'Bout Fekkin' Time.

[Guest]

You can fire employees who smoke? I mean in general? Or can you only fire those who exposes others at or around the workplace for second-hand smoking?

I mean, the company can have all kinds of criteria for employing - but actually giving someone the boot for doing legal things.

#L

See for yourself.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Now I see we are beginning to agree.

Delighted to hear it.

Why is it then acceptable to fire empoyees who smoke, but not employees who are gay?

Again, just to caution - I'm not saying that it's right to fire smokers. Personally, I'm quite torn on the issue. I support individual liberties, but resist attempts to make others pay for them. Thus I would like to support the right to smoke, but am concerned about the fairness of asking an employer to pay an extra thousand dollars a year to support one's personal habit.

I rather liked the idea someone else mooted - can't remember who - about asking the employee to cover the difference. If the company were to offer standard "no extras" health insurance across the board, and allow employees to pick up the extra for choice-based expenses - smoking, obesity, etc. - I would think that a reasonably fair compromise. Then each employee would have the right to be employed, and the employer would not be asked to cover heavy expenses based on an emplyee's private decisions. If one makes one's private decisions and accepts the personal and fiscal responsibility for them, I would think that reasonable to everyone involved.

As for smoking vs. sexual preference - the trend of labor law tends to be that the question hinges on cost to the company. If the company loses money because of your choices - whether dress, speech, or other - then they gain some say in whether you should do it. As far as my personal philosophy, I think I come back to a similar perspective. If my actions affect my job performance or cost the company money, then I think that they must have some interest in them, and I can't blame them for wanting to exercise some influence. If, on the other hand, my choices - like writing porn under a pen name - have no affect on them, then I consider it none of their business, in both the financial and social senses.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Delighted to hear it.



Again, just to caution - I'm not saying that it's right to fire smokers. Personally, I'm quite torn on the issue. I support individual liberties, but resist attempts to make others pay for them. Thus I would like to support the right to smoke, but am concerned about the fairness of asking an employer to pay an extra thousand dollars a year to support one's personal habit.

I rather liked the idea someone else mooted - can't remember who - about asking the employee to cover the difference. If the company were to offer standard "no extras" health insurance across the board, and allow employees to pick up the extra for choice-based expenses - smoking, obesity, etc. - I would think that a reasonably fair compromise. Then each employee would have the right to be employed, and the employer would not be asked to cover heavy expenses based on an emplyee's private decisions. If one makes one's private decisions and accepts the personal and fiscal responsibility for them, I would think that reasonable to everyone involved.

As for smoking vs. sexual preference - the trend of labor law tends to be that the question hinges on cost to the company. If the company loses money because of your choices - whether dress, speech, or other - then they gain some say in whether you should do it. As far as my personal philosophy, I think I come back to a similar perspective. If my actions affect my job performance or cost the company money, then I think that they must have some interest in them, and I can't blame them for wanting to exercise some influence. If, on the other hand, my choices - like writing porn under a pen name - have no affect on them, then I consider it none of their business, in both the financial and social senses.

Shanglan

However, Homosexuality carries with it a much higher risk of contracting AIDS. A potential risk to my company in health care costs.

Look the simple fact of the matter is that unless you have a written contract with the company, they can fire you for brushing your teeth with the wrong hand. Doesn't make it right. But it also doesn't mean I have to accept it.

 

[minsue]

Y'all are arguing two different topics here. Similar, but not the same.

If nothing else, the rights of a business are not the same as the rights of a government. Leaving aside my own opinion on businesses being allowed to fire employees for activities on the employee's own time, I find the concept of the government regulating fashion to be more than a little chilling.

Dran, you can wander about in your underwear in many cities, but that isn't what this case is about anyway. This is making it illegal for allowing part of one's underclothes to show from the edges of their outer clothing. Where do you draw the line here? Girls wearing low riders with the top of the thong peeking out? Bra straps showing?

How on earth can you support a government fining children $50 for unattractive clothing?

 

[LadyJeanne]

As for smoking vs. sexual preference - the trend of labor law tends to be that the question hinges on cost to the company. If the company loses money because of your choices - whether dress, speech, or other - then they gain some say in whether you should do it.
Shanglan

Hmm. Then it would make sense for companies to have a say in whether you have a baby? THAT sure as hell costs them a lot - insurance coverage for pre-natal, delivery, etc., maternity/paternity leave, early afternoons to make it to soccer games, ongoing health coverage for the child.

 

[BlackShanglan]

However, Homosexuality carries with it a much higher risk of contracting AIDS. A potential risk to my company in health care costs.

Look the simple fact of the matter is that unless you have a written contract with the company, they can fire you for brushing your teeth with the wrong hand. Doesn't make it right. But it also doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Certainly, I think you are right on the Pandora's box of risk. All activities have some risk attached to them, and it's hard to know where to draw the line. But again, I don't think it's possible to make this black and white. The question of what is an acceptable, normal risk in daily life will always have a subjective answer.

Agreed, we don't have to like labor practices. And we can change them, either through legislation or through not working for employers with draconian policies regarding the private lives of their employers. Fortunately we have choices as well.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmm. Then it would make sense for companies to have a say in whether you have a baby? THAT sure as hell costs them a lot - insurance coverage for pre-natal, delivery, etc., maternity/paternity leave, early afternoons to make it to soccer games, ongoing health coverage for the child.

Good point. I would class it under the post I put above. Sometimes enough of the population want something to be a right that they demand it. Smokers might be able to do the same here.

When the company has a financial interest, and people have personal interests, they have to be hashed out one way or another. I suspect that support for maternity leave and health care for pregnant mothers appeals to more people in society because it's perceived as a need. That is, we need people to produce children in order to continue the species, but we don't need people to smoke in order to accomplish any specific objective. Whatever the reason, there was enough public support for maternity coverage that it was enacted. If smokers get enough support, I imagine that they might be covered as well. In the broad sense, when we support these kinds of benefits - maternity leave, for example - we're really paying for them ourselves. That is, we legislate to make all companies do it equally; all companies pass on the costs to the consumer; we pay for the company's products or services and help support that cost. As long as most of us think it's a thing worth supporting, it's all good.

I suppose I'm saying that I wasn't implying that the company should always get its own way - only that it's reasonable, from their point of view, to want to have a say in things when they are likely to cost them money. When the population as a whole values a specific freedom strongly enough to subsidise it - either by paying directly from the government or through higher prices - then that's all good with me. The significant issue, from my point of view, is that the members of the public get some say in whether they want to support it or not.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

I'd say the interesting thing here is the reportage. (you sly old fox you. Training to be amicus?)

You know, I've scrolled past this a number of times and I just can't seem to let go of how unbelievably unfair that comparison is. Admittedly, that could be because, while I disagree with Shanglan on the issue of businesses firing smokers, I also saw the contradiction in Dran's opinions and had thought it odd myself, but I really did find that observation to be a bit shocking, Gauche.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

The homies will just have to wear double layers of undies then.

Don't make me bust a cap in your smart ass...




Q_C

 

[Liar]

How on earth can you support a government fining children $50 for unattractive clothing?

What Min said. (the rest of her post too, just thought I'd save some thread space)

Trying to figure out... how do they define underwear? The clothes that touches the genitalia? What if I co commando?

 

[Guest]

Y'all are arguing two different topics here. Similar, but not the same.

If nothing else, the rights of a business are not the same as the rights of a government. Leaving aside my own opinion on businesses being allowed to fire employees for activities on the employee's own time, I find the concept of the government regulating fashion to be more than a little chilling.

Dran, you can wander about in your underwear in many cities, but that isn't what this case is about anyway. This is making it illegal for allowing part of one's underclothes to show from the edges of their outer clothing. Where do you draw the line here? Girls wearing low riders with the top of the thong peeking out? Bra straps showing?

How on earth can you support a government fining children $50 for unattractive clothing?

So you are saying that in some cities I can run to the grocery store in nothing but a pair of sneakers and my BVDs? Well, hey, in those towns it should be legal to strap your pants to your thighs and show your boxer covered ass. That's fair.

But if it's illegal for me to go out in my underwear then it should be illegal for it to be exposed because I wear my pants pulled halfway down my ass. That's fair.

The point I have been trying to make on both issues is that double standards don't fly with me.

Someone made a point aboput fully automatic "Assault" rifles and hand guns. On e can kill you just as easily as the other. Hell, one shot from a 17th century muzzle loader can kill just as easily as a single shot from a modern AK47. So why can I order a muzzle loader through the mail without even a copy of my drivers licence but I cannot buy a fully automatic AK47?

It's illegal for me to own a "Switchblade", but every folding knife I have (legally) I can open just as fast if not faster than a "Switchblade"?

And no I am not out to ban guns and knives either. I own a fair share of both.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You know, I've scrolled past this a number of times and I just can't seem to let go of how unbelievably unfair that comparison is. Admittedly, that could be because, while I disagree with Shanglan on the issue of businesses firing smokers, I also saw the contradiction in Dran's opinions and had thought it odd myself, but I really did find that observation to be a bit shocking, Gauche.

*nuzzle*

Don't worry, gosling. I adore Gauche and am fairly sure he was just teasing me.

We'll talk it out over pistols at dawn in Hyde Park. I'm sure it will alll come right.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

So you are saying that in some cities I can run to the grocery store in nothing but a pair of sneakers and my BVDs? Well, hey, in those towns it should be legal to strap your pants to your thighs and show your boxer covered ass. That's fair.

But if it's illegal for me to go out in my underwear then it should be illegal for it to be exposed because I wear my pants pulled halfway down my ass. That's fair.

The point I have been trying to make on both issues is that double standards don't fly with me.

Someone made a point aboput fully automatic "Assault" rifles and hand guns. On e can kill you just as easily as the other. Hell, one shot from a 17th century muzzle loader can kill just as easily as a single shot from a modern AK47. So why can I order a muzzle loader through the mail without even a copy of my drivers licence but I cannot buy a fully automatic AK47?

It's illegal for me to own a "Switchblade", but every folding knife I have (legally) I can open just as fast if not faster than a "Switchblade"?

And no I am not out to ban guns and knives either. I own a fair share of both.

The store may take issue with it and would be perfectly witihin its rights to ask you to leave, but yes, Dran, it would be legal.

I'm sorry, but I just can't follow your reasoning linking this proposed law with laws involving weapons. That's about as logical as saying that it's a double standard to allow me to marry one person but not allow me to marry 10 or 12 at the same time. It just muddies the water and distracts from the actual topic.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So you are saying that in some cities I can run to the grocery store in nothing but a pair of sneakers and my BVDs? Well, hey, in those towns it should be legal to strap your pants to your thighs and show your boxer covered ass. That's fair.

But if it's illegal for me to go out in my underwear then it should be illegal for it to be exposed because I wear my pants pulled halfway down my ass. That's fair.

The point I have been trying to make on both issues is that double standards don't fly with me.

Someone made a point aboput fully automatic "Assault" rifles and hand guns. On e can kill you just as easily as the other. Hell, one shot from a 17th century muzzle loader can kill just as easily as a single shot from a modern AK47. So why can I order a muzzle loader through the mail without even a copy of my drivers licence but I cannot buy a fully automatic AK47?

It's illegal for me to own a "Switchblade", but every folding knife I have (legally) I can open just as fast if not faster than a "Switchblade"?

And no I am not out to ban guns and knives either. I own a fair share of both.

I think there are two answers here. One is the one I was making above (yes, I am the one who raised the gun comparison) about context. Context and relative capability are what differentiate the AK47 from the muzzle-loader.

The other is worth. Even if we accept that some things simply aren't fair - like outlawing walking around in boxers, but not prosecuting people with saggy breeches - there's the question of whether it's worth the time and effort and invasion of personal liberties just to assauge those offended or annoyed by said saggy breeches.

I think that there are better uses of our time and money.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Someone made a point aboput fully automatic "Assault" rifles and hand guns. On e can kill you just as easily as the other. Hell, one shot from a 17th century muzzle loader can kill just as easily as a single shot from a modern AK47. So why can I order a muzzle loader through the mail without even a copy of my drivers licence but I cannot buy a fully automatic AK47?

Because you're wrong. Yes, 17th century muzzle loader can kill. But puhlease. If I have an AK74 and you have a muzzle thingy, (assuming we're equally good or bad with guns) who would have the upper hand? It is indeed easier to kill people with an AK47.

 

[minsue]

*nuzzle*

Don't worry, gosling. I adore Gauche and am fairly sure he was just teasing me.

We'll talk it out over pistols at dawn in Hyde Park. I'm sure it will alll come right.

Shanglan

You give me too much credit, horsey. I take umbrage with the comparison because I had been thinking along the same lines as your post illustrated. Don't you know yet, it's all about me?

 

[BlackShanglan]

While I disagree with Shanglan on the issue of businesses firing smokers ...

For the record, I'm really not happy about the idea of just firing people wholesale, or refusing to hire them for that matter. I don't think it's a good solution. I would very much prefer something like my proposition above, that simply asks people to pay the cost of their specific habit. I think that is a more fair balance of individual rights and responsibilities.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

You give me too much credit, horsey.

Let us not deal in impossibilities.



Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Because you're wrong. Yes, 17th century muzzle loader can kill. But puhlease. If I have an AK74 and you have a muzzle thingy, (assuming we're equally good or bad with guns) who would have the upper hand? It is indeed easier to kill people with an AK47.

All it takes is one shot. If you hit me in the chest with the first shot, I'm pretty much a gonner. So what good are the ather 29 shots? Yes I know, I can shoot 29 other people. But does that make the gun bad? Or me?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes I know, I can shoot 29 other people. But does that make the gun bad? Or me?

I don't think it a question of it being bad - just a question of it being dangerous. Morality is the human province, but efficiency lies in the mechanical realm.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

All it takes is one shot. If you hit me in the chest with the first shot, I'm pretty much a gonner. So what good are the ather 29 shots? Yes I know, I can shoot 29 other people. But does that make the gun bad? Or me?

I disagree with you on this, Dran, but either way what the hell does it have to do with boxer shorts and baggy pants?

 

[Guest]

I disagree with you on this, Dran, but either way what the hell does it have to do with boxer shorts and baggy pants?

The point I have been trying to illustrate with all of the examples is fairness. Why is one legal but another that is very similar is not?

 

[Liar]

All it takes is one shot. If you hit me in the chest with the first shot, I'm pretty much a gonner. So what good are the ather 29 shots? Yes I know, I can shoot 29 other people. But does that make the gun bad? Or me?

Better odds if I miss the first time. Lower chance of misfire. That kind of stuff. At the age of 15 I'm allowed to own and ride a moped. But not a bigass Harley chopper. Same thing.

All this talk is making me uneasy. I don't wanna shoot nobody. You the least.

Let's get back to undies. I like undies.

 

[minsue]

The point I have been trying to illustrate with all of the examples is fairness. Why is one legal but another that is very similar is not?

Well, if we follow your logic on the baggy pants issue then you should be all for letting us liberals take your guns away, right?

 

[minsue]

Better odds if I miss the first time. Lower chance of misfire. That kind of stuff.

All this talk is making me uneasy. I don't wanna shoot nobody. You the least.

Let's get back to undies. I like undies.

I prefer going commando.