I wonder if John or Scott have ever been hiring managers?

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?

I 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.

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.

“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

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?

Well put.

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).

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?

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.

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.

I’m sorry, this is where your argument breaks down. The two just aren’t equivalent.

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.

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.

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.

DOUG: …But, does that make it something that should be illegal?
FIRST POST: Nope.

(thread dies)

Then John wades in fearlessly, and we get a rousing discussion. I get the chance to be able to quote UCrawford as saying:

”my employer’s not allowed to dress me without my consent.”

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?

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