Anti-Smoking Fascists won't hire smokers

[pcosmar]

Now if we only had some doctors in this town,, I would have to drive 200 miles to find one.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Employers do not get to do ask literally anything they want from any Employee for any reason they want.

Yes, they do. That's what liberty is. They should be free to ask others to do whatever they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. Likewise, all employees get to ask literally anything they want from any employer for any (or no) reason they want.

The alternative is that employees be unfree. I do not approve of that alternative. I do not think you should either. Don't you believe in employee rights?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, they do. That's what liberty is. They should be free to ask others to do whatever they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. Likewise, all employees get to ask literally anything they want from any employer for any (or no) reason they want.

The alternative is that employees be unfree. I do not approve of that alternative. I do not think you should either. Don't you believe in employee rights?

Are you talking about contract terms? I would agree with that. However, making demands of an employee that is not in the employment agreement is not reasonable. This is breach of contract. An employee in this situation would have right to recourse in a manner agreed upon in the contract.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So here is the problem. Employers are no longer behaving as if they no longer have to enter into an agreement. Many think of it as they have Unlimited Power, and Employees have NONE. We "demand" this. We "demand" that. We are gonna cut your pay. You have no say so. They have say so only as far as the Agreement defines their say so. Giving them Unlimited Power that they also "demand" to have will result in Employers claiming to have valid authority to watch their employees while not performing any functions not related to the job itself. IE: put a camera in their house. The problem isnt the Power Grab by Employers, the problem is that people are so desperate for any sort of jobs that if an Employer claimed they had the Right to give an Employee an Anal Cavity Search before and after leaving a jobsite, people would take those jobs, and unfortunately, because an Agreement was made between the two parties despite the offensiveness of constant Anal Cavity Searches, it would also be legal.

This is what happens when people are made Desperate and Dependant. It opens the door for abuse due to one party having an excess of power over another. Employees are human beings, not Property, but it seems like too many companies, especially the Mega Corporations treat Employees as Dehumanized Property that has no Rights at all. The Bill of Rights is still valid at work. We could all probably go back and forth on this on what the extents of each of those Rights are, but without that Agreement that both parties entered into, those Rights are not as clearly defined for both parties as they need to be, which seems to be the greatest source of debate and disagreement, here on the forums at least.

Agree.

Additionally, the basic economics of supply and demand always need to be acknowledged. The reason that employers have such an advantage over employees is because of supply and demand for those employees. When there is a surplus of potential employees, they eventually lose their freedom and liberties. This is an perfect example. You want the liberty to smoke? Effectively you lose that freedom, and you lose that freedom because you can be easily replaced.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Great idea to expand unionism.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you talking about contract terms? I would agree with that. However, making demands of an employee that is not in the employment agreement is not reasonable. This is breach of contract. An employee in this situation would have right to recourse in a manner agreed upon in the contract.

No one is breaking any contracts. You are introducing a new concept into the discussion that only muddles things.

Everyone may demand anything, from everyone.

Everyone may likewise say no.

"Making demands of an employer that is not in the employment agreement"? That's called asking for a raise. For instance. Or perhaps asking for free cigarettes as a benefit. Employees should be free to demand these things, or anything else their employee heads can dream up. And employers, of course, should be free to tell them either yes or no.

And vice versa.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Agree.

Additionally, the basic economics of supply and demand always need to be acknowledged. The reason that employers have such an advantage over employees is because of supply and demand for those employees. When there is a surplus of potential employees, they eventually lose their freedom and liberties. This is an perfect example. You want the liberty to smoke? Effectively you lose that freedom, and you lose that freedom because you can be easily replaced.

There is no loss of freedom in this situation (a strict nicotine-free workplace). It is those who oppose it who seek to impose a loss of freedom.

No one has an advantage over anyone else in this situation. Every individual has an equal right to demand anything, and every individual also has absolute veto power over those demands.

If I want to go work at a strictly nicotine-free workplace, shouldn't I be free to do so? Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

It isn't very nice.

 

[Intoxiklown]

If an employer doesn't want your habit sending their healthcare costs through the roof, affecting their productive hours, and their clientel (Yes, patients throw MAJOR fits about medical workers stinking of ciggs), then that is their business. Period. End of discussion.

I am a smoker, so take that with this grain of salt....

Grow the fuck up with your "On again, off again" liberty.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Great idea to expand unionism.

Unions have also learned that labor surplus creates a demand for Unions, thus Unions and Corporations/Government can grow together in perfect harmony.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

There is no loss of freedom in this situation (a strict nicotine-free workplace). It is those who oppose it who seek to impose a loss of freedom.

No one has an advantage over anyone else in this situation. Every individual has an equal right to demand anything, and every individual also has absolute veto power over those demands.

If I want to go work at a strictly nicotine-free workplace, shouldn't I be free to do so? Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

It isn't very nice.

Nice strawman. You completely ignored my point, and are inferring that I called for employers to be forced to employee smokers. I said no such thing.

If you need a job, and your only option is an employer that demands you not to be a smoker, then you can't smoke. Your right to smoke has been effectively lost.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You... are inferring that I called for employers to be forced to employee smokers. I said no such thing.

You are inferring that I inferred that you called for that. I said no such thing.

If you need a job, and your only option is an employer that demands you not to be a smoker, then you can't smoke. Your right to smoke has been effectively lost.

If you need a worker, and your only option is an employee that demands to smoke and that you give him free cigarettes, then you can't oppose smoking with regards to him. You have to support smoking. Your right to oppose smoking has been effectively lost. Your right to a tobacco-free workplace has been effectively lost.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Unions have also learned that labor surplus creates a demand for Unions, thus Unions and Corporations/Government can grow together in perfect harmony.

Thus explaining the seemingly counter-intuitive union action supporting more immigration.

The simple fact of the matter is "we" are not going to get anywhere promoting, what boils down to, indentured servitude or the notion that you can be forced to fellate your boss as a condition of employment.

 

[ctiger2]

Any private company should be able to discriminate against whomever and whatever they want.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You are inferring that I inferred that you called for that. I said no such thing.

"Stomp on your head and taser" you?

Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

It isn't very nice.

If you need a worker, and your only option is an employee that demands to smoke and that you give him free cigarettes, then you can't oppose smoking with regards to him. You have to support smoking. Your right to oppose smoking has been effectively lost. Your right to a tobacco-free workplace has been effectively lost.

Yep. It works both ways. When supply and demand is out of balance, contract demands can increase and become unreasonable on either side of the equation.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

"Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me"

The "you" was directed at, and I quote: "those who oppose it". That is, those who oppose the situation wherein employers and employees can make whatever demands they wish on each other, including demanding that they use no nicotine.

If you, Brian4Liberty, are not one of those "those," then it was not directed at you.

unreasonable

I do not think that seeking assistants who are not impaired by drugs is unreasonable. Nor do I think that wanting to be provided with basic human amenities like cigarettes while on the job is unreasonable.

 

[Acala]

Yep. It works both ways. When supply and demand is out of balance, contract demands can increase and become unreasonable on either side of the equation.

Who is to determine that a the terms of a free trade are unreasonable? Markets set prices. If the price an employer is willing to pay for your labor includes you not smoking, you take the deal or not, just like any other transaction. If I am a plumber and a customer tells me that my prices are "unreasonable", I get to tell the customer to beat it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Who is to determine that a the terms of a free trade are unreasonable?

Either of the parties involved in the transaction.

And to a certain extent, outside observers:

The simple fact of the matter is "we" are not going to get anywhere promoting, what boils down to, indentured servitude or the notion that you can be forced to fellate your boss as a condition of employment.

 

[pcosmar]

Any private company should be able to discriminate against whomever and whatever they want.

Is a company in partnership/cooperation with the Federal Government a private company?

 

[DamianTV]

There is no loss of freedom in this situation (a strict nicotine-free workplace). It is those who oppose it who seek to impose a loss of freedom.

No one has an advantage over anyone else in this situation. Every individual has an equal right to demand anything, and every individual also has absolute veto power over those demands.

If I want to go work at a strictly nicotine-free workplace, shouldn't I be free to do so? Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

It isn't very nice.

The Loss of Freedom doesnt come from either Nicotine or Nicotine Free workplace. The loss comes from the lack of ability for people to be able to decide for themselves, the "allowance" of people to Cooperate. Obamacare for example is not a business transaction created from a Supply and Demand situation which results in a Voluntary Agreement. Obamacare is Mandatory. Thus, the recipients dont get to negotiate the terms of the Agreement. Thats a Loss of Freedom.

Im not an Anarchist, maybe a Minarchist, but definitely not a full blown Anarchist. I believe some Govt is a necessary force. But at either end of the extreme of Total Govt or Total Lack of Govt, Freedom is lost. To try to validate this statemet, I'll make some statemets I dont actually believe. Get rid of ALL Govt period. Total Anarchy. Society can still exist with Cooperation. However, in that society, if you leave your house to go somewhere, you leave your home unprotected. If someone takes your stuff while you leave, there is no way to hold them accountable. If you were to try to hold them accountable in an Anarchy, you'd again have to leave your home leaving yourself again unprotected, only to possibly be robbed again, or property damaged / destroyed. You are not as Free as you'd like because you can not leave anything that is yours unprotected. Thats Total Anarchy. And as much as we want to believe people would be willing to mutually Cooperate with each other, many wont. Many will resort to taking what ever they can get their hands on from Desperation. Out of water, they kick in your door to steal your water. Or your food. People in apartments dont exactly have enough land to grow their own food. Another problem with Total Anarchy is that it does not last. You and I might have the physical ability to defend ourselves, and even be willing to commit to said actions, but we are not immortal, and we arent measuring things in a large enough time scale. The time scale that Im referring to when I say "Anarchy doesnt last" is multiple hundreds of years. Anarchy is a void where something will rush in to fill that void. And often, it will be a group that has tremendous physical power (IE guns, rockets, tanks) that fills the void replacing Anarchy with another Dictatorship maintained through physical violence.

I doubt I need to explain the problems of too much Govt.

The essence of Liberty comes from the Proper Limitation of Government. But Govt is dangerous as a Servant of the People in its minimal form, and Destructive to Unlimited Ends at its worst.

Changing gears for a moment. Tobismom is basically against hiring smokers also. I do not agree with her expressed opinion, but unfortunately I have to defend her Right to hold said position. It isnt because we have the same position that I should defend her decision, but because we have a different opinion, as dangerous as that expressed opinion is in the long run (again, hundreds of years) where employees are turned into willing slaves. She also did a good job of rightfully limiting her own power. "Dont hire a smoker" wasnt a demand to make smoking illegal, and the Scope seemed to only be applied to "on the job". It is because of her limitations of her own power to not call to come into someones home and demand the power to dictate what someone else can and can not do. Her position is slightly different from that of the "wont hire any smoker period" crowd, where they demand that they have Authority to test for any nicotine in a persons system, even if that nicotine is used "off the clock". Thus, I'll support reasonably limited claims to Self Authority, but not the Unlimited Authority of "smoking should be made illegal completely".

Now "shouldnt I be free to do so", referencing your statement to have a nicotine-free workplace. If nicotine is already in someone elses bloodstream, it isnt going to get into your system unless they literally bleed or urinate all over you. You should be free to decide what happens to you, yourself, your body, agreements you enter into, but the scope of that Self Authority ends where the Self Authority of another begins, and that is not always clearly defined. Thus, yes, "free" to control yourself, but to push the most extreme version of that "free to do so", no, you should not have such Authority over another individual. But likewise, I should not be able to require you to have nicotine in your system because it exceeds the Limits of my Rights over you. I should not have such an authority over you, as that is no longer Self Authority or Self Ownership. Im not disagreeing with you, but just trying to more clearly define in a reasonably fair manner what we can both do that allows us both to have the Maximum Level of Freedom for both of us.

We have lost so many Rights already that our natural instinct is to take as many Rights back as we can, however, we can go too far when we try to claim what we have Rights to. If we start recognizing that we need to put Limits on our own Rights when it involves someone else, we start to regonize that Everyone can be Free. Not Freedom for a few, or the Rich, or the Employers. Totally free when it comes to ourselves and ourselves alone, but beyond the Scope of our Self Authority when trying to take freedoms that involve the Rights of another.

Im not trying to be a hardass and cross that line defined by your Equal Rights. Im trying to get close to that line and getting close to that line is where people say to each other "Step Back or else". I have no intention of crossing that line. Many Employers have EVERY intention of not only crossing the line, but eliminating that "line" completely, just as Govt has EVERY intention of crossing and eliminating the "Line" of Limits of Equal Rights. I think I am coming across as aggresive because everyone is stepping closer to that line, and its a simple misinterpretation because of an expectation that I'll cross the line. I intend on stopping where my own Rights end. If I feel the need to cross that line into your Rights, I'll ask for you permission and wont claim to have Rights that extend completely over you. Basically, if you let me come onto your property, I'll be respectful of your stuff, but I wont submit to an Anal Cavity Search on your property, nor will I demand that you cant drink or surf porn on the internet when I come to your home. This would be the same as you entering my property and demanding I cant smoke at home. Reasonable Limits to the Scope of our Self Authority. "Do you mind if I borrow a tool"? Your property, your Rights. I cant smoke on your Property. Thats fine. Heck, you could even say "No" and tell me I can not borrow that.

This is turning into another rant, and its not intended as such. Its longwinded because "Reasonable" is just one word but isnt very specific, and trying to define a Limit as to what I think we can and can not do gets very specific. When we seek to cross the line that defines the Limits of our Rights, we enter into Mutual Agreement and Cooperation. If no one ever crossed those lines, we'd end up all being Isolationists or Authoritarians. That isnt my goal either. Just trying to say "this is where I draw the line", but Im also willing to Cooperate. Im not willing to be Obedient as so many demand as that is just as Authoritarian as a Totalitarian Govt.

How about you guys make a Rant where you all would put Limits on your own Rights, what is considered Cooperation, what is considered Obedience? How would you make sure we both retain the maximum level of Freedom? Not just in regards to Smoking, but ANY trigger topic...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Is a company in partnership/cooperation with the Federal Government a private company?

Not too many I can think of that are not.

While I certainly understand and agree to point with the ana-cap position on this, I wish that somebody would have the courage to admit that, with no checks on employer's demands, the net result will be less personal freedom.

Compliance does not care how it is achieved, whether throwing you in a cage or throwing you out of work, you will comply