home

Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line?

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:52:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Steve Gillard writes about the employer who told his employees to quit smoking or look elsewhere for work. Now the employer is on a crusade against the overweight. Steve asks, "Where does it end?" Here's my answer:

This reminds me of today, where so many Americans don't care about the detainees at Guantanamo being held three years without charges or lawyers. They need to realize that they are setting a policy in motion that three or ten or twenty years from now may be applied to them or their kids or someone they care about. Today it's smoking and eating, tomorrow it's....fill in the blank.

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that this employer cares one whit about the health of his employees. He cares about his insurance rates being higher for those employees who smoke. And he's afraid that overweight people need more medical care than do thin people, and the greater the medical costs of employees, the higher the insurance rates for employers. So hold your praise.

Update: TChris writes that "Wisconsin has a law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their use of lawful products during nonworking hours. The law was designed to protect smokers, although it also benefits Wisconsin's many beer guzzlers and brat consumers, as well. Other states may want to adopt a similar law..." to ensure employers can't get away with this.

< DNC Chair Update: Carville Quote | Chicago Cops Busted >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? | 56 comments (56 topical)
    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    I say it's a philosophical question. Philosophy guides an individual's actions. Bad philosphy bad action. Good philososphy good action. Anyone know a good philososphy? I say the philosophy is Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism will guide an individual to the answer.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:17:37 AM EST
    Entering the smokers domain? Next up, overweight people? One thing at a time, though. Smoking at work is an unnecassary function, in my own arbitrary opinion. What's worse about the habit, in the most recent years, is the necessity to do it. It has really creeped up to second place to breathing. Third and fourth being eating and defecating. Somewhere in there should be drinking(water) and bathing. It's quite the chart climber. Honestly, you won't die if you don't do it, so why bother the employers with rules? Smoke a pack before work. Seriously though, the last front that the smokers will fight is the fight for personal space. It will be a battle that they will lose as they never realized what a generally offensive and selfish habit they are participating in.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:48:42 AM EST
    The consequences of a litigous society? How about a deal- Smokers agree to pay the difference in health care costs compared to their non-smoking peers. That way they have to pay for their personal choice.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 03:49:34 AM EST
    Of course the employer cares nothing about his employees. All business owners are evil. Not many...not some...all! Keep up the good work. Mark W.....still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:00:37 AM EST
    This is just pathetic and I hope that a** hole gets lawsuits out the wazoo!

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Kitt on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:34:31 AM EST
    Nah - it's a control issue based on the father/child model.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:35:23 AM EST
    You fools really are reaching here. A comparision of American Smokers and Gitmo Prisoners is way beyond the pale. Why is it you hate and distrust Republican, yet love and trust Democrats? The Democrats get money from the same sources. They belong to the same government. They have gotten America into more messes than the Republicans. The only difference between them is the Republicans don't lie during campaigns and the Democrats do. Bush is doing everything he said he would. Kerry never told us what he would do. If he mentioned a promise, he went back on it the next day. Grow up people!

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:43:10 AM EST
    Well let's see.... obesity, homosexual behavior is considered risky by some (I've yet to see the evidence), say, isn't the life expectancy for African-Americans shorter than for whites? Oh, and since we're just trying to cut healthcare costs, women are more expensive than men (all those "women problems," I guess). It's starting to look like only white men can have a job here....

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:00:37 AM EST
    It's all about the actuarial tables and how they play out -- smoking overweight employees could be the ideal for companies worried about paying pensions.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:15:26 AM EST
    Its "give them an inch they take a mile." They will control our lives all they are allowed until we all are in virtual Gitmos.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:32:09 AM EST
    Is this not really about a form of social Darwinism. The weak ought to be winnowed out of society. Today it is smoking. Tommorrow it will be the overweight. The day after we can get rid of any number of lesser beings such as those with the potential for heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, lower IQ's and so forth. All of these would tend to lower the cost of insurance and the cost of doing business. That is the capitalist way. You know, by tightening Medicaid and Medicare and linking retirement to wealth through private accounts, we can also rid society of those who have failed to accumulate sufficient capital (ownership) to deserve to continue in life. The process can be accelerated by tilting tax breaks to the higher income brackets, favoring investment income over labor income and adopting a more fair tax systems that ensures that every person pulls their own weight or perishes. We can also accelerate the process off-shoring jobs admitting large numbers of low wage immigrants so that the working class in the United States will be reduced to the same level of living as those in India, China and other societies in which the appropriate spread of wealth is recognized. Indeed, we have already accomplished much by creating the greatest disparity of wealth since the good old days of the Robber Barons.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#12)
    by wishful on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:40:37 AM EST
    Employers should be able to hire only people with health-happy habits, to save money on health insurance. And for the sake of our government's fiscal health, all these healthy people, upon their retirement, should be required to commit suicide within the year. It's only fair to the younger healthy workers, who are paying taxes to support all the old retirees. We need to limit their exposure to ever higher taxes. It will stimulate the economy, so we can afford to offer euthanasia at a discounted rate to younger sick people. None of them will have health insurance, and it is so unpleasant to watch them writhing in untreated pain in the streets like that. They should be more considerate of our sensitive sensibilities, really.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:51:10 AM EST
    Irony is truly dead--why? Read these comments--you can't tell the jackass trolls, serious about the ridiculous ideas they spew, and those who are doing parody of them. I mean, look at mark's comment, and ask yourself: Is he right wing ass, or a clever parody of one...who can tell? Irony can no longer keep up with reality, and thus dies a slow painful death.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:13:24 AM EST
    Go ahead, pile on the smokers, we are an easy target I guess. Until they come after you. Enjoy drinking? Can't work here, may cause health problems. Enjoy skydiving, rock climbing, or bungee jumping? Sorry, can't work here, life insurance benefits will cost to much. FWIW, My parents and grandparents all smoked, and the grandparents all lived passed 70, my parents are in mid-sixties (still smoking), none got lung cancer or emphesyma. George Burns smoked cigars everyday from around age 10 till his 90's. Every substance on earth, I feel, effects people differently, depending on a variety of factors including their gentetic makeup. Genetics are as much to blame as smoking. But like I said, pile on the smokers, but remember that you said nothing when they come after your vice or hobby. The path we are going down will lead to all the pleasure being sucked out of life. The oner and only cause of death is life, by the way.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:15:09 AM EST
    Craig - As someone who has commented that I'm for gay marraige and who doesn't care who has sex with who, as long as only consenting adults are involved, I must tell you that anal sex is very risky behavior. I hope you know that and I hope you act accordingly. et al - This is a natural extension of the "nanny" state. We are now discovering that when you create a culture to fight "problems," the culture won't change. We celebrate "Earth Day" to save the environment, we have "gun locks" to keep people from pulling triggers, we have mandatory seat belt laws to keep them from being thrown around/out of cars, airbags to protect them when they are too dumb/careless to use the seat belts. Arsneic in water must not be reduced to .000000001%, it must be reduced to .000000000000001%, even though the additional cost for that last inch costs billions and has no justifiable basis. (Note: The %'s shown are for example. I am too lazy to look up the exact figures.) MacDonald's must change its menu and biggie sizing is a sin. A heart attack at 50 used to be a tragedy, now it is a socially unacceptable failure to keep your cholesterol under control. Second hand smoke is a killer and fat is to be avoided at all costs. Welcome to the Brave New World we have all created. And because all of these things have some basis in fact, they are not going away. Get your nicotine patches and excercise videos at Walmart. And visit a nursing home to see what all of this will bring to you.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:31:05 AM EST
    All I have to say about this is: now all those who voted for (or simply acquiesced to) increasingly Draconian anti-drug laws will feel what it's like to live with a target on your back and a sword dangling over your head. It started with illicit drug consumers...and now is winding its' way into the lives of legal drug consumers. Welcome, all you nicotine addicts, to the stewpot us cannabists have been forced to live in for decades. Prepare to 'stand and deliver' your urine and hair samples if the boss detects a whiff of tobacco smoke on clothes or breath. What comes around does, indeed, go around. Allow any one group's freedom to be circumscribed and you eventually place yours on the auction block...and be prepared to sell it real cheap to keep your meal ticket...

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:56:37 AM EST
    Scary freakin times indeed. "Demolition Man" is a great example of the road we are on Michael, well done. Anarchy is starting to look mighty good right about now.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:58:28 AM EST
    It's pretty easy for me to tell the difference, Locutor. Dylan writes "Smoking at work is an unnecassary function, in my own arbitrary opinion. What's worse about the habit, in the most recent years, is the necessity to do it" I think he means it. However, he didn't read the posting carefully enough to realize that the employer is demanding that his employees quit smoking altogether (a.m. breathalyzer tests??). And every time this employer sees a fat worker of his scarfing a whopper, he feels a pinch in his pocketbook. Mark writes: "Of course all business owners are evil" Sarcastically, but then adds "W... still the president". Unfortunately, despite the potential for irony in this statement, I think he meant it straight. (Those who point out that W is still president are usually very happy about it) Steve, the Everyday Patriot (substitute any applicable nouns for Patriot in Steve's case) says: "You fools really are reaching here" - I really think he meant that - He also says, (daily in several variations) that:
    The Democrats...belong to the same government. They have gotten America into more messes than the Republicans. The only difference between them is the Republicans don't lie during campaigns and the Democrats do. Bush is doing everything he said he would. Kerry never told us what he would do. If he mentioned a promise, he went back on it the next day.
    Sadly, despite the irony I find, Steve the Patsy...er...I mean Patriot is quite serious. Then we get into some tricky ground. Hold onto your hat, Locutor! Craig says "It's starting to look like only white men can have a job here...." He means skinny, non-smoking, straight white men of course and IS, in fact, being ironic. "Anonymous" adds to this theme by (Ironically) stating that "smoking overweight employees could be the ideal for companies worried about paying pensions" To continue, Steve the Patriot says that "You fools really are reaching here. A comparision of American Smokers and Gitmo Prisoners is way beyond the pale.", while OneWorld exclaims "Its "give them an inch they take a mile." They will control our lives all they are allowed until we all are in virtual Gitmos." They were both utterly serious Locutor. J. Mohr and Wishful take the employer's arguments to their logical conclusion which happens to be an already defined philosophy called "Social Darwinism". They make the point that taxpayers and employers, who share the burden of the health care costs of workers, feel justified in legislating the personal, private, intimate behavior of individuals due to these individuals' bad living habits costing "the system" and "the taxpayers" and "the employers" money. There is a growing sense that "those bad living folks" are "costing me good money out of pocket". Accompanying this feeling are moral judgments on behavior that we don't approve of. (Reference efforts by taxpayers to censor the National Endowment for the Arts using similar logic). I think that these comments show that irony is alive and well and a useful tool in pointing out logical flaws in arguments. To add my own comments, following the two excellent posts by J. Mohr and Wishful, I'll skip the "clever" part and spell it out for you. If we continue in this path, not only will our future employers be able to screen us for appropriate skill sets and experience, they will ask for a DNA sample to measure our genetic predisposition to illness. Then they'll take a hair sample to trace environmental or behavioral health risks you bring to the job. You'll get a "Health Risk Score" like your credit score, which will be weighed in the desicion to hire you and would determine the premium you paid. Employers would therefore, because of their responsibility for your health care costs, be able to dictate what behaviors you engaged in OUTSIDE of the workplace, under their mandate to their shareholders to put the company's profits first. Ya got it now??

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:04:41 AM EST
    I think that some of you are missing the point. This is not a moralistic attempt to improve the health of the United States. This is the intent of a corporation to improve the bottom line. Poker Player, Nemo, Michael and K Dog assume that this is some sort of soft approach by liberals to improve life. It is not. I ran the health, safety and environmental program for a Fortune 500 manufacturing company and represented a number of health corporations as an attorney. The focus is the bottom line. It is not a misconstrued sense of mothering the employee. Just read the statements of the corporation involved. I have participated in discussions through Manufacture's Alliance in which executives spoke fondly of being able to limit hiring of those who either had unhealthy habits or (if they could do genetic testing) traits that could lead to increased health costs. Smoking is a good place to start since many liberals will agree that it is bad and should be limited.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:05:25 AM EST
    *sigh* I wish they'd said that owning assault weapons is a health risk. The debate would have lasted about five minutes.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    I realize this has everything to do with the employer pinching pennies, but it could lead to other societal ramifications. The precedent is dangerous. If an employer can dictate behavior outside the workplace, the consolidation of corporate and gov't power is complete. Hello facism.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#23)
    by TChris on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    Wisconsin has a law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their use of lawful products during nonworking hours. The law was designed to protect smokers, although it also benefits Wisconsin's many beer guzzlers and brat consumers, as well. Other states may want to adopt a similar law to avoid the behavior discussed in TL's post.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:31:41 AM EST
    Given the rampent discrimination fat people face already, frankly this is old news to me. Fat people are already denied jobs, promotions, education, and more because they don't look right. The health case against fat people is frighteningly weak, and yet it is presented to our society as obvious and unquestionable. Thus, yahoos like this get it into their head that they can stop being discreet about discriminating against fat people (which, more often than not, really means discriminating against fat *women* or fat non-white people; a stealth form of illegal discrimination). They just claim its really all about "health", so they can do it.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    mfox: Not too skinny, of course. You'll have to weigh within 10% of your optimum weight. Besides, too skinny might be indicative of cancer, aids, bulimia, etc.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    how can you be fired for partaking in something that's legal? who's next, fat people?

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    Steve an Everyday Patriot at January 28, 2005 06:35 AM "You fools really are reaching here. ...The only difference between them is the Republicans don't lie during campaigns and the Democrats do." that is a foolish statement and belief, they all lie, you simply swallow it as being truth, having the actually contradictory evidence at your convenience, that is foolish. biootch!!! Locutor at January 28, 2005 07:51 AM Irony is truly dead--why? Read these comments--you can't tell the jackass trolls, serious about the ridiculous ideas they spew, and those who are doing parody of them. I mean, look at mark's comment, and ask yourself: Is he right wing ass, or a clever parody of one...who can tell? Irony can no longer keep up with reality, and thus dies a slow painful death. here, here!!!! i know, i'm totally lost as to who is serious and who's just trolling. kdog at January 28, 2005 08:13 AM ...The oner and only cause of death is life, by the way. never quite put it that way, but i will be plagiarizing that for future reference. Michael Miller at January 28, 2005 08:33 AM on point!!! that brings me to one of my oldest philosophical questions???? does life imitate art, or does art imitate life disclaimer: ok and i know "Demolition Man" should not be considered art. mfox at January 28, 2005 08:58 AM ...be able to dictate what behaviors you engaged in OUTSIDE of the workplace, under their mandate to their shareholders to put the company's profits first. if i was a Rep i could just give you the party line, unfortunately i'm not, and I sense you are way to close to the truth.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    J Mohr - After a 20 plus year career with ITT, let me assure you that I have never thought "mothering" was in the Five Year Plan. However, there was a fair amount of downward loyalty, which actually was just a reflection of the norms of society, at that time. That faded and was gone by the time the French acquired us in '86. No, the cause is a society that decided to do good, and the results are a society that has now run amuck in its goodness. The employer in question is undoubtedly motivated by the bottom, to a large degree. But 20 years ago the group health insurance companies, and life insurance companies would not have been offering different rates. BTW - I don't use nicotine. But when they come for my glass of red wine, that is meddling in my business. As an aside, it appears that the science of detection has out ran the science of correction. Being an optimist, I think the latter will catch up with the former. The question is when, and how much harm will be done in the meantime.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:07:09 AM EST
    Make me wear a motorcycle helmet, seatbelt, not smoke, and eat right. Most of these came from liberals who wanted people to be protected and live better lives - Not Tobacco Companies, Fast Food Companies, or Car Companies. Now, the corporations will take this precedent and turn it to their benefit - as they always do. If you put a cup of hot coffee between your legs and get burned don't blame the coffee. Ah, but we did.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#30)
    by wishful on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:22:50 AM EST
    Boca, Thank you for the reminder. I almost forgot that it's nearly always that liberals force those corporate leaders, obviously against their will, to do nasty things. BAD liberals. BAD, BAD liberals. You liberals all go to your rooms and think about what you've done! (We don't believe in corporal punishment.)

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    Most of these came from liberals who wanted people to be protected and live better lives
    There is truth in that statement, and I agree that you can't (and shouldn't) force someone to make good life decisions. That's not freedom. Not to mention who decides what constitutes "good life decisions" Seat Belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc, etc, etc....They are all bad laws that restrict an individuals birth right to freedom.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    J. Mohr, you are misinterpreting my remarks. As hard as it may be to believe, given my posts here, I am in agreement with PPJ here on this. This is not just 'do-gooding' taken to the sadly predictable, logical end, but an attempt by corporations to saddle and ride you to their pleasure. The root word of 'robot' came from the Russian word for 'worker'. But many employers nowadays don't see the difference between a machine and living being with rights. This is just one more example of this dynamic at work. Another turn of the screw that many of us in the cannabis community saw as inevitable long ago...and here it is. To paraphrase the Niemoller Progression: First they came for the pot-heads, but because I didn't toke, I didn't care. Then they came for the tobacco smokers, but because I didn't smoke, I said "Right on! I don't like them anyway!" But now they are coming after my brewskis and vino; now I'm damn mad! It was done to cannabis consumers, and nobody spoke up. Now it's everybody else's turn.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    Nemo - Read your last post. I am sorry to have misinterpreted your remarks. Note that in my last post that I agreed with the concept that the coroporation was bootlegging its argument with a "liberal's" dislike for smoking as you noted in your last post. We seem to agree. Poker Player - You and I still seem to disagree. However, my point is only to distinguish between a corporate bottom line decision against a decision based (rightly or wrongly) versus a decision based upon a social good theory. I may or may not agree with the government or courts pressing a specific action based upon the well being of society or an individual such as is present in drunk driving or smoking in public places. However, there is a political remedy for that situation. I am concerned with corporate decision making that masquerades as the public good. I am concerned with the limitation non-work related activities or physical predisposition to health problems. These are not as amenable to the usual political processes to correct. As Nemo noted in his last post, corporate dictation of non-work activities reduces the humanity of the worker. Please note that such items as child labor laws, minimum wage and work hour restrictions were successfully fought as interfering with contract rights. We now are seeing a return to the days when corporations have too much power over the individual on the basis that they have the right to hire or fire based upon non-work related factors. I probably agree with you on a fair amount about society protecting the individual from himself. I just do not see that as the cause in this case.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    No smokers. No fatties. No motorcycle riders. No skiers. No skydivers. No scuba divers. No women of child-bearing age. No men over 50. No people with bad driving records. No alcoholics, recovering or not. No people with a susceptibility to high blood pressure, this means you, black folks. No people whose parents had genetically inheritable diseases. No people with skin that's too light and susceptible to skin cancer. oh, and you must be qualified for the job, too.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    Social Darwinism has already been mentioned here, so that particular thunder has been stolen. But I would invite anyone who really gives a damn to explore the concept of eugenics...and understand that, in all but name, this issue is nothing less than a corporate attempt to do what some governments got their ears pinned back for many years ago. Only in this case, some corporations seem intent upon producing, not a 'Master Race', but a Slave one. One bred for optimal health and conditioned to subservience and docility, gratefully taking whatever the corporations deign to give them for fear of losing their meal tickets. For you SF buffs, I'd recommend C. J. Cherryh's Cyteen series to see where this will lead: genetically engineered in vitro grown, carefully brainwashed slaves used as by corporations to do the gruntwork, while born humans lord it over them. It ain't pretty, and it looks like we may be heading somewheer near there...

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    Well said Quaker, and don't forget bad credit!

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    All except genetically flawless white men who never made a mistake, or picked up a habit or vice, will be washing dishes, digging ditches, or flipping burgers.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    mfox: If you mean guns for "assualt weapons" well, assault weapons have been illegal since the 1920s. If you mean to include hatchets, machettes, kitchen knives, etc along with semi-automatic guns and rifles, then that is the future. Who ever wrote about nanny stateism is correct. The irony is that a few stories above this is the litigious society at work- people traumatized by the ridicoulous elian gonzoles episode.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    Next up will be genetic screening, to see if you qualify for health insurance. "I'm sorry, you don't qualify. It seems that you have genetic markers that show you might actually need this insurance at some time, and that's not good for our insurance agency's profit model. We prefer to only insure those who will likely never need it." The tragedy is, there are those that will see nothing wrong with this mind set, unless of course, they hear it appleid to themselves.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    I’m still waiting to find the limits of progressive thirst for government control. Employment, healthcare, speech, self-defense, transportation, property, insurance, narcotics, baseball, office furniture…. I'm staring down a black hole.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    A few years back, the movie Gattaca was released, which covered this exact problem. It's well worth the rental fee.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    Nemo- Gattica indeed. However, I expect the right wingers here would dismiss it without consideration because the director had the unmitigated gall to cast Gore Vidal in it as a bit part. It is a great testament to the direction this society is headed in, IMO.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    Of course, I don't believe for a minute that this employer cares one whit about the health of his employees. He cares about his insurance rates being higher for those employees who smoke. He said as much. He wasn't pretending otherwise.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#45)
    by sal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    Fair or not, the employees, and most employees, are at will employees. They can be hired or fired (and quit) for any reason, or none at all, excepting constitutional or statutory prohibitions (and I know of none that prohibit quitting). That's called a free society. I'd draw the line at genetic testing, and maybe before, but simple unfairness shouldn't be grounds for prohibition. Maybe the policy should be enforced fairly, i.e. apply to all, but otherwise, tough. I might not want to hire neo-Nazis or white supremacists, for example, even though their outside work activities may not affect their on the job performance. I should be able to do so.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    I applied for fifteen jobs today (I am unemployed). Numerous times I have had to sign the Drug Screen Authorization Form, the Credit Check Authorization form, the Background and Work History Screening Authorization Form, and I have had to fill out psychological profiles, verify my addresses for the past seven years, and sit a computer that runs me through modules to test skills in things like PowerPoint (why would someone lie about a thing like PowerPoint?), and in 9 soul defeating months of this shinola where has it gotten me? I am ready for my implant. Scan my forehead...whatever. Just don't make me fill out anymore of those gawdawful cheesy online forms with your cutesy attorney talk and your big brother bad ass mojo. Wake me when the Capitalist Epoch is over. I give up.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    I've never smoked a day in my life, nor do I plan to start, but I think it's ridiculous to mandate that employees not smoke during work hours. There are certain workplaces where that would make sense, but the normal workaday office setting isn't one of them. It does make you wonder, what next? We've already seen employers get rid of people because they didn't support Bush. Are the Type II diabetics next off the island? As others have said here, this move isn't about concern for employees' health, it's all about the employer's bottom line, and that's usually what such things are about in the first place. Very few companies care about their people, beyond making sure they actually do their jobs.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:24:53 PM EST
    For a more "scientific" solution, please (re)read chapter two of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:49:32 PM EST
    One last post on this issue. I have seen a lot of resentment to the nanny society. However, that was not the key issue presented by the health care story. We can debate the nanny society later. The issue presented by the use of smoking, weight and other criteria really has to do with the limits of discretion in hiring and firing employees. One of the previous posts mentioned "at will" employment which has been adopted by many states. Employment at will gives an employer the right to terminate employment for any reason, i.e. without cause. Contrary to other comments, at will employment does not give the employee equal status with the employer. Employees are as free to leave employment. However, higher level employees can be effectively obstructed from furhter employment by noncompete and agreements. Employers will be asked to give recommentdations for the ex-employee. I often watched my employment law partners advise an employer on how to provide a career killing statement to other potential employers with an absolute minimum of legal exposure. The employee will often face a tight job market and the fear of losing health benefits. Everyone knows that a disgruntled employee faces a tough road in regaining a career. Non profession and managerial employees face even less ability to fend for them selves. Indeed, the law originally referred to the rights between the employer and employee as the law of MASTER AND SERVANT. When the law developed, employers and employees lived in a different era. There were no large corporations with tens of thousands of employees. There was ample justification for maximizing the ability of the employer to limit their exposure to loss due to an incmpetent or dishonest employee. Remember, most employers in the 17th, 18th and 19th century ran small out fits where the number of employees could be counted on one hand. Gut level reactions were very appropriate. Employees also had the ability to move on and find other employement in other areas of the country often leaving any unpleasant past behind. (Go west young man) This all changed with industrialization. Companies became larger and the ability of the employer to fire employees for such outrageous conduct as unionization, desiring a fair wage and freedom from company housing and company stores became the rule of the day. Corporations sought to leverage the over supply of labor by forcing long hours, child labor and poor safety conditions. Unions eventually counter balanced thses problems. The twentieth century saw excessive union power but now the pendulum has swung the other way. Additionally. employer's ability to test and probe employees using dubious standards and tests have increased. Drug tests of hair samples can reveal previous sins going back months and potentially years. One's credit history is fair game. Others use "honesty" tests and standardized psych tools (MMPI) to evaluate the prospective employees even though most professionals recognize the serious limits and dubious applications of these tests for employment purposes. Now we have the ability to test for off duty conduct like smoking. Genetic testing can now start to provide the ability to screen out employees for "predisposition" to chronic disease or conditions. Companies are even beginning to make hiring decisions based upon ACT and SAT scores from high school even though the tests were taken a decade ago. The real issue is whether potential employees will have any human dignity or become as the slave before with the master able to view the potential employee as an animal on the block while poking the employee's muscles and opening his mouth to look at the teeth.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    Good post J.M. However, I am puzzled that you consider credit checks fair game. I am not asking an employer to extend me credit. I am usually paid in arrears. Furthermore, my credit is comingled with my wife's. As it is she has sterling credit, but what if she spent like Sinatra in Atlantic City? The number of possible distortions that could reflect adversely on a credit report (i.e., assumed debt, medical bills, costs of protracted job search, as well as disputed fees) would suggest that it is a flawed metric for useful evaluation purposes. The fact is that employers simply do not have as much risk at stake than employees in most cases involving an employment arrangement. I can only think of a single instance of where the employee malfeasance led to a complete dissolution of the company (Arthur Anderson). And there was likely culpability at the top regardless. Whereas it is quite common for employees to be completely done in by the harsh actions of an unscrupulous employer (as you describe) creating a total inequity in the relationship. If ever the hand of the "Master" grows too firm in its grasp and exheed its reach, if ever things reach a tipping point where it is understood just how outnumbered the overlords forever are, all the finely tuned means of control and subjugation will be worthless to defend them. I don't wish it, but I see it.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:47:50 AM EST
    OBELUS - I do not consider credit checks as fair game. It is just the way things are. My point is that there is little if any privacy or dignity left to the potential employee. Employers use any means possible to winnow out applicants. Credit histories are used to determine whether the potential employee is more likely to steal because of high debt or is less likely to do well on the job because they cannot handle their financial affairs. Obviously this is bogus. A wayward spouse, unemployment, medical expenses or stolen identity can all trash a person's credit history. Employers do not analyze the cause. It is merely a means to eliminate candidates. The potential employee is at a loss because of an over supply of candidates in a tight economy. Credit history is not fair game, just an unfortunate fact of life.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:14:30 AM EST
    Coming Soon: Progressives mandate employers pay for automobile insurance; then marvel in disbelief when folks with poor driving records aren’t hired or are fired following an insurance rate hike. Employers don’t give a shi* about your credit until they are forced to deduct wages from your check, which cost them. Employers don’t give a shi* if you smoke, until they pay higher premiums and it costs them. Employers don’t give a shi* if you can use PPT, unless that’s what they hired you for, and you lied, then it costs them.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    Nemo - The genetically engineered, etc., theme has been around since the pulp days of SF. Human brains stolen and implanted in factories, etc. I assume you have seen "Blade Runner." J. Moir - Please do not misunderstand. I am extremely suspicious of "society" attempting to do good. Perhaps my earlier post had too much sarcasm in it. et al - Corporations reflect the society they exist in. When many of you supported no smoking in buildings, airplanes, etc., you ordained the day this would happen, by creating a society that accepted that level of control over individual activity. Selling the rules was based on health benefits, which is accurate. That allowed insurance companies to create a new product, "non-smoker rates." Remember. Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    PPJim- Let's get a **bit** more real here, less abstract and more specific. "Corporations" may reflect the society they're in, etc., but keep in mind that corporations are totally artificial legal entities given certain rights by law (which laws change, and reflect not only "society" as in mores and norms, but political power). I'm not sure that the "nanny state" and corporate control of individuals is the same issue. I can go along with motorcycle helmets or no indoor smoking. And I may get higher insurance rates as a motorcyclist or smoker, and I may not get life insurance as a motorcyclist or rock climber from some or maybe all life insurers. I can live with this. But when a corporation can fire a smoker or weekend rockclimber, I think a line has been crossed. I would also note the unhelathy corporate-government partnership redolent of '30's style german and italian fascism, which was what was involved in drug testing, which originally began as a safety regulation (DOT testing of pilots, truckers) and insidiously spread as a "moral pledge"/"loyalty" type initiative based on "culture war" ideology and biased, self-serving inferences that "drug free" workers are more productive. I would also note that many former drug czars over the past 30 years of the WoD such as Messrs. Bensinger and DuPont have personally profited hugely from going over to drug testing companies to proclaim these tests and the underlying coercion as some kind of "magic bullet". The old question "who benefits?" (I won't use the Latin) looms large here...drug testing has grown into a huge industry which many pharmas have expanded into. The self interest is evident here too (Paxil is OK for depression, but smoking some easily grown herb is not). Writer and sociologist Barbara Ehrenreich agrees w/ J. Mohr, BTW, that the whole point of drug testing -- providing one's bodily fluids to an employer in a degrading manner -- is a ritual which is simply designed to humiliate a prospective employee and demonstrate "who's boss" to insure a servile workforce, akin to union busting or similar anti-labor measures.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    Please, before you feel too sorry for the terrorists at Guantanamo, remember that if they were prisoners of war, and they aren't, they would be held, without charges until the war was over. To get the protection of Prisoners of War, you have to fight in a uniform, have a chain of command, carry weapons openly, and avoid targeting noncombatants. Al Queda does not wear uniforms, does not carry weapons openly, and intentionally targets noncombatants. Al Queda and other terrorists also violate the neutrality of other nations, and intentionally conduct combat operations from and against hospitals, mosques, schools and other civic buildings. Hold your criticism. Smoking is bad for you. Smoke particles continue to come out of the lungs for hours after smoking. That is why smoker's breath smells stinky. The government's action against terrorists is completely different from a private voluntary association like an employer and employee. Movies select employees based on how they look, it is called casting. Better to let the guy who is running the business figure out how to run the business. Don't like it? Go start your own business.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    jackl - You probably won't be surprised when I say that I don't care a bit what Barbara Ehrenreich has to say about the subject. My point has been simple. The act of the employer, in this case, has been enabled by the Nanny State. If the general population had not been conditioned that it was the responsibility of the State to take care of us TOTALLY, the employer's actions would be judged so outrageous that he would have never thought of them.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    I can't believe I read that and missed the most important detail. The employer who wants to start firing fat workers is in Michigan. Michigan is the only state in the union which specifically protects fat people from discrimination due to their size. A few cities join them in prohibiting this form of occupational bigotry, but his workers are very lucky. They'll have a major lawsuit on their hands if they try to fire someone in Michigan for being fat.

    Re: Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    RE: "He cares about his insurance rates..." Well, we really don't know his motivations... often people have motives other than money. I propose the CEO/president of this company is simply a totalitarian psycopath who wants to control poeple.

    Quit or Be Fired: Where Do We Draw the Line? | 56 comments (56 topical)