Smoking: To be or not to Be

[hobbes]

i saw this on the tv news.

i find it interesting that it has been called communist thinking when it is in fact the employment laws for that state...a US state... that appear to allow such a company policy. the same company is not allowed to have testing in other states in which it has operations. I would be interested to hear of any communist country where such a thing has happened.
I have heard of US companies that have teetotal conditions written into contracts of employment although i can't without researching, point to them.

I disagree with his actions however.

Vidcc,

I wasn't trying to bring up any "damn commie" type accusation, but rather point out that a boss controlling his workers outside the confines of their obligations to the business was depriving them of their freedom of choice.

Such an imposition, even for ideals of "better health and happier people", is a way of removing indivdual rights for the betterment of the company, as he sees it. This philosophy is more in line with communistic thinking than freedom of the individual.

I'm not sure from the article that if what he is doing is legal. He says it is, but he doesn't seem to be suffering from a shortage of opinions.

I think legal challenge has not been brought forth because, as Clocker alluded to, the guy is likely an ass and people don't want to work for him anyway.

REmember, everyone in bed by 10:00, it does a body good!

[vidcc]

Hobbes

I didn't suggest you did bring up any "dam commie" type accusation, i just found it interesting that it was compared to communist thinking, even with your reasoning, and made the point that it was the USA employment laws that allowed it.
I am unaware if such an action would be allowed in any socialist country, which is closer to the left than the USA, let alone a communist one.
My point being that the employee in many socialist countries generally enjoys more rights and protections than most states in the USA. Here there is something of a "hands off" approach from government in private industry, so it is more likely to be an "American" thing.

So far there haven't been any lawsuits as has been pointed out. I do not know the employment laws in that state. It will be a very interesting case if one does go to court.

but as i said before i don't agree with the policy...it is wrong IMO...i'm just not sure if it is illegal

[hobbes]

Hobbes

I didn't suggest you did bring up any "dam commie" type accusation, i just found it interesting that it was compared to communist thinking, even with your reasoning, and made the point that it was the USA employment laws that allowed it.
I am unaware if such an action would be allowed in any socialist country, which is closer to the left than the USA, let alone a communist one.
My point being that the employee in many socialist countries generally enjoys more rights and protections than most states in the USA. Here there is something of a "hands off" approach from government in private industry, so it is more likely to be an "American" thing.

So far there haven't been any lawsuits as has been pointed out. I do not know the employment laws in that state. It will be a very interesting case if one does go to court.

but as i said before i don't agree with the policy...it is wrong IMO...i'm just not sure if it is illegal

I think that if challenged legally, US employment laws will not allow it. All we know from the article is that Mr. Weyers thinks it is legal.

Do you think controlling your employees outside the workplace is more in line with communist idealogy or a belief in the freedom of the individual?

Obviously it is more in line with communism where people must do as they are told and have no personal rights or freedom.

That is my point. Mr' Weyers is using a philosophy I don't agree with.

Out of complete ignorance on my part, what rights do employees get in socialist countries that we don't get here?

[clocker]

Really? So smoking isn't detrimental to your health? l must have been misinformed. And why "especially" anything? Either it's true or untrue, what does 'especially' untrue mean?

Perhaps I worded that poorly.
I don't doubt that smoking is detrimental to one's health, I do however doubt that being forced to quit by a tin-horn martinet will make his minions "happier".

BTW, it's apparent that sky-diving and dabbling in deviant sexual behaviour can also be detrimental to a body's health, so I assume that you will gladly cede to the boss the right to restict those activities also.

[vidcc]

Do you think controlling your employees outside the workplace is more in line with communist idealogy or a belief in the freedom of the individual?

But that would be the state controlling political frredoms, not the factory "chief" controlling personal lives

Obviously it is more in line with communism where people must do as they are told and have no personal rights or freedom.

it was political and often religious freedoms they lacked...often western influences were prohibited i agree.. and they couldn't leave without permission

That is my point. Mr' Weyers is using a philosophy I don't agree with.

and i don't agree with it, however he MAY be legally able to do it. He certainly has the legal right in that state to have mandatory testing for booze/drugs etc....the question is if he can test for nicotine.

Out of complete ignorance on my part, what rights do employees get in socialist countries that we don't get here?

range from it being harder to dismiss an employee to maditory pension schemes, amount of paid holiday, overtime payments, Sickness pay compulsory job training, workers hours etc. each country being different but those within the EU coming closer together.
Much of which is a result of the EU directives. I can't say they are always good for the company or the employee.

Some things mentioned will be part of US employment laws but more in favor of the employee
I left manditory company healthcare payments into the social health system out because everyone gets healthcare...not just those working...however only those working would pay into it

[hobbes]

Isn't the concept exactly the same.

A factory overlord is a microscosm of government control.

Maybe he thinks that Republican employees for the best team unity. Or Christian employees are bestowed with a sense of inner peace and will therefore call in sick less.

The point is not his particular case, but if he is allowed to do this, what implication does this mean for our society? What are the limits of the mandates we can impose upon people outside of working hours.

Can all Federal employees be held to the same rules?

So I was simply extrapolating this isolated incident to the national picture and testing the limits.

Since it compromises individual freedoms, I object.

As for the comments you made about socialist system, I came to the same thoughts as you provided whilst driving for some chicken. As you seem aware, and as anyone who has ever dealt with the VA Healthcare system, you understand that these are not necessarily good protections.

BTW, I think testing for marijuana is a violation of our personal rights. Testing for alcohol will only be positive, if one is drinking on the job.

[Everose]

I have known quite a few people that have smoked all their lives, seldom went to the Doctor and lived to a very old age. I guess there are exceptions to everything.

I agree with Hobbes; as long as it does not interfere with their performance while at work, an employee's life after work should be off limits to a boss's control.

I can forsee an employee that quits smoking. However, his spouse still smokes, and his health is affected by continual exposure. How will this employer control this situation?

Smoking is used by a lot of people as a means to deal with stress. Very often after giving up the habit, a smoker's blood pressure will rise considerably, unless another way to deal with stress is adopted. This may end up costing him more in health claims than he is prepared for.

The thought of working in an office with twelve people (this is the number of his employees who quit Jan. 1) who are being forced to give up smoking against their will seems dangerous, health wise, in itself. Imagine the possibilities and lawsuits if anyone goes 'postal.'

In using a little imagination here........if this type of thing continues I can forsee office workers being told not to use computers while off the job, as it causes too much eye strain and neck and back problems to do so both at home and while on the job.

It is not illegal to smoke. This employer has overstepped his boundaries.

[UKResident]

Do you drink?

Do you take Prescription Drugs?

Hell; do you eat? Theres a lot of food poisoning around, maybe you should stop that... You'd be healthier and happier and spend less time on the bog.

By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?

[ruthie]

and?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?

Do you only eat organic veggies? No? Then you make as well grill up a steak, just as much poison in that squash.