatant straw man. It’s unimaginative and indicates that rather than deciding to man up and admit you have no argument to support your position (which I would have at respected) you decided to try to lump me in with the racists, who I’ve pretty clearly explained I’m not affiliated with.
If you decided to make up a bullshit argument to try and discredit my position you should have gone for attacking my lack of caring for workers who are too stupid or lazy to negotiate good contracts with their employers, find better jobs, or look out for themselves. Or my lack of respect for people who think the world owes them a job and a living. Or how I think it’s really funny that smokers are now whining about how they’re being held accountable for their actions because their employers aren’t willing to foot the bill (through employer provided health care) for their disgusting and self-destructive habit. Those would at least have had some element of truth to them and it would have at least indicated you’re intellectually honest enough to admit that you’re a communist.
But hey, if you want to be a whiny pussy about it and insinuate that the people who disagree with you are all racists, by all means carry on. Knock yourself out. This isn’t an issue I particularly care about because I’m capable of finding a better job if I need to and I’m not stupid enough to be a drug addict.
Later.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 12:03 pmAnd thankfully about 30 states have Smoker Protection Laws that don’t allow a nitwit like Seigel to get away with not hiring or firing people because they participate in a legal activity. It’s a shame we need laws to protect us from those falsely proclaiming to be defending liberty and property rights.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 12:12 pmJohn,
Let’s be blunt about it.
Here’s the argument:
You don’t have a right to a job. If an employer wants to refuse to higher you because you smoke, you have no moral right to claim one from him, or to use the power of the state to force him to give one to you.
That is because the company belongs to your employer and he can set the rules by which he will employ people.
Now, tell me what theory of morality you ascribe to that allows you to use government power to force people to give you something you’re not entitled to ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 12:37 pm“It’s a shame we need laws to protect us from those falsely proclaiming to be defending liberty and property rights.”
It’s always funny watching a drug addict try to explain how there should be laws forcing everybody else to compromise their rights to property and free association to accept his personal failings. The only thing that could possibly be more humorous is watching the government yank all the smokers’ Medicare/Medicaid coverage because the health problems they brought on themselves are driving up costs. It’s always amusing when people suffer as a result of their own stupidity…I love irony.
Okay, now I’m done. :)
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 12:42 pmCrawford,
It’s almost funny. John wants us to respect his right to smoke by denying everyone else’s rights.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pmNo, I do not have a right to a job, but I cannot be denied a job because I partake in a legal activity. To deny me a job on those ground are immoral and unethical. And to deny a person to live his life as he pleases is not liberty or freedom it is enslavement.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 1:28 pmCan I go to a store with $20. pick out $20 worth of items, go to the checkout where the checkout person asks me if I smoke, I say yes, and he denies me the food, because I smoke? I have the money to pay, but he refuses because I partake in a legal activity. Does this person have the right to starve me, because I smoke?
Can McDonald’s require Ronald only to where his clown costume? Is that McDonald’s right to deny the clown to wear whatever he desires when not working.
Can I be denied to buy a house, if I have the money to pay for it, but not be allowed to smoke in it?
Yes, the business man has a right to his property, but under no circumstances can he deny my rights. If he denies to hire me because I refuse to be his property that is his moral and ethical flaw.
If you can’t see that, there is no hope for you.
“And to deny a person to live his life as he pleases is not liberty or freedom it is enslavement.”
How is telling a person who he can and cannot employ (or sell to), not “deny[ing] a person to live his life as he pleases”?
And furthermore, how is *not* hiring him because he smokes “deny[ing] a person to live his life as he pleases”? Certainly you don’t believe he has some inherent right to my property (money)?
Comment by Bret — November 9, 2007 @ 1:32 pmBret, he isn’t hiring him, he is claiming to own him.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 1:43 pmGod help me, I can’t quit…beating up on this guy’s stupid arguments is like crack. :)
“No, I do not have a right to a job, but I cannot be denied a job because I partake in a legal activity.”
Wow, you not only contradicted yourself but you did so in the very same sentence. Most people can recognize hypocrisy when they put the contradictions that close together…apparently the smokers’ self-pity overwhelms their basic logic circuits. It’s a legal activity to be an asshole and the boss has every right to not hire or fire you for that…welcome to the wide world of personal responsibility.
“Can I go to a store with $20. pick out $20 worth of items, go to the checkout where the checkout person asks me if I smoke, I say yes, and he denies me the food, because I smoke?”
Yup…it’s his food until he accepts your payment for it, not yours. Just like if you’re really hungry you don’t have a right to go robbing people in the street. There’s that whole pro-liberty property ownership that you can’t seem to wrap your little brain around.
“Does this person have the right to starve me, because I smoke?”
That person has the right to deny you service because you smoke. Just like a restaurant or bar has a right to boot smokers because their fumes annoy the other customers and their workers. If you starve to death as a result of that it’s only because you apparently chose drugs over food in a world of voluntary transactions, or because you’re incapable of growing your own food…perhaps you should start a nice garden to protect yourself against this doomsday scenario. I recommend that you start with tomatoes. They go with everything.
“Can I be denied to buy a house, if I have the money to pay for it, but not be allowed to smoke in it?”
Sure, if you were stupid enough to sign a contract that said you wouldn’t smoke in it, the seller has the right to void your contract. And the seller has the right not to transact with you simply because you smell funny or because you were checking out her/his rack/package or because you didn’t listen to anything she/he said and it annoyed them.
“If he denies to hire me because I refuse to be his property that is his moral and ethical flaw.”
If he denies to hire you it’s because you won’t agree to abide by his code of conduct, which is his right as an employer. Just like he could choose not to hire you because he thought you were a dipshit or had terrible taste in clothing (which is also a legal activity). The flaw you keep getting hung up on is that when you think employment is unconditional and it isn’t. You also demand control over somebody else’s property (his business) by dictating hiring practices to him…which is the moral and ethical flaw that undermines your entire argument.
“If you can’t see that, there is no hope for you.”
I’m not the drug addict who thinks that my actions don’t have consequences, sport.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 2:02 pm“Bret, he isn’t hiring him, he is claiming to own him.”
Actually that’s not what he said…
“If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you, then we are going to tell you that if you want to work for our company, you will not smoke,”
Apparently smoking doesn’t do wonders for your reading comprehension or your listening skills.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 2:05 pmJohn,
And how is forcing someone to hire someone they don’t want to not also enslavement ?
See, that’s the thing about freedom — we may not like how people choose to exercise it, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to tell them how to exercise it.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 2:09 pmJohn,
Answer this question — let’s take smoking out of the question entirely.
Let’s say that Sigel decided that he only wanted to hire people who liked jazz.
It may be a totally irrational choice on his part, but why shouldn’t he have the right to do that ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 2:11 pmSeigel:This is my hospital. Do you smoke?
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 2:12 pmPatient: Yes.
Seigel: Then find a different hospital. We can deny anyone we want.
“Seigel:This is my hospital. Do you smoke?
Patient: Yes.
Seigel: Then find a different hospital. We can deny anyone we want.”
I’m sorry, now you’re saying that doctors owe people health care? You really don’t get this whole freedom thing do you? :)
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 2:15 pmDoug, if he is going to tell the jazz lover that he can only listen to Charlie Parker and nothing else, I think we have a problem. Or that if he listens to Kenny G. he’ll be fired. You don’t think that is infringing on the guys right to listen to whatever to hell he wants.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 2:20 pmYeah, Ucrawford you might be right. I don’t get how protecting one persons right and denying another person’s right is liberty.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 2:27 pmSeigel: yes, we’ll hire you, but only if you don’t partake in any legal activity.
Future Employee: Sure thing boss.
John,
Unless you can make a case that you have a right to any job you want, you’re argument that employers can’t set conditions of employment falls apart.
I assume you’re not a libertarian of any kind.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 2:30 pmThere’s no equivalence between the government forbidding an action and your employer forbidding an action. If you break the former’s rules you go to jail, if you break the latter’s rules your at worst severely inconvenienced. Put another way, the government can deprive you of life and liberty while your employer can merely refuse to do business with you.
Comment by Bret — November 9, 2007 @ 2:31 pmBret
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 2:38 pm“Seigel: yes, we’ll hire you, but only if you don’t partake in any legal activity.
Future Employee: Sure thing boss.”
I’ll take that as your concession that you’ve got no pro-freedom arguments that dispute anything we’ve said and you’re just too much of a baby to admit it.
Comment by UCrawford — November 9, 2007 @ 2:39 pmJohn,
As I’ve said before…..the thing about freedom that most people have trouble accepting is that, often, people will exercise their freedom in ways that you disapprove of.
Some people can get over that problem and accept the fact that people have the right to make the choices they make. Other’s can’t.
You obviously fall into the second group.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 9, 2007 @ 2:40 pmIn John’s defense, smokers get a bad rap, but private companies can do whatever they wish to do. They can discriminate based on the cost-benefit equation and give you a lower salary and even refuse employment because your health care costs will be more for either being fat or smoking. That’s capturing externalities. I heartily approve!
When the government does it, it drives me nuts, but private companies can do whatever they wish to do.
BTW: I think the government exacerbates the problem because you can’t discriminate against people by charging them higher health premiums, so refusing to hire people and making it a condition of employment might be the only way to capture the externalities of smoking. Of course, if all employers do it, it would be a gross overreaction.
Comment by TanGeng — November 9, 2007 @ 3:41 pmSome people can get over that problem and accept the fact that people have the right to make the choices they make, Doug said.
And who did Seigel rely on to give him his new found freedom to make his choices? Your friend the government.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 4:12 pmHis creator or nature, if you’re not a theist. We do not receive our rights from the government. We simply yield some of them to it.
Brush up on the 9th and 10th amendments.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 4:34 pm“And who did Seigel rely on to give him his new found freedom to make his choices?”
His creator or nature, if you’re not a theist. We do not receive our rights from the government. We simply yield some of them to it. Brush up on the 9th and 10th amendments.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 4:35 pmJeff, you might want to read the article.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 5:03 pmI did. Which part do you think supports your belief that our rights are granted by the government?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 5:08 pmIt was you who said rights, I said ‘freedom to discriminate.’ Evidently, if Seigel hires you, you abandon your right to partake of a legal activity.
Comment by John Newman — November 9, 2007 @ 5:19 pmIf by “abandon”, you mean “now have a strong disincentive to exercise”, sure. You’ve only “abandoned” your right to smoke insofar as you’ve also “abandoned” your right to say mean things about his mom.
If you wish to continue this conversation, respond to the scenario I laid out earlier.
What do you believe should happen next?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 9, 2007 @ 5:49 pmThe history of liberty and its progress in America and elsewhere is often as much about controlling employers’ and other private power and its abuses as it is about controlling government and its power.
As a nonsmoker, I abhor smoking. And few if any of us would question employers’ prerogatives to regulate the conduct of employees while on duty and/or on employer premises, but we’re here dealing with an entirely different issue.
The notion that a private employer could lawfully act like an unaccountable, overreaching government by seeking to dictate these or any other personal choices I or anyone else might make while off duty and off employer premises has frightening implications for your, my, and everyone else’s freedom and privacy.
As with government, once private employers are allowed to dictate any one aspect of one’s private life, where does it stop?
So who does Westgate Resorts president and CEO David Siegel think he is? Is Westgate Resorts in America?
As Alexander Hamilton wrote over 200 years ago, the power over a person’s subsistence is a power over that person’s will.
Following Siegel’s and his company’s apparent “reasoning,” why not require employees and job applicants to submit to employer monitoring–again, the technology for this is already widely available!–of whatever they, even (indeed, especially) on their own time and off employer premises, read, watch, or listen to; who they associate with and what kinds of organizations they participate in; what Web sites they visit and what they send or receive online; and the like?
We can’t have employees who dare to write or read online or other letters like this one or otherwise explore, much less spread, ideas about “controversial matters” that the employer might not like, such as notions about fairer tax policies and a stronger “social safety net,” or–horror of horrors–about (gasp!) employees and job applicants actually having rights and about even daring to regulate business to stop privacy abuses, pay inequities, the destruction of health-care, pension, and other benefits, or the like, now, can we? Gotta protect that almighty bottom line and the freedom to select our employees and run our business as we see fit!
At the center of such out-of-control employers’ concerns over employees’ and applicants’ off-the-job lives, there seems to be an overreaching “need” to make sure that only the “right” types of people are hired, perhaps in the name of making sure employees have the “right” attitudes and, to use that now-favorite corporate buzz word, are a good “fit” (read: are sufficiently cowed and properly docile to accept existing abuses and any possible future ones the employer might decide to inflict).
In general, employees’ and job applicants’ activities outside of working hours and off employers’ premises are none of an employer’s business unless they pose an actual and substantial conflict of interest or otherwise materially and substantially impair one’s ability to do one’s job.
As National Workrights Institute legal director Jeremy Gruber has noted, the actions of certain employers pose grave dangers for our society, our freedoms, and for each of us. As he put it, employers who delve into our lives outside of work “are making decisions based on information not submitted by the employee or references. It is wholly unrelated to the employment relationship.”
What’s more, Gruber added, “The idea that when you hire someone, you should be able to look at every aspect of their personal life is completely at odds of how a democratic society should operate. It has huge consequences for freedom in this country, when people are afraid or are changing their behavior because of what a potential future employer might say or do.”
At least as scary as employer efforts to snoop into and regulate workers’ off-hours, off-premises activities such as smoking are cases where employers fire, demote, otherwise discipline, or refuse to hire people based on such irrelevant things as their off-hours political or social activities.
Employment discrimination based on one’s off-the-job political activities, indeed, seem to be rising to a level not known since the era of McCarthyism, with its blacklisting and “political clearances.” For example, as has been widely reported, including in a story on CBS’s _60 Minutes_, an Alabama woman, Lynne Gobbell, was in 2004 fired from her job at a manufacturing plant for having a John Kerry bumper sticker on her personal car. (After the case made world headlines, she was offered a job–indeed, one with health insurance–by the Kerry campaign, but few employees thus treated are that fortunate.)
As a longtime political activist, I myself have found that many people, especially in today’s job-scarce economy, are now hesitant to take part in *any* form of political activism–writing a letter to a newspaper, calling a radio talk show, posting something on the Internet, taking part in a march or a rally–for fear that an employer might somehow frown on such actions. Today, the Internet and like means make it frighteningly easy for employers to snoop into job applicants’ or employees’ personal beliefs and activities.
This sleazy practice must be stopped through legislation like California’s, which specifically forbids employers from dictating or attempting to dictate employees’ political activity. Better yet, every state and Congress should adopt legislation, as a few states (including California, Colorado, and North Dakota) have, generally protecting the right of employees and job applicants to engage in any lawful off-hours, off-premises activities they choose without fear of employment discrimination.
Ironically, the fear that many workers now have of employment discrimination based on their political or other nonwork activities is the very thing that keeps them from taking the steps, both as individuals and with others, to bring about an end to Siegel’s and related abuses. It is also a significant brake on long-needed, long-overdue social and economic progress in America–importantly, to efforts to stop this country’s headlong rush, especially under George W. Bush and his ilk, back to the days of Herbert Hoover–indeed, of William McKinley.
It is not so much about that oh-so-sacred bottom line as it is about power and control.
It is time to reclaim your and our rights–before they are lost forever, before we are all forced to live at the mercy of out-of-control employers in a nationwide or even worldwide Stepford, a massive, high-tech “company town” that controls not only our work tasks but our other actions, our minds, and our souls “24/7.”
As one person who responded elsewhere to Siegel’s actions asked, would Siegel and his company reject money if the investors who offered it were smokers?
We, the people, must–and will–take back our privacy and our rights from out-of-control employers like Westgate Resorts and Siegel. I, for one, will do all I can to avoid purchasing his products and services, and I also will do all I lawfully can to make Siegel’s arrogance and stupidity known to others–and urge others to take his actions into account when themselves deciding whose products and services to buy and use.
Scott Enk
Hales Corners, Wisconsin
(where state law generally bans employment discrimination on account of use or nonuse of lawful products during nonworking hours and off employer premises!)
senk8105@sbcglobal.net
Comment by Scott Enk — November 10, 2007 @ 12:31 amI’m gone for a couple days again, and Doug goes and posts this nugget. Better yet, we actually get to discuss it. I though it’d be a one-poster:
Then John wades in fearlessly, and we get a rousing discussion. I get the chance to be able to quote UCrawford as saying:
I just kept reading and chuckling. Thank you.
But seriously, I have yet another way to phrase this. Let’s take businesses and services out of the picture for a moment.
Person X decides to ask person Y to dance. Y agrees, they dance. Y declines, they part. I’ll assume we’re all on board.
X asks Y to dance. Y says, “Only for a Tango.” X agrees, they dance. X declines, they part.
X asks Y to dance. Y says, “Only if you’re exactly 5’10” tall, weigh 178 pounds, have never eaten grapefruit after 10am, and your great-great-grandmother’s maiden name had an R in it.” X agrees, they dance. X declines, they part.
While Person X was an imbecile for getting within touching distance of Person Y in that last example, I think we all agree that the whole thing was up to them, even though Person Y’s request had very little to do with dancing. If Person X had called the police and had Person Y handcuffed to him or her for the dance, we’d probably all agree that was a bad thing.
Perhaps the disconnect happens when we’re not talking about dancing or what we perceive as individual people. When “dancing” becomes “employment”, or “medical treatment”, or “food service”, do you find your reaction changes? How about when “Person Y” becomes “Owner of the business X wanted to work for”, or “Doctor X hoped to contract for services”.
When do interactions become “rights” that cannot be denied for “unrelated” reasons? When does the effort of one person become a “right” for another?
I’d assume that no one would have a problem with one of Mr. Seigel’s employees quitting after finding out Mr. Seigel had a strong compulsion to collect Fabergé Eggs (the employee having decided that Mr. Seigel might not be able to meet payroll).
If one side can end an agreement for decisions based on external, unrelated, legal pursuits, can’t the other side do that too? Does the title one side holds, or the name of the relationship remove the freedom to voluntarily associate for one side? If so, when?
Comment by Akston — November 10, 2007 @ 4:38 amScott,
If the employer was checking up on his employees by breaking into their homes without their consent or having security guards hold employees down so they could forcibly draw blood to check for nicotine, or violating written work agreements with his employees or engaging in any number of activities using violence, theft or fraud as an enforcement technique, I’d probably side with you. But he’s not…he’s simply denying people he doesn’t like employment at his company which is his right and which happens at companies everywhere for reasons even more benign (bad interviews, personality conflicts, tattoos). Smokers aren’t any more special than any of those cases and they don’t deserve any more protection than anybody else. It’s not the government discriminating against the smokers here, it’s a private citizen and that’s just the right to free association and property ownership. I’m not interested in throwing those out or abridging them just because it inconveniences some people who think their substance usage makes them some kind of martyrs. They’re still free to smoke if they want and Seigel (or any other business owner) are free to not hire them because of it.
Comment by UCrawford — November 10, 2007 @ 8:21 amAkston,
I’d argue that in the case of private (meaning non-government) businesses there’s no point at which their right to deny service should be abridged or any point at which their right to deny service to a customer or employment to somebody seeking it violates somebody else’s rights. Once you start destroying their right to non-violently do as they choose with their property you start down the path to eliminating all rights to property ownership.
Comment by UCrawford — November 10, 2007 @ 8:29 amUCrawford,
Based on your responses after my comments, do you believe that it is somehow a violation of employers’ so-called “rights” if we, as a society, forbid them to discriminate in employment matters against (pardon me, “choose not to associate with”) certain people on account of such things as their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or the like?
That is exactly the sort of “logic” that was once used against enacting current laws forbidding discrimination on such bases. And many states indeed do now have additional provisions that generally forbid discrimination in employment on the grounds of such things as use or nonuse of lawful products (tobacco included) and, in some cases, any lawful activities undertaken outside of working hours and away from an employer’s premises. This latter criterion is one that should be adopted worldwide.
Property rights are important, but they are not absolute. Employers do *not* have any “right” to dictate every aspect of workers’ lives and are subject to social control. Working people have rights, too, including rights that even employers must respect, with the full force and power of the law protecting those rights. (Yes, folks, as history shows, some employers must be compelled by force to respect workers and their rights. We have not only the sovereign right but the solemn duty to thus compel such obedience.) Weren’t these matters that, after decades of bloody struggle, were largely settled by the time of the New Deal?
A deprivation of liberty is a deprivation of liberty, regardless of whether it is done by a private or a public party. No employer nor anyone else has any right to deprive you or me or anyone else of our rights to live our lives away from work as we choose, and that does include smoking.
In modern America, employers in many ways have at least as much power to deprive us of our liberty, our privacy, and our other rights as does any arm of government. Hence, we not only have the right but the duty to forbid private employers from acting in ways that wrongly discriminate against others or that wrongly infringe upon working people and their sovereign rights.
Comment by Scott Enk — November 10, 2007 @ 9:54 am“A deprivation of liberty is a deprivation of liberty, regardless of whether it is done by a private or a public party.”
I’m sorry, this is where your argument breaks down. The two just aren’t equivalent.
Comment by Bret — November 10, 2007 @ 9:58 amOkay, it was very late, and I was very amused. Please forgive my silly post above.
The question I was trying to get at was the difference between collective thought and individual thought. I see that as the root of fallacies that people often fall for. In the “asking to dance” analogy, I think it’s easier to see that voluntary association is normal, and force is absurd. When we change the players to “groups”, I think people get led astray.
To be clear: I agree with the points UCrawford, Jeff, and Doug have made (I might even go further). Groups do not have rights. People have rights. I see evaluating associations based on groups as lending itself to errors in conclusions. These errors can lead people to believe that government intervention is appropriate when it’s not.
There is no difference between asking someone to dance and asking someone to work for you, or for a job. All of these instances are one individual asking another individual to enter into a voluntary association. Each of the two individuals in the transaction assumes the responsibility and reaps the rewards of the associations they choose. Whether the person in question assumes the role of employee, employer, dance partner, client, or service provider, the one common feature to all these arrangements is that they are voluntary associations with consenting adults. When things stop working for either person, they can leave if they haven’t committed otherwise in a contract.
Because I see these interactions this way, I don’t support any government-enforced limits to free association in non-government areas. Privately, people have the right to associate with whomever they choose. Antidiscrimination laws amount to forced association. Like all such laws motivated on collective thought, they sound good, fair, and kind, but amount to force in practice. My sensibilities and preferences have no valid claim on another person’s life and property. I have no “right” to the productive output of a farmer, mechanic or doctor. If I cannot persuade them to agree to a voluntary association, I should have no governmental recourse. My legitimate recourse is to make another offer or find another vendor or client.
Freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose badly.
If an individual chooses to hire only black female Hindus over 50 that have no children and smoke only Camels, they should have the right to that choice. If an individual chooses only to work for companies that have blue carpeting and owners who are polygamists who own parakeets, they should have the right to that choice. The market will decide if these were poor choices. If no one is offering the job you want, or no employees are available that meet your criteria, then you’ll need to adjust to become employed or employ people.
Antidiscrimination laws are no different than allowing employers to legally force random people to work for them involuntarily.
Comment by Akston — November 10, 2007 @ 1:01 pmScott,
I won’t answer for Crawford, but for me the ideal world would be one where people are free to associate with whoever they want to and free not to associate with whoever they don’t want to — regardless of what the basis for that distinction is.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 10, 2007 @ 1:04 pmScott,
So you asked me a question, then gave me a long rambling screed about your beliefs most of which I’ve already addressed on this thread with Non-Listening John. I’m going to assume that means you wanted to preach more than you want to hear what I have to say, but fuck it…here’s my response.
Doug pretty much nailed it. I’m no fan of racism or sexism or any kind of bigotry, but I accept peoples’ rights to associate and do business (or not) with whom they choose. Frankly, the idea that the simple creation of a law will make bigotry go away is typical impractical socialist bullshit, as is the idea that anyone owes anybody else their services, their time, or their company. Rather than trying to drive racism underground in an attempt to destroy it (which usually has the opposite effect of making it worse) I’d rather that everybody was simply allowed to be who they were so we can make our own judgments about who we want to associate with instead of the government doing it for us. I don’t buy the argument that this will suddenly make us go back to 60s style segregation which was more about statutory discrimination (to which I am strongly opposed) than private individuals’ beliefs.
“Employers do *not* have any “right” to dictate every aspect of workers’ lives and are subject to social control.”
You’re right, employers don’t have a right to force you to live a certain way. They just have a right to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want. I’ve said this repeatedly in this thread and frankly I’m getting kind of sick of it. If you want to know my position, go back and read the last two days’ worth of talk. Otherwise, don’t waste my time pretending that you’re interested in a debate when all you’re really looking for is someone to bounce your statist b.s. off of (which I’m not interested in).
Comment by UCrawford — November 10, 2007 @ 4:35 pmAkston,
Well put.
Comment by UCrawford — November 10, 2007 @ 4:38 pmWell, some of you happen to know me and know that I’m a pretty hardcore believer in the rights of individuals and liberty.
Yet, Scott and John, I took a job that had certain restrictions in what I could do outside of the workplace, in my “non work life”. Because I am an officer of the company, my employer required, as a condition of employment, that I not write publicly without approval from General Counsel and Public Relations. It’s in my contract, actually. Along with a couple of other items.
Do you believe that my company is somehow acting in a discriminatory fashion for that? Was I somehow acting against my beliefs when I chose to take this job and sign that contract? How about Arthur Chrenkoff, who has the same sort of contract?
Comment by Eric — November 10, 2007 @ 9:16 pmAs UCrawford wrote:
“I’m no fan of racism or sexism or any kind of bigotry, but I accept peoples’ rights to associate and do business (or not) with whom they choose. Frankly, the idea that the simple creation of a law will make bigotry go away is typical impractical socialist bullshit, as is the idea that anyone owes anybody else their services, their time, or their company. Rather than trying to drive racism underground in an attempt to destroy it (which usually has the opposite effect of making it worse) I’d rather that everybody was simply allowed to be who they were so we can make our own judgments about who we want to associate with instead of the government doing it for us. I don’t buy the argument that this will suddenly make us go back to 60s style segregation which was more about statutory discrimination (to which I am strongly opposed) than private individuals’ beliefs.”
As Martin Luther King Jr. so well noted, the law can’t make any one person love another, but it can certainly keep that person from lynching another.
Being fired or not hired for reasons unrelated to one’s ability to do a job, especially in today’s job-dependent and (deliberately–why is that that so few libertarians object to George W. Bush’s and other right-wingers’ form of economic intervention in favor of employers?) job-scarce economy, often has devastating effects on the person fired or not hired, as well as his or her family and future. It is the economic equivalent of lynching, or at least wrongful imprisonment.
In our real world, where most of us must work for others for our livelihoods, the power that employers have over us very much must be constrained by society–including, yes, by “we, the people” acting through the power of democratically elected government and democratically enacted law.
The alternative is unilateral coercion and dictatorship–by untrammeled employers.
In the free-marketers’ fantasy world, someone thus treated could and should simply get another job. In the real world, it’s not that simple, folks. As any basic economics textboook will tell you, a true free-market situation can exist only when the parties to a transaction have relatively equal bargaining power. Does anyone here *really* believe that a lone, unprotected individual employee or job applicant has any semblance of bargaining power even approaching that of a multimillion-dollar corporation, or, in most cases, employers generally?
Absent government intervention, strong labor unions, and other institutions and efforts to ensure fairness, the “free” market is in reality “free” only for those with money and power–and, as history shows, often means all but slavery for most of us who must work for others for a living. Hence, working people need and have the right to legally enforceable protection against unfair treatment by employers.
As Eric wrote:
“. . . I took a job that had certain restrictions in what I could do outside of the workplace, in my ‘non work life’. Because I am an officer of the company, my employer required, as a condition of employment, that I not write publicly without approval from General Counsel and Public Relations. It’s in my contract, actually. Along with a couple of other items.
Do you believe that my company is somehow acting in a discriminatory fashion for that?”
Given all you’ve told me thus far, Eric, your employer might not be acting discriminatorily, but it is certainly infringing upon your off-the-job privacy and autonomy. These rights generally trump any employers’ claims to the contrary, and you and every other employee deserve the protection of law by which no employer would be allowed to “ask” you to bargain away your inherent and sovereign rights.
“Was I somehow acting against my beliefs when I chose to take this job and sign that contract? How about Arthur Chrenkoff, who has the same sort of contract?”
Yes, given all you’ve written, I do believe you were acting against your stated beliefs. That should show you and everyone how much power an employer can have over you or any of us. (By the way, Eric, who is Arthur Chrenkoff?)
Yours for freedom–for *everyone*,
Scott Enk
senk8105@sbcglobal.net
Comment by Scott Enk — November 11, 2007 @ 11:00 amScott, what about a soldier, who also voluntary accepts restrictions on what he (or she) can and cannot do? I have no issues with voluntary restricting my liberties. Which is what I did. I didn’t have to take that job. I already had a good job when I took the new one. I wasn’t forced to do so, I wanted the job. There is a major difference.
Arthur Chrenkoff was one of the original greats of political blogging. He was good enough that his weekly round up of good news was featured on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page every week. Here is the post where he announced that he was leaving the blogosphere.
Comment by Eric — November 11, 2007 @ 11:27 amI do.
In your scenario I don’t see any recognition that, in a truly free market, employers compete with each other for employees. An employee’s bargaining power comes from the competitive skill set he or she has built. That skill set has value. That value can be sold to competing employers.
This concept is easier to see for people who have had to hire staff. If your company doesn’t offer what the workforce is looking for, you have a hard time attracting employees unless you sweeten the deal somehow. If there is a glut of employees all wanting the same position, you not only can avoid sweetening the deal, but can be more selective.
“Supply and demand” is not just economic course material for budding capitalists. It is at work every day in the real world where I live too. I reject the melodramatic characterization of a poor, exploited employee with his hat in his hand versus an evil money-grubbing employer constantly looking for ways to add misery to everyone’s life. People are just people. I’ve been the employee and the employer many times, and the melodrama is an added personal perspective that is not intrinsic to the exchange.
Comment by Akston — November 11, 2007 @ 4:46 pmI believe the same thing. Of course, my skill set is in short supply. No more than 95% of the positions that require my skill set are actually filled. And if you take into consideration whether the people holding the position are actually fully capable of doing the job, that number drops to about 75%. I was very competitive to get the job I have now and was sought after by my company, not the other way around. The restrictions on my public behavior were ones I found quite reasonable, considering what I do. And I won other concessions in the negotiation process that offset the things I gave up.
I wonder if John or Scott have ever been hiring managers?
Comment by Eric — November 11, 2007 @ 5:05 pm