A Job or a Cigarette?

Newsweek ^ | Feb. 24, 2005 | By Jennifer Barrett Ozols

[Gabz]

I never did, and I doubt anyone else ever did or ever will consider it.

[Gabz]

Thanks...........but I still can't come up with an answer, other than a taxpayer who meets the job requirement should not be discriminated agaisnt for consideration of a taxpayer funded job based upon legal activities while off duty.

[Stu Cohen]

You have failed to provide a single example of a smoking section that forced you into a situation where you had no choice.

Wow, aren't you defensive. I'm sorry for questioning both your drug and your addiction. It probably wasn't the right time and place.

In a pitiful attempt, you have talked about the "buffer zone" (usually three seats) on an airliner between the smoking and non-smoking sections. Pressurized air on an airline flows from front to back, and smokers were located at he rear of the airliner. That has not been allowed for almost 20 years now. Talk about grasping!

Didn't I mention that it was a long time ago. I said "I'm probably the only person old enough to remember this". I don't think it was grasping on my part. I think it was poor reading comprehension on your part. Maybe it's an effect of the drug?

I've been in the non-smoking section of many a resturant where the smoke came directly to our table from the "non-smoking" section. How many examples would you like? Would you also like the name and addresses of the resturants. And when provided, what, exactly, will you do about it?

I am more than happy to listen to all valid arguments on a topic, and can be convinced if the examples are factual. So far, you have lost my respect by using deceptive examples.

Huh? Take another puff or lick a nicoderm or something. You aren't even making sense anymore. Nicotine madness .... Once again, can you give us a single example of you being forced into a smoking section, when it was not your own personal choice? I am more than happy to listen to all valid arguments on a topic, and can be convinced if the examples are factual. So far, you have lost my respect by using deceptive examples.

[Stu Cohen]

I will say this once again: Those smokers were more than happy to smoke at their desks while working.

And you are confident that the experience at your workplace represents that of every other workplace in America? BTW, the place I was speaking of was dealing with people face to face, and "breaks" had to be taken. I had nothing to do with it?

They were forced to take breaks by people like you.

People like me? I wasn't the boss, nor did I have anything to do with it. They weren't allowed to smoke while dealing face-to-face with customers. What did you want me to do aboutit?

If they had designated smoking offices, they would never need to take a break.

I was a kid, nobody had offices.

And you dare to complain, because people like you forced them to take breaks?

How, exactly, did I force them to take breaks?

Please step back and look at this logic....

Okay, i've done so. I still don't get it. What did I do?

[Stu Cohen]

And you dare to complain, because people like you forced them to take breaks?

And by the way, why are people "forced" to take smoke breaks if they aren't allowed to smoke at their desks?

Is it your position that people have no choice but to adminsiter a recreational drug throughout the workday? They can't smoke before or after work? It's either smoke at your desk, or take a break, because not smoking is out of the question?

Is the addiction that strong?

I mean, it would be cool to be able to drink a can of Budweiser at the desk, but most places just don't allow it. So, does that mean that we are "forced" to go out and shotgun a can once an hour.

I'm not sure I understand how anyone forces you to smoke throughout the day? I understand that you "want" to smoke throughout the day - but I don't see how you are forced to take breaks if not permitted to do so.

It isn't a physical necessity, like a bathroom break.

I don't get it.

[Ginifer]

"You're rights are not infringed. Do whatever you want on your free time. The business owner can hire or fire anyone he or she chooses. If you want to work for a company you have to meet their requirements. Likewise, if you want to work for a company it has to meet your requirements. You chose where to work. A company choose who to hire. It's by mutual agreement that employment happens. They are not forced to hire you nor are you forced to work for any business. It's called free association."

When the company tells you when you can eat, sleep, have sex, etc., then maybe you too might think there is something wrong in trying to control people on their off time. Sure the company has a right to set rules and procedures to follow, but when they start peaking in your house and watching everything you do or don't do -- you'll be the first to complain. When certain rights are eroded every day, eventually you too won't be free.

Today it's smoking, tomorrow it will be something else.

[Zon]

When the company tells you when you can eat, sleep, have sex, etc., then maybe you too might think there is something wrong in trying to control people on their off time. 

A company may do that with employees and to a lesser extent customers. The employee isn't forced into how to act on or off the job. They chose to work for the company according to the agreement between them and the company.

Sure the company has a right to set rules and procedures to follow, but when they start peaking in your house and watching everything you do or don't do -- you'll be the first to complain. When certain rights are eroded every day, eventually you too won't be free.

The company isn't invading the privacy of the employee while the employee is on their free time. If they do the employee can take it to court. 

An agreement between a company and employee may include a provision where the employer is allowed access to the employee's home. I  don't know of any existing  company-employee agreement like that but it's possible for both parties to structure such an agreement.

Today it's smoking, tomorrow it will be something else.

Perhaps a company decides to employee according to age, gender, religion or qualification. It's their business. They can hire and fire people as they chose. 

You too have the same right. Perhaps you decide who to let into your home according  to age, gender, religion or qualification. Perhaps you chose to not associate with people outside your home according to their age, gender, religion or qualification -- your choice whom you chose not to associate with. 

You want that obvious liberty to act according to what you decide is best for you, right? You may not like it but other people and businesses have that same right you have.. 

Why wouldn't you like other people or business to have that same free-association right that you have?

My guess is: sacrifice free-association rights for the greater good of the group. A collectivist fallacy foisted on people  Status quo, political agenda imposed by government-controlled public-school indoctrination and facilitated by mainstream media.

[Ginifer]

"A company may do that with employees and to a lesser extent customers. The employee isn't forced into how to act on or off the job. They chose to work for the company according to the agreement between them and the company."

-- This wasn't a policy when the employees first started working for the company. It was added on at a later date.

"The company isn't invading the privacy of the employee while the employee is on their free time. If they do the employee can take it to court."

-- They are invading their privacy....doing testing to see if you smoke (even when you are not at the company). Don't have a problem with them enforcing a "no smoking" policy at work, but do have a problem with them telling you that you can't smoke at home or on your off time.

"An agreement between a company and employee may include a provision where the employer is allowed access to the employee's home. I don't know of any existing company-employee agreement like that but it's possible for both parties to structure such an agreement."

-- When the agreement is made by both sides I agree it should be honored, but this agreement was NOT agreed to by the employees.

"My guess is: sacrifice free-association rights for the greater good of the group. A collectivist fallacy foisted on people Status quo, political agenda imposed by government-controlled public-school indoctrination and facilitated by mainstream media."

-- You have your point of view and I have mine. I believe that when you start taking rights away (what you do on your own "free time") then you are stepping close to a police state.

[Zon]

This wasn't a policy when the employees first started working for the company. It was added on at a later date. 

Businesses do change their policies. It happens. Sometimes employees quit for any reason or no reason. Sometimes employers fire people for any reason or no reason. Obviously employees weren't influential enough to convince the company not to implement the policy change.

They are invading their privacy....doing testing to see if you smoke (even when you are not at the company). 

It's not an invasion of privacy because each employee could chose to not accept the new policy change and leave the business. For persons that chose to remain an employee they chose to take the test -- they chose to accept the changed policy employer-employee agreement.

Are you implying that the employee is being held against their will, that they are not free to leave the business for any reason or no reason? The business doesn't owe any person a job nor does any person have the power to force the company to retain them as an employee.

Don't have a problem with them enforcing a "no smoking" policy at work, but do have a problem with them telling you that you can't smoke at home or on your off time.

I realize exactly what you just said is your problem. It is your problem. If you don't like it you'd be free to leave the business. You'd exercise your right to free association.. The freedom to not associate.

When the agreement is made by both sides I agree it should be honored, but this agreement was NOT agreed to by the employees. 

Business make policy changes that change employer-employee agreements. In every company policy documentation I've read it states that the business has the right to change the policy. No company prohibits itself from making policy changes.

You have your point of view and I have mine. I believe that when you start taking rights away (what you do on your own "free time") then you are stepping close to a police state.

Police State is a function of government overreach. Police State governments do not allow citizens to exercise individual rights such as free-association. Do you understand the difference between private business and government? Your expressed view moves toward a police state whereas upholding the right of free-association moves away from a police state.

I notice that you ignored the below repost.

Perhaps a company decides to employee according to age, gender, religion or qualification. It's their business. They can hire and fire people as they chose. 

You too have the same right. Perhaps you decide who to let into your home according  to age, gender, religion or qualification. Perhaps you chose to not associate with people outside your home according to their age, gender, religion or qualification -- your choice whom you chose not to associate with. 

You've probably changed your policy of who or who not to associate with or allow in your home.

You want that obvious liberty to act according to what you decide is best for you, right? You may not like it but other people and businesses have that same right you have.. 

Why wouldn't you like other people or business to have that same free-association right that you have?

[Ginifer]

When they take away your rights...then we will talk.

"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." - George Bernard Shaw

Now I am moving on since this is getting tedious.

[Zon]

When they take away your rights...then we will talk. 

That's what you should have done. You would have saved yourself from making arguments premised on hypocrisy.

"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." - George Bernard Shaw

You're projecting.

Now I am moving on since this is getting tedious.

Can't handle the truth of reality when your hypocrisy stares you in the face.

You want that obvious liberty to act according to what you decide is best for you, right? Why wouldn't you like other people or business to have that same free-association right that you have?

Identifying ones own errors and then correcting them builds integrity and character development. Unfortunately some people feel it's not worth the effort to think about improving those qualities. Their own worst enemy they become the biggest loser. I really doesn't matter to anyone else.

[Ginifer]

All I can say is - live in your delusions. Your arguments a specious and without merit.

Now have a nice day!

[Zon]

Your arguments a specious and without merit. 

That's total BS. 

And you're projecting again.

You want that obvious liberty to act according to what you decide is best for you, right? Why wouldn't you like other people or business to have that same free-association right that you have?

[KeepUSfree]

You obviously still don't get it. This is a PRIVATE BUSINESS...not the government. It may not be the "best policy" for getting good employees (I wouldn't work there and I don't smoke!). But, he CAN do whatever he wants. IF, due to his policies, he cannot get good employees, his business will fail. This is how capitalism works in a free society. To summarize your arguments, you basically are saying: "in the name of YOUR freedom (to smoke - in this case), you want government to step in and curtail someone else's right to their freedom to run their business as they see fit". Tell me how that fits in with a free society? Not only is it fascism...it is VERY selfish - and not in a good Randsian way.

[Ginifer]

blah, blah, blah.

[NCLaw441]

Does an employee have the right to QUIT if the boss smokes at home? Would you FORCE the employee to remain on the job under these circumstances?

[G.Mason]

"Does an employee have the right to QUIT if the boss smokes at home? Would you FORCE the employee to remain on the job under these circumstances?"

In post # 36 I replied to the comment made by KeepUSfree ...

" ... I would think EVERYONE on this site would support a persons right to hire/fire ANYBODY for any reason if it is thier personal company ... "(KeepUSfree)

I wrote to him ...

"Human Nature 101 teaches "EVERYONE" never supports everything.

I think it's in chapter two."

I'm afraid I do not relate to your question. Could you be more specific?

Please bear in mind that I was not commenting on anyones right to do anything.

I was simply stating a fact of life. ie: Everyone never supports everything.

[NCLaw441]

Forgive me. I was simply looking for an appropriate post to insert my position, which is, simply, that both employer and employee have the right to end the employment relationship for any reason either wishes. It is about freedom, not necessarily wisdom. If an employer wants to require that all employees be proficient at throwing a frisbee in order to get a job at his convenience store, he has that right. It may not make sense or have anything to do with the job, but it is the right of the employer. If the employee has a similar requirement he can refuse employment or quit. That's all I was trying to say. No offense to you intended.

[G.Mason]

"Forgive me. I was simply looking for an appropriate post to insert my position ... "

No offense taken. ;)

FWIW ... I couldn't agree with you more.