BOYCOTT WEYCO!!! (WACKO, more like)

[Montauk6]

Are yawl watching 60 Minutes? Did you have to rinse your chins off after they dropped to the floor watching that Wires Nazi, the head of Weyco in Lansing, MI? This old geezer fires any employee who doesn't kowtow to his lifestyle demands (i.e. smokers). Now, I'm a lifelong non-smoker but COME ON! Safer asked him just how much money his company is saving by this crackdown, since that's the alleged rationalization corporations use for these encroachments. HE HAD NO IDEA!!!

Look, where does the line get drawn? Suppose I decide that prenatal/postnatal care costs me as an employer too much $$$ in insurance, so I demand that all employees who are pregnant (either the women or men whose spouses are expecting) must abort, and all non-pregs must either undergo a vasectomy or get tubes tied?

This corporate outsourcing of our liberties is really getting scary.

[OrlandoGator]

1. Perhaps an unpopular opinion:

I view cigarette smoking as a severe character flaw and I think employers have a right to discriminate against smokers. The costs of providing health care to people who knowingly give themselves cancer is astronomical.

I guess I just hate liberty, whatever.

[RoyGBiv]

4. Guaranteed unpopular ...

Would you also support discrimination against overweight people, or perhaps just those who don't exercise regularly and don't abide by recommended daily allowances and requirement for various nutritional elements?

[Solon]

6. That would be even less popular...

due to many people having medical problems that cause obesity.

[OrlandoGator]

10. The difference is, smoking is ALWAYS a choice.

Being overweight is not.

Look, the costs associated with health care and loss of productivity are not insiginificant. An employer should be able to control these costs when it comes to an employee who decides to kill themselves.

I'll admit that I'm biased. I have asthma and I fucking hate cigarettes...and I pretty much hate smokers, too. I think their habit is stupid and rude.

[Ksec]

16. Sure it is.

You cant pick and choose your points. That makes your argument bogus.

[Yavin4]

29. Your Asthma Costs The Company A Lot Of Money

Should you be fired because you have asthma? I smoke, and I've never needed any medicine or healthcare.

[OrlandoGator]

32. I don't choose to have asthma.

Smokers choose their cancers and emphysemas, and their employers pay for that choice.

[Yavin4]

36. Doesn't Matter If You Chose It Or Not

Your asthma costs the company money, and using your argument, they should have the right to fire you.

[OrlandoGator]

40. The point was on the train and you missed it.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[NorthernSpy]

151. I've never smoked, and I certainly didn't choose to have asthma, but...

... I don't believe that that makes me morally superior to people who developed lung disease after smoking. I also don't believe that people who smoke are somehow less worthy of employment and healthcare than I am, or that they should be arbitrarily singled out and excluded from opportunities because of their personal choices.

Everyone takes risks of some sort; smokers are hardly alone in this respect. Even socially-approved "healthy" activities like running and skiing are actually rather dangerous, but how often do we hear the people who like to do those things getting berated for taking risks and imposing avoidable costs on health insurance plans? Not very often. There's no good reason for heaping blame on someone who gets cancer from smoking, but not on someone who broke his neck while rock-climbing. It's just an arbitrary value judgement.

Please keep in mind that not all people with asthma agree with you on this issue.

Speaking for myself, I'm generally skeptical of the idea that my having asthma justifies imposing limits other people's rights, privacy, and choices.

[Ksec]

35. Yep they should fire Orlando

For having asthma. After all its his choice to work there. Tough luck there orlando but you can find another job.

[OrlandoGator]

42. If I engaged in an addictive habit that I knew caused my asthma...

...you might have something.

Unfortunately, you got nothing.

[Ksec]

52. It doesnt matter like they say

Choice or no choice. Youre fired because we want to.

Too bad for you. There always McDonalds.

[OrlandoGator]

56. Okay, then. It is the employers' prerogative.

My education and work experience brings great value to whatever employer I choose to work for. If one company doesn't see it that way, I'll find another employer that does.

And you know what? I won't lose a millisecond of sleep over it.

[Ksec]

59. Most employers are screening for healthy employees now so

you may have a tough time with your poor health.

[OrlandoGator]

63. I'm so glad my employment situation is of such great concern to you.

As I said, I've worked very hard to make myself very marketable. Companies care about money, and I bring a lot of money to any company lucky enough to hire to me.

If a company is stupid enough to take a pass on me because I buy a $12 inhaler every few months...then they are a shitty company that isn't too interested in making money.

My $12 inhalers are a lot cheaper than chemo or a lung transplant for a dumbass smoker.

[Ksec]

75. One mans inhaler is another mans reason not to hire

Im just making an example of you. Nothing personal Orlando but when you start down this road you may not like where it goes.

[OrlandoGator]

78. Go down the road, I don't care.

If someone wants to discriminate against me for having asthma, let them. I am very confident that I'll get another job elsewhere. If not, I'll work for myself and do just fine.

The beautiful thing about the free market economy is that it makes companies pay dearly for making bad decisions. Discriminating against valuable employees is a bad business decision and will only serve to drive talented people to your competition.

[mac56]

80. Please see my question below.

Post 73.

[Ksec]

86. Actually Orlando

This scenario isnt free market. They took away the employees bargaining power by killing unions and all around weakening of employees rights. Free Market doesnt take away one sides rights. It allows them both to work .

[peacebaby3]

88. Do you ever laugh? Do you go into stores that have scented candles or

soaps? Do you walk up stairs? Do you ever allow yourself to be stressed?

I bet you have done at least one of those things and if so, then you have put yourself in a situation to have an asthma attack since there are many triggers as you should know. Therefore, if you have done any of those things, you have made a choice to take a chance on having an asthma attack!!!!! And based on your logic, you should not be able to have a job or health insurance because of your personal choices.

Outside of your asthma...

Have you ever driven too fast? Have you ever eaten any fast food? Have you ever consumed any alcohol? Have you ever participated in any sport? I could go on and on but you get the point (or maybe you don't!) but every human makes choices that could affect their health in some way all of the time.

[OrlandoGator]

90. Boy, was that a stretch.

Sorry, comparing cigarette smoking to a medical condition doesn't really ever hold water.

Nice try, though. Silver star for effort.

[peacebaby3]

108. Not a stretch at all. If you have done any of those things then you have

made a personal choice to do them and they are all triggers for asthma.

I'll give you laughter because you would have to really work to overcome the urge to laugh, but it could be done. You certainly need to stop watching any comedy TV shows! You wouldn't want to make any choices that could cause you to have an asthma attack! Surely, with all the other options out there you could at least try to stay away from anything that was funny. Do you have any will power?

Your condition is actually already forcing a company to pay for your treatment, but a smoker could be just fine.

I wish that all of us were perfect, but we aren't and that is why we are human. I don't smoke and I agree that smoking is bad for you just as many other lifestyle choices are bad on a person's health.

I recently watched my sister die from lung cancer and it was horrible. She was a beautiful, loving human being who smoked when she was younger but had quit many years before she was diagnosed, but she still got cancer and she still died. Some of your comments on this thread are very hurtful to me and I would imagine they are to others who have lost loved ones to lung cancer. You are not any better than my sister and you certainly aren't going to convince anyone to stop smoking by attacking their character.

And BTW, my argument is certainly worth a gold star!

[Occulus]

165. Considering it's actually a nicotine addiction...

...and addiction is actually a medical condition....


Oh, I give up........

[GrumpyGreg]

122. Dumbass smoker? This is one smoker who has been smoking for

50 years.

No cancer.

No emphysema.

No nasty inhaler.

No nothin'.

[OrlandoGator]

125. Good for you.

And a clarification on edit:

Smoking is a dumbass habit. People who smoke are thus dumbasses.

[Clark2008]

200. People who make judgments about others are dumbasses, too.

In fact, they're much more dumb than smokers.

[Occulus]

164. How about

"An employer may not fire or otherwise discipline formally, by internal company process, any action or actions taken by the employee when said employee is not on 'company time'".

I could give a crap about your asthma as it relates to my smoking. I'm more concerned about the precedent this sets for employers.

This isn't about smoking or money per se; it's about what an employer may and may not do about an employee's actions when not "on the clock".

"You may not purchase any competitor's product when that of the employer would serve the same purpose."

That's one extension of this action. I wonder how many forms this will end up taking....

[AngryAmish]

182. There is a problem with that

Example: The spokesman for my company decides he wants to change the law to allow a man to have sex with his daughters. He does nothing to break the current law and does nothing on company time. Just excercising his First Amendment rights on his own time. Would I employ such a notorious person. Hell No. He has a right to have an opinion, he does not have a right to me paying him.

[BuddhaGirl]

180. yes, and one of the women in the interview

asked the Weyco president if all of her years of service and loyalty meant anything to him and he said "NO!"

I would bet you would indeed lose sleep over it :eyes:

[kevinbgoode]

137. People should be fired for buying

McDonald's food then, too. . .since it has such a high fat content. And much of the stuff in the large supermarkets as well. And air quality suffers because of emissions from automobiles, increasing potential health costs - employees who drive should be fired too.

[RoyGBiv]

51. Choices ...

You've avoided the fundamental question, though. Should employers be able to discriminate based on the costs associated with the legal choices their employees make outside the workplace? Eating too much or not well and not exercising enough are choices, whether that that is the reason for someone being overweight or not. To make the distinction between those who are overweight by choice and those who are overweight due to some inherent health related issue, should employers be granted the right to demand a full medical history, including a genetic mapping, prior to one's consideration for employment? Should employers have any control at all over your life when you are not "on the clock," i.e. not representing the company in some official way. If so, why? By what authority does an employer have this power? I'm not talking about smoking, per se. I'm talking about anything you do.

To take another example, the costs both in terms of insurance and lost productivity for people who have children is not insignificant either, at least according to some of the bean counters that make these decisions for corporations and other employers, and except in cases of rape, becoming pregnant is in fact a choice. Employers are currently legally barred from dismissing a woman from most professions because she is pregnant, but the reason these laws exist in the first place is that this was in fact happening because of the reasons stated.

Or, let's consider another set of scenarios since one of your qualifiers seems to be doing something inherently unhealthy. Should an employer be able to discriminate against employees if they drink alcohol? Should I be prevented from engaging in recreational activities that have a high incidence of injuries associate with them? Or, should an employer be able to tell me I cannot engage in unprotected sex on a daily basis with random people I meet in seedy bars where other people are smoking? And on that point, may the employer choose my friend's habits as well and prevent me from spending more than a certain amount of time in enclosed spaces with a friend or relative who happens to smoke?

My question is simply where do you form the boundaries of an employer's acceptable control over our private lives and how do you determine that boundary?

[GrumpyGreg]

120. I feel the same way about anyone who drinks alcohol but I don't want

them to lose their jobs because they do it outside of work,in their own free time.

[nonconformist]

149. Wait... BACK THE TRUCK UP!

So what you're saying is that all overweight people have some medical problem that causes their condition?

Please.

Most people may not choose to be overweight, but the vast majority got themselves there by lifestyle choices.

Kinda like smokers.

More Americans suffer from health issues as a result of obesity than do smokers as a result of their smoking.

[peacebaby3]

176. For the most part I agree with you.

Really, I guess I do agree with you.

I will say this as a former smoker who went cold turkey quite a few years ago and has also struggled with my weight all of my life - I could just quit cigarettes, but I can't just quit food.

I think that is why I have always struggled with weight. I've been up and down my entire life and not just a few lbs., unfortunately.

I could always just cut alcohol, cigarettes, and things like that completely out of my life, but not food. I fully admit you can make good and bad choices in food, but it does add an extra battle because you can't cut it out of your life. Well, at least it does for me.

It's the last addiction I have. I quit drinking and smoking a long time ago as a personal choice and I'm glad I did. Now if I could just maintain a healthy eating lifestyle...

[elehhhhna]

184. if you wheeze on an interview, you ain't getting hired either.

how's it feel?

[DrunkenMaster]

193. So are you going to fire alchoholics?

What about people who compulsively bite their nails?

I can't believe this is a real debate....

[walldude]

89. You aren't going far enough

Do you eat fast food? Fried Foods? Hot dogs? Do you drive a car? Do you drink? What about medication? Have you ever taken Asprin? Painkillers? I could do this all night.

[OrlandoGator]

92. And if an employer wants to discriminate against those things, let em.

It would be a remarkably stupid business decision to have a company that absolutely nobody wants to work for.

[Dark]

105. But it doesn't matter what you 'want' when it comes to employment anymore.

Many people (I know a few) have shitty jobs they absolutely despise. But they can't leave them because they can't find anything without taking a huge and unacceptable paycut.

They have bills, especially heating, car payments, gas, and food.

If your company decided that it was going to not provide healthcare to you unless you stopped having asthma, would you say 'fuck this' if you couldn't find another job to pay the bills?

[nonconformist]

145. It's the old "if it doesn't affect me, I don't give a shit" mentality

Orlando isn't a smoker and hates smokers, therefore it's okay to discriminate against them.

[elehhhhna]

185. Wonder what he thinks about women in the workplace? hmmm.

[BattyDem]

117. What if ALL companies decided to adopt the same rules?

Let's face it .... if one gets away with it and saves a lot of money, it won't be long before EVERY company in America follows suit. People won't have a choice. If you need a job, you'll have to live by their rules. The entire populace can not become self-employed.

[RoyGBiv]

121. I don't think you get it ...

The corporate world especially, but also that of many smaller businesses, has been working toward the goal of the disposable employee for a long, long time so that any loss of any employee has essentially zero impact on the company. This goal has not yet been reached, especially in industries with employees requiring high degrees of education and specialization, but it's getting there. Higher unemployment gets it there faster, which is one reason a certain branch of our political spectrum actually encourages it. Furthermore, that goal has been reached for many low to mid wage earners already.

As a person who has done his share of hiring and firing, I can tell you point blank that I have never met an indespensible employee, not one. I've had some people working under me whom I hated to lose because they were very valuable, but I've never not been able to replace them with someone at least as competent. A few times I ended up with someone better, working for a lower salary since they had not been with the company as long, thus improving the so-called bottom line.

[Occulus]

168. Not in a bad economy, it's not.

In a bad economy, you know, LIKE NOW, when it's hard to find a good job, employers know people will take what they can get. MOST people aren't as educated as you imply yourself to be. They need a job, as fast as possible.

THAT gives the employer a huge amount of power. Master/slave sort of power.

You seem to miss this.

[Solon]

5. Same could be said for those who drink alcohol...

as the OP asked, where do you draw the line? I mean, if you found out an employee, on weekends, went skydiving, water/snow skiing, can you threaten them with termination if they don't quit such dangerous endevours?

[froshty1960]

192. The Report on 60 Minutes ...

said that companies are not drawing lines. They cited rules for a Las Vegas casino that will fire any employee that gains 7% of his or her body weight. They told the story of the man let go by Anheiser-Busch for accepting and drinking a Coors beer. Then there was the person who was fired because of a Kerry bumper sticker on his or her car. This means that an employer could find out I'm a member of DU and use that as a reason to fire me and I have no recourse. That's the issue that CBS was also covering - workers have no rights and can be fired for any reason except in 5 states.

However, what I found interesting was the picture of Wire lifting weights in a gym - and I thought, "What if the old guy damages his spine by lifting the weights incorrectly? Why is it okay for him to do something dangerous like lift weights but his employees can't smoke?"

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrlandoGator]

14. What a coincidence, cigarette smoking makes me ill.

The difference is, you're being figurative and I'm being literal.

[Yavin4]

9. Where Do You Draw The Line

What if your boss views posting on DU as a severe character flaw? Would you support that? What if your boss views voting for Democrats as a character flaw?

[OrlandoGator]

12. I'd go work somewhere else.

As long as the ground rules are clearly stated, the employer can set whatever ground rules they want.

[Yavin4]

25. What If You Live In An Area Like Lansing, MI where There Aren't

that many emoployers. In most parts of the country, there are whole cities built around one or two employers. If you don't work for either of them, then you're unemployed.

[OrlandoGator]

31. Move, then.

n/t

[Yavin4]

41. Easy for You To Say

Moving to another location can be extremely traumatic if you have kids or other relatives who depend on you.

[OrlandoGator]

47. I guess the only choice is to quit smoking.

And to be frank, if you're in a sitation where your family depends on you to remain employed...you shouldn't be engaging in an addictive, expensive habit that will likely kill you.

Seeing as how you have "kids or other relatives who depend on you" and all.

[Yavin4]

54. Your Argument Sounds a Lot Like the Anti-Abortionists

"Too bad you were stupid enough to get pregant. Suck it up and have the baby. No abortion."

[OrlandoGator]

60. At least you concede that smoking is stupid.

That's a start.

I'm not going to address your ridiculous abortion comparison, by the way.

[Yavin4]

69. I Used The Abortion Analogy To Point Out How Callous Your Arugment Was

Your flippant advice that people should move or work for someone else is very similar to people's flippant advice to women who have an unexpected pregnancy.

Both arguments ingore the personal trauma involved.

[OrlandoGator]

71. There's not much "personal truama" in quitting smoking.

If your employer tells to quit smoking, your choices are to quit or to find another job.

The fact of the matter is, quitting smoking is probably the less painful choice. If you think your employer is a fascist invader of your privacy, then why would you want to work for them?

[nashbridges]

181. You know

If evolution was allowed to work without compromise, you'd be dead now.

I guess you're lucky someone thought asthmatics were worth the trouble of finding out a treatment.

[elehhhhna]

186. BIG WARM WELCOME FOR NASH BRIDGES!!!!

Keep posting!~

[Occulus]

169. With what money?

Look, pal, I work at a job that pays almost 50K a year and *I* can't afford to move even to another state! Where the BLOODY HELL do you think someone who is unemployed is going to come up with enough cash to be able to move far enough away from their current location that they can benefit from a better local/regional economy?

Jesus Christ, do you think people grow money trees somewhere?

[ProfessorGAC]

173. This Is A Hall Of Fame (Shame?) Unbrilliant Post

The Professor

[Blue_In_AK]

156. The 60 Minutes piece

mentioned someone who was fired for having a Kerry/Edwards sticker on their car. THAT'S a choice as well, I suppose. I notice OrlandoGator is no longer with us, by the way.

[Occulus]

170. Good fucking riddance

fascist. I should have known he was a troll.

[Blue_In_AK]

171. No kidding...

I was reading down this thread with my lower jaw dropping closer and closer to the floor. By the time I checked his profile, he was gone. Amazing...

For what it's worth, this whole (lack of) privacy issue really gets my blood boiling. I remember 20 years or so ago when they first started taking UAs from prisoners, a certain convict I knew told me that they were just being used as guinea pigs, that sooner or later they'd be UAing everybody. And, lo and behold, here we are. You have to pass a pee test to get a job. They can tell you to stop smoking or you're fired. It goes on and on. They try to give us this illusion that we're a free society, but in reality we're all prisoners here in our own country. It makes me sick.

[raccoon]

178. He was a troll, but how come he had 1000+ posts?

Seems to me he'd have been gone a long time ago.

[LincolnMcGrath]

189. Maybe he asked to be removed?

:shrug:

[Montauk6]

11. Yeah, whatever, it's only liberty, you're right. Freedom sucks anyway.

[OrlandoGator]

17. Freedom and liberty allow you to go work for someone else.

Funny how that works.

[Montauk6]

19. Because the economy is just BOOMING with opportunities

[OrlandoGator]

20. Make your own opportunities, then.

If you can't or don't want to, then prepare to play by the rules of an employer.

[Montauk6]

30. Including a ban on fertility?

Or let's do genetic screen of all employees, and if there's a history of diabetes in your family, here's a tray, clean your desk out.

[OrlandoGator]

37. These extremist arguments are rather childish.

There's a very simple concept here:

Smokers have a choice. Smokers choose to be less productive employees. They choose to have their cancer, emphysema and other related ailments.

Employers shouldn't be forced to absorb the costs (which are astronomical) of their employees' stupid decisions.

[BlackVelvet04]

43. No they aren't astronomical according

to the Miami Police Department. 5% difference in health care costs when they weren't hiring smokers.

[Yavin4]

46. What about People who Snowboard?

Mountain climb? Race cars? Go hunting? Those are choices too that could result in higher health care costs as well. Should those choices be regulated?

What about people who engage in unprotected sex? Should the boss fire them as well?

Why not attach video cameras in our homes so that our bosses can monitor our lifestyles?

[OrlandoGator]

49. Again, it is that company's prerogative.

If you feel that the employer is too restrictive or intrusive, don't work for them.

[Yavin4]

57. If One Company Can Do This, They All Will Do This

That's how the system works. If one company gets away with this kind of discrimination, then they all will do it. Just like outsourcing to India.

[OrlandoGator]

58. No, they won't.

Because in the big picture, it does not make good business sense to discriminate against good employees who bring value to the company.

[mac56]

73. Is it possible that an employee who smokes

may also be one that brings good value to the company?

Or that a non-smoking employee screws the pooch all day long?

So how does one set the equation?

Your solution is way too simplistic.

[OrlandoGator]

81. You're right, it's not that simple.

But I think that "discriminating" against employees that engage in expensive behavior that reduces productivity can be one part of a group of criteria that a company can use to determine whether to keep someone employed.

[mac56]

85. Thank you for acknowledging that.

You gave me the impression that you wanted smoking to be the only criteria, the unforgiveable sin. Probably others got that impression too.

It'll be a hard formula to devise. How many packs a day equal how many successful sales contracts? How many asthma inhalers equal how many award-winning ad campaigns? How many pounds overweight equal how many brand-new software programs?

Man, I'd hate to be the one drawing up that conversion table.

[Montauk6]

66. So I'm being childish; jiggle the keys for me but don't evade the issue.

And if "all smokers will be fired" isn't "extremist," I don't know what is.

The point is once you open that door, what's to stop other examples that you think are "extremist?"

[mondo joe]

141. Of course, employers are not forced to absorb these costs.

They can pay for minimal health coverage. They can not provide it at all. Or they can compensate with credit toward premiums those employees who don't smoke.

And the employees have another choice too, which is to unionize and fight for this issue.

These both amuse me to type, because I'm anti-smoking and not particularly pro-union.

[Demoiselle]

15. Oh, Orlando. A severe CHARACTER flaw? Many many people get hooked....

when they are teenagers, at a point when their facilities for good judgement are still underdeveloped (according to childhood development experts). And because the ciggie companies have worked so hard to perfect an addiction stick...they can suffer from a physical addiction tougher to kick than heroin.
I appreciate your distress over the filthy habit (I speak as an ex smoker.) But there are lots of behaviors that push health care costs sky high....bad diet, booze, an affinity for all kinds of risky behaviors (sports, etc), even lack of preventive health care early enough to protect our poorest citizens. And we could certainly bring down the cost of health care if we did what every other industrialized democracy does, and institute single payer government health insurance with the power to bargain, therebye taking some of the load off employers.
I think you're being a bit hard hearted.

[OrlandoGator]

18. I am being hard-hearted. I have no sympathy for smokers, period.

With patches, gum and the pills out there...if you want to quit smoking, you can. I'm sick and tired of people blaming society and their upbringing for their stupid decisions in life.

[Demoiselle]

27. It must be wonderful to be perfect.

[Yavin4]

34. Your Argument Keeps Missing the Larger Point

Your employer should not have the right to regulate your personal life after hours.

[OrlandoGator]

65. If your personal life directly impacts the employer, then why not? nt

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

33. As a smoker....

fuck you!

[BlackVelvet04]

45. LOL,

I'll second that emotion.

[Mojorabbit]

152. I'll triple it! eom

[OrlandoGator]

53. Considering that by their very nature smokers are inconsiderate assholes,

I completely unsurprised by such a response.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

55. Then please consider my original argument repeated.

[dweller]

61. sorry,wrong thread

but good luck with the judgemental assholes, Joad.

whew.
dp

[OrlandoGator]

64. Yeah, so says the guy who told us Katrina would be no big deal.

Forgive me for not valuing your opinion all that much.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

67. No, I said that there would not be tens of thousands dead...

If you go to the archives, you will see that I was pretty accurate in my guesses.

But to some, the truth or facts just don't matter and they enjoy benduing them to their own stories.

Let me guess. You're a christian, aren't you?

[OrlandoGator]

74. I don't engage in debates with people who tell me to fuck myself twice.

Go hack up a lung on someone else.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

76. Too late, bro! You already have my smoker germs all over you!

We've been arguing for several posts and when I call you on something, you resort to this?????


LOL!!!!!

[OrlandoGator]

79. It's okay, in ten or fifteen years I'll win either way.

Every time you cough up blood, think of me.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

82. LOL!!! Yeah... this shit killed my great grandfather....

he was only 97...

I'm in my 50's and still going strong.

You'll be hit by a meteor before I give it up you sick bastard.

[OrlandoGator]

87. Okay, fine.

As long as you're paying all the costs of your reckless habit, I don't really care.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

91. So I take it you eat no meat or salt and live a completely pious life

beyond all reproach?

Can you say "sanctimonious?"

I thought you could.

[OrlandoGator]

93. I don't willingly engage in behaviors that will kill me.

Take that as you will.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

95. Do you breath? Were you born? That shit'll kill you.

I would hate to be you. No chances. How boring.


He's dead too.

[OrlandoGator]

97. Your opinion is duly noted.

No, I lied...I didn't actually note it anywhere.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

98. You lied about what? I don't understand....

were you replying to the post in which I thought that it would be boring to be you?

[OrlandoGator]

100. There are lots of things you don't understand.

What's sad is that I'm about half your age and I understand most of them a lot better than you do.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

101. Can you say hubris?

I didn't think you could.

[OrlandoGator]

104. I don't have to be objective when I'm right.

And this exchange is about ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. There are more important things to talk about in the world than your God-given right to make everyone within a 20-foot radius gag.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

107. that's right, Bucko... I have now stolen 10 minutes of your life....

Lets see, that's about two cigarettes worth according to today's propaganda.

It appears that you must be a pretty sickly person if you have to gag if you get within 20 feet of a piece of burning vegetation. I am sorry for your infirmities. Do you get ill when passing by other things?

[Montauk6]

123. (psst, Tom... back in my RW Randroid youth, I too thought I knew it all)

Don't sweat it, bro!

PS: Steinbeck's hero was Armenian??? lol

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

127. LOL. My fav line from above: "I don't have to be objective when I'm right"

:hi:

[nonconformist]

147. The fuck?

I think you were the one that starting flinging around broad insults here.

Nice try turning those tables, though.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

153. When someone I do not know tells me I have a character flaw because

I enjoy Raleigh's, Churchill's & Kennedy's habits I feel justified in a hearty FU to them. No character assassination, nothing detrimental, just a healthy FU.

that is not saying anything about anyone. No insult. Just a fuck you. How is that a broad insult?

[nonconformist]

191. My post was for Orlando's reply to you

I happen to agree with you!

[ikojo]

62. Christopher Reeves' wife has lung cancer and

supposedly she has never smoked.

I do not agree to discrimination of any kind. If smoking is so bad then officially criminalize it and get it over with.

[skids]

72. Ah, but no option to pay a premium.

Typical health-nazi position.

Why not just reduce rates for nonsmokers? Then the health cost problem is covered, and the corporation doesn't have any business to nose into my private life.

For that matter, on the whole bar and restaurant thing, why are no bars or restaurants given the option of providing an advanced HVAC system that really works to create a smoking zone that does not affect employee health?

Wait don't bother to answer. I already know.

Because you aren't really all that interested in protecting the employees, nor are you interested in helping corporations meet health care costs. Your interest is in controlling the behavior of other people, contrary to American values.

Move to Russia.

[OrlandoGator]

77. You can engage in whatever behavior you want.

You've incorrectly read my mind. Good try, though.

Go do whatever you want. Smoke ten packs a day, screw 12 hookers a night with no protection while mainlining heroin into your eyeballs. I don't particularly care.

But at the end of the day, don't expect your employer to sit back and pay the steep risidual costs of your choices. Do it on your own time and your own dime.

[skids]

84. Did you bother to read into WEYCO?

So you agree that a corporation should someone who smokes in their own house when not on the clock to pay a premium to neutralize any effect that they may have on health insurance costs?

That's not what WEYCO does. They actually test for nicotine levels in the body. Anyone that works for them at this point should be ashamed of themselves for plying their trade towards the benefit of such an anti-American organization.

(In other words: there is no "your own time" in this case, and there is no option for "your own dime." And no, don't say well they aren't restricting your freedom, because freedom includes the right to pursue happiness. Like earning money to not freeze to death happy.)

[OrlandoGator]

94. People choose to work for WEYCO.

There's obviously good reasons to want to work there in order to tolerate the intrusion on their privacy.

If you don't want to work for that company, don't. Nobody's making you. Truth be told, I probably wouldn't want to work there either.

[in_cog_ni_to]

198. Do it on your own time and your own dime...THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

He does BLOOD TESTS and if nicotine is found in your blood...you're fired. FASCISM! And you support it. Interesting. NO SMOKING PERIOD. Not at your own home, not ANYWHERE. That man has no right to dictate what a person does in their own home. If I were HIS employee, I would pay for my own health insurance or QUIT. He can keep his fucking job.

[question everything]

83. First blow to right of privacy

What people do in the privacy of their homes is no one's business. Something about the right of people to be secure in their homes?

Yes, smokers have flaws. So are overweight people, and alcoholics, and gamblers, and people who go into debt, and people who take their bibles literally.

And then there are some who think that people who support democrats are flawed, and, of course, gay people and the ones (women only, of course) who terminate their pregnancy.

And then there are the people (men only) who "let" their women go to work instead of staying at home cleaning and raising kids. Or worse, men who stay at home while their women support them.

And single parents, and people who have been married more than once, and people who don't even have children, and the ones who do not send their kids to the "right" schools. People who do not belong to the "right" churches, or the right club, or gym. People who so not encourage their kids to play ball, who are not active in PTA, who do not coach kids. People who do, or do not, send their kids to be scouts.

Where do you draw the line?

The only silver lining that I can see in this is that perhaps people will start paying more attention to the right of privacy.

If you remember, Roe v. Wade came after Griswold (sp?) that determined that married people have a right to use birth control. Where do you stand on that? Yes, hard for us - I don't know how old you are - to even imagine that once states could regulate that. Or that women could not sign any contract without "a man relative" co-signing.

[OrlandoGator]

96. Right to privacy from the government vs. privacy from your employer.

I am not convinced that those rights are equal.

[mac56]

99. Does WEYCO get Federal contracts for anything?

I bet they do.

Should our tax money support these intrusions into personal choice?

[OrlandoGator]

102. If it means so much to you, lobby your congressman to crack down on them.

I doubt you'll find many people willing to organize a national effort to make sure every employee has a constitutional right to smoke. But try...it might be fun.

[mac56]

103. You're being disingenuous.

No one here is advocating "a constitutional right to smoke".

It's the privacy.

[OrlandoGator]

106. You don't have an absolute right to privacy from your employer.

The good news, though, is that you don't have to work for an intrusive employer. The bad news is, they don't have to employ you.

I'll admit, it sucks to work for a company that does not respect your privacy. The point is, employment is a mutual relationship...you bring the company value and they reward you for it. There should be a mutual level of respect there.

And if there's not...you can take your value to the company's competitor.

[mac56]

109. Thank you for acknowledging that.

It does suck to work for a company that does not respect your privacy. I'm guessing you have youth and relatively few encumbrances in your favor. "Taking your value to the company's competitor" ain't always an easy solution, friend: especially as you get older.

[froshty1960]

195. Intrusive Employers

At one time, no one had to work for intrusive employers because there were none. Unfortunately, now more and more employers are intrusive. The choice is getting narrower. If something isn't done soon to stop the trend of firing/denying employment based on habits, political persuasion, pre-existing health conditions, and hobbies, then soon there won't be a choice.

[question everything]

110. Perhaps not legally. I am not of legal mind

but it should be part of our culture.

Should employees be fired because they do not attend the same church as the boss?

What about attending a political rally that oppose the boss' choice?

[OrlandoGator]

111. We are not necessarily in disagreement.

I believe that there should absolutely be a mutual respect between employee and employer. I just don't think there must be that respect.

Companies that treat their employees like crap deserve what they get...which is often their most talented people jumping ship and working for a competitor that treats them better.

[mac56]

113. Please see my response above.

Number 109.

[question everything]

157. Reading earlier posts, you seem to be very lucky

in being in a field that is valued by corporations. Also, you seem to be flexible enough to move if you do not like what you have.

Unfortunately, most of us are dependent on our employers. Yes, I know, it would be wonderful to be my own boss, have been dreaming about this for many years but I guess I just cannot come up with an idea to start a business, though I have alway been a valued employee, until business went down and was a victim of "reduction in force."

What you lack, really, is compassion. I have been in discussion with Republicans who have never understood the fact that people may work hard all their lives, save even, and then something happen and they lose everything. And they can be either business owners or employees. Even now, Congress wants to tackle the deficit by cutting food stamps. Not by taxing the top 1% of income, but by going after the weakest among us. According to former debate mates of mine - people who use food stamps are lazy who are not worthy of our tax money.

There have been too many sad stories on these threads about people who cannot find a job because they have to disclose their medical conditions on their application, or people who are stuck at jobs that they hate because they need the medical insurance, and their bosses know this.

For most of us we cannot just pick and choose our employers. Life certainly would have been a lot better this way.

And perhaps before you label someone flawed, or rude, or dumbass, you need to gain some perspective about human nature. Perhaps you are still young. As you will grow old you will see how wrong it is to judge people so quickly.

[Rainscents]

155. OrlandoGator... You are very young and you already have Asthma?

I wonder what the root cause for you to have Asthma? If you want to blame your dame Asthma on someone, blame it on GOP and the Corporate! They allowed to pollute air, poison our water, Oceans, drilling oils, Poison our foods with chemicals, GMO foods, process foods, etc... And you think it's okay for the corporate to treat employee's to treat anyway they want? You also hate smoker??? What the fuck have they done to you? Smokers didn't cause your root cause of your asthma problem, something else cause it!!! Give me a fucking break!

[Lorien]

160. I live in Orlando and asthma among the young is an epidemic here

however, I've noticed that children with asthma under the age of ten nearly always come from homes where one or both parents smoke. I have a severe allergy to cigarette smoke, and I wonder if I would get as ill from it if my father hadn't been a chain smoker. My grandmother died from a smoking related illness-and she never smoked (but my grandfather did, and he died of the same illness). Secondhand smoke is dangerous to the health of others, pollution is dangerous to us all; one doesn't negate the other.

[Rainscents]

166. I understand where you coming from, however, he live in smoke free

home. So, his Asthma didn't come from 2nd hand smoke from his home. This is where I was getting at. I also have very bad Asthma and it is not caused by 2nd hand smoke as, no one in my home smoked nor, was I around smokers. Asthma is caused by many, many different things and mine was caused by repeat exposures from chemicals I was working with at work. Because of over exposure, my body became allergry to lots of different things now. I have manage to cure most of Asthma problems through good diets, whole foods supplements and whole body detox.

[BigBearJohn]

197. What's next? Discriminating against fat people because they eat donuts?

[acmejack]

2. They did that story about a year ago.

Not that a boycott is a bad idea.

[Ksec]

3. I saw that.

Its alarming that a boss can fire an employee for anything they want to. I heard this before and didnt really buy it but its true, THEY CAN FIRE YOU FOR ANY REASON and you have no protection from it, no recourse.

This old Geezer is gonna truly be hated over this report. I imagine that will be more than he can take.

[Yavin4]

7. That's Why People Formed Labor Unions

To protect themselves from the capricousness of the boss. As we got away from mfg. jobs, we fooled ourselves into believing that we didn't need labor unions.

[Ksec]

13. Oh BTW does anyone know of the law that makes this so?

I mean is there a specific law out there that states this?

[Yavin4]

22. Most States Have "At-Will" Employee Laws

Which means that a company can fire you at will for no cause. You didn't smile at the boss? You're fired.

Now, there are discrimination laws on the books. You cannot fire someone for being a racial minority, a woman, handicap, or their religious and ethnic affiliation. Nor can you fire someone because they didn't have sex with you.

Everything else is fair game. Yes, Virginia, they can fire you for posting on DU even on your own time.

[Montauk6]

44. But, at this rate, since it's all about $$$ and the Good Laissez Fairy

WHY NOT allow racial/gender/disability discrimination? We must APPEASE the Prophets of Profits.

[Yavin4]

48. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Stopped That Kind of Discrimination

But with Republicans in control of congress and the courts, it won't be long before those protections are stripped as well.

[Montauk6]

70. Hello!

[LeahD]

161. An attorney was interviewed for the piece, and

I think he said all but five states have at-will laws.

[BlackVelvet04]

24. It has something to do with

right to work, but I don't know what the actual name of the law is. Seems to me right to work means right to fire.

[Yavin4]

26. It's Called At-Will Employee Laws

Right to work means that workers can choose not to join a union if one is formed in their company.

[Ksec]

28. Thats just unbelievable in the US

That sounds very authoritarian. Why do we put up with this ?

[Yavin4]

39. See My Post Above

It was always this way until people formed labor unions to protect themselves. However, when we switched from "dirty" mfg. jobs to "clean" white collar work, we didn't think that we needed labor unions any more.

[ikojo]

68. Most states are employ at will states

I know Missouri is one.

Freedom of Speech also ends at the workplace door. I guess that is fine with some of the folks in this thread, because after all if the employer says to vote for Bush then you need to vote for Bush or go work elsewhere, right?

[Little Star]

21. I watched that fruit loop

What a NUT.:crazy:

[Swamp Rat]

23. I'd settle for: lobotomies for all rethuglicans.

:)

[oldlady]

38. I understand what you're saying

and it is a personal outlook/judgment, which shouldn't be granted legal standing. And, as it exists now, should be reconsidered. (no offense--I'm just laying out my thinking).

The future will allow for so much more information to be provided employers--we need to clamp down now. Another highly expensive health care cost is/can be pregnancy-- this is the type of thinking that leads to sexual discrimination in hiring-- or maybe when hiring older professionals, women will be chosen over men because they live longer. Whites will be chosen over blacks because they are at a lower risk of high blood pressure, sickle-cell anemia. We are on the verge of being able to map the likelihood of all types of diseases in our personal lives, due to genetic tendencies. We're on our way to a "super-race" or "worthy-human-capital" mindset, unless we stand still here and get a different perspective.

What if the boss wants to hook up a GPS to your car, to see how fast you drive (it increases your risk to need medical care) and where you drive-- off work hours.

The trick is this-- these people are NOT American citizens. They are part of a corporate state, not a nation state of citizens. We must either stand together for our voice, or accept a bottom-line human capital (no humanity, mind you) system. I'd fight this, even if I wasn't a smoker.
peace,

[Montauk6]

50. All I can say, oldlady, is that it's a shame that oldman lacks your wisdom

:toast: :yourock:

[BattyDem]

114. I totally agree!

Great post!
:toast:

[BattyDem]

112. Corporations are getting around anti-discrimination laws

and using health insurance costs as a way to do it.

Think about it. If they can dictate how people live their lives, then they can fire or refuse to hire:
- Older people
- People with chronic health conditions or disabilities
- Single people (higher risk for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases)
- Homosexuals (they'll use the "higher risk for HIV" excuse whether it's true or not)
- Women (pregnancy - women of child-bearing age are going to find it more and more difficult finding a job)
- People with children (can't have too many people on the "family plan")
- Smokers, drinkers, overweight people, fast-food eaters, people who don't exercise regularly, people who engage in "high risk" activities (rock climbing, surfing, motorcycle riding, hunting, scuba diving, bungee jumping, sky diving, etc.)
- Anyone who can't PROVE that they used birth control and/or a condom for every sexual act they participate in.
- Political protesting (riots can happen - people get hurt)
- Anyone who has ever gotten a speeding ticket
- Any person with high cholesterol who gets caught eating a bacon, double-cheeseburger

The list goes on and on. True, several of my examples are a bit over the top, but what's to stop corporations from using those excuses?

This is LIFESTYLE DISCRIMINATION and there should be a law against it! :grr:

[Nikki Stone 1]

116. IMPORTANT POST!

!

[Montauk6]

118. And what about the employer who determines that he has the right to

hire anyone who will show unconditional loyalty in whichever form he, as the employer, deems appropriate? Does he not, then, have the right to demand that a female in his employ must sleep with him if he demands it? After all, according to some folks, she can always get a job elsewhere.

OR he can simply refuse to hire ANY women because he can argue that, because he's attracted to them, they may present a distraction to him and his corporate productivity.

Your examples are perfect and they're only "over the top" for those who don't have a well-reasoned argument with which to reply (let the shoe fit).

[LeahD]

162. It was brought up during the segment that smoking used to be looked

upon as a medical issue, and for some reason, it has become a moral issue. Those who smoke are "bad." Smokers are being targeted. Who next? Step by step, freedoms will be eroded. Do we want a world in which employees will be required to enroll in company-sponsored wellness programs....robots on treadmills, required to eat only foods acceptable to the corporation?

[Nikki Stone 1]

115. Corporate Feudalism is here.

The corporation now runs our life.

[gumby]

119. Sure would like to know Gator's views on abortion.

Gator, is that you?

[dweller]

124. why?

Gator is a male.

Until Gator is able to incubate a child and deliver it, i personally don't believe he has a voice in abortion issues.

dp

[mondo joe]

130. Your personal beliefs aside, everyone has a voice in abortion issues.

[dweller]

139. and i agree, up to the personal belief aside.

As long as i am able to incubate and carry and deliver a child, it's a personal belief. And it's my choice.

if not, it's not a 'personal' belief. As a male i cannot 'personally' experience that. So my input is that i don't have a choice in making a decision as to whether someone that is personally involved should have a choice. I support the woman that has to make that personal choice.

But it is not a decision (choice) as a male i have to personally make.
dp

[mondo joe]

140. Supporting the right to choice IS having a voice in the issue.

It's not making the choice - but it is having a voice in the issue.

And the right to choice is based in something far more important than the ability to incubate or carry - it is based in the right to privacy, something we all have a stake in.

[OrlandoGator]

132. And on that, I agree.

People ask me where I stand on abortion, I tell them I don't have a stand because I'm not the one aborting.

[gumby]

163. But what do you think of the Women

who are doing the aborting?

edit: and of course, you haven't given your position on abortion other than acknowledging that you (perhaps) can't have one.

Waiting.....

[LeahD]

167. Gator is six feet under...per Post 259.

Sometimes a tombstone is a beautiful thing.

[Blue_In_AK]

159. Gator is six feet under....

[peacebaby3]

174. I can't say I'll miss him. Some really hateful comments on this thread. nt

[Pushed To The Left]

126. This is why we need to BAN at-will employment!

A federal ban would be excellent. I saw most of the 60 Minutes story tonight, and in most states it appears that employees have no rights and can be fired for any reason. Something needs to be done to outlaw this practice, or Americans will never truly have personal freedom.

[mondo joe]

128. I disagree - though I do think we need more protections than

currently exist.

I do think firing someone for purely political positions is appalling and should be banned.

[walldude]

131. Something has been done.. it's called A Union. n/t

[OrlandoGator]

133. So if that's the solution, when CAN an employer fire an employee?

Our entire economic system is based on the idea that we provide goods at services AT WILL and entities compensate for them AT WILL. You create value for someone and that value is rewarded.

If an employer decides that a particular employee is a liability and not an asset, they can terminate the employment. These are basic precepts and they don't have to be fair. Fairness is determined by the market.

[Nikki Stone 1]

134. I don't think even Alexander Hamilton invisioned such invasions of privacy

as Weyco implements.

You should be able to fire people for job performance, not because you don't like what they do on their off hours.

[OrlandoGator]

136. I bet Weyco's competitiors love Weyco's policies.

n/t

[Nikki Stone 1]

144. Because.....

...

[mondo joe]

135. I'd suggest it be limited to work performance.

And I'm generally in support of at-will work.

But I certainly don't think an employer shoul have the freedom to fire an employee for posting on DU or having a Kerry bumpersticker (unless, again, there is an impact on work).

[Montauk6]

138. In other words, fairness only applies to the employer?

[Pushed To The Left]

142. Poor job performance would be a valid reason

Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are not valid reasons, and fortunately we now have laws against that sort of a thing. I think it's time for America to move forward and outlaw all forms of wrongful discrimination and termination. Employees should have the right to live as they see fit on their own time without being penalized for it. That's what freedom is all about! Unfortunately, these unfair business practices are still legal. That's what progressives need to change!

[NorthernSpy]

154. ban it for corporate-owned workplaces, certainly!

The law could make exceptions for things like small, owner-operated shops.

As for the corporate-owned concerns, I'd say that the privilege of hiring and firing at will is just one of those things that the corporation relinquishes in return for the liability limitation that society generously allows them. Remember: incorporation and limitation of liability are not rights. Society can make certain demands on corporations in exchange for these things.

[mondo joe]

129. As anti-smoke as I am, this is appalling.

I am very opposed to employers firing employees over things they do in their own time that have no impact on performance.

[Catt03]

143. The issue is privacy

and...also in the segment were employers who determined weight loss and exercise were important company policies for people to follow.

The issue of the Weyco policy was followed by employers requiring employees to fill out questionnaires questioning not only their weight, health, smoking but also their sexual habits. Included were monitors who called randomly to check on how the employees were doing asking such questions as what they ate today and if they were consuming certain foods.

The privacy issue was that this information is now public and can be used by anyone for any reason.

It is a trend with corporations ie Walmart and requiring medical information so that only the healthy can be hired.

My advice: Take care of yourself as it is only going to get worse.

[mondo joe]

146. Acually, in the other company employees were not forced to

fill our questionnaires. It was part of a wellness program they took part in for a credit toward their insurance premiums.

[Ksec]

148. Our right to bargain has been neutered

The powers that be took away one sides bargaining power. Our strength was in numbers, the companies strength was in monetary ability to fund anti labor lawyers and buy favorable government treatment and anti labor laws(hence they can fire anyone for anything)

To balance the power they have we first need to regain our bargaining power, we need to know the power of numbers. Its our strongest ally.

Unions knew how to do this.

[Cleita]

150. Apparently the working class are becoming slaves again with

absolutely no rights over their life styles.

[bbgrunt]

158. whatever you think of smoking, this

kind of control over your life is not something anyone should be applauding. Some people are fascists at heart and want you to believe that your soul belongs to them (while declaring it is YOUR choice)

[Montauk6]

172. They also believe only government not private parties can oppress.

[napi21]

175. The MOST frightening part of that story was the remarks by the

attys! All of them said "It's perfectly legal in all but 5 states!"

I kew it was legal in the south where they have right to work laws, but I sure didn't realize it was legal in 45 states!

They also mentioned several other cases of people being fired for "a Kerry bumper sticker on their car", "waitresses who gained mroe than 7% of their body weight" etc.

I an sooo discusted with where my Country has gone! I was talking to my husband & son last night about moving to Canada! I'm not thrilled with the severe cold there, but I'm more discusted with living under the obsessive rule of the powerful in the US.

[peacebaby3]

177. I've thought about emigrating to Canada myself. There are some areas

that are not that cold. I have been to Victoria Island, BC and it never goes above the mid to high 80s and never below 40 degrees or so. Victoria is called the city of flowers because flowers can bloom year round. It was also daylight until 10pm or so at night which I really enjoyed.

I can qualify for emigration under their skilled worker program. Otherwise, it is rather difficult to emigrate.

[napi21]

183. I was thinking about retiring there. Is that not possible?

I tried checking requirements on-line, but the wording gets quite confusing. My husband has 2 years till he's 65, and I guess we can survive here for 2 years. ;o)

I've never been sooo discouraged in my life! I fought through the women's movement of the 60's, the 'Nam war, and a host of other difficult times in the US, but now it seems like EVERYTHING is turning to sh*t. I can fight one or two things, but not everything I look at!

[peacebaby3]

188. It's been a while since I looked at all of the details...

but, I think it is pretty hard to emigrate into the country if you don't qualify for the skilled worker status and even if you do, you have to have a certain amount of verifiable savings (several thousand $$$) regardless because you have to be able to show you could live for several months if you didn't;t immediately find a job.

I think if you find a job first, it is a little easier to emigrate.

Here is a web site:

<http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/>

I think this is where you can get a lot of information about their immigration policies. I also think this is where you can take a questionnaire that will tell you if you can qualify as a skilled worker. The language is a little dicey and my professional position here does not convert exactly there so I would have to get a lot more detail should I really make that decision. Several factors come into play here: people with a higher education have a much better chance of qualifying, there is some financial qualifiers as I mentioned earlier.

There are actually some services out there that help you with looking into emigrating to Canada. I'm sure there is a fee, but it might be worth it if you are serious about moving and can afford the cost.

There is a small artsy town (I know it's in BC and it starts with an R) but I can't remember the name. It was a safe haven for those that went to Canada to escape the draft. It is suppose to be a liberal haven now. I remember thinking how much I would love it there and it sounds like you would also. Don't know much about the temperature there though.

Anybody know the name of this town???

You should read some on that site. I would also probably start looking into things now if you are considering a move in two years. I would bet it would take at least a year under almost perfect circumstances to get everything worked out so it couldn't hurt to get some things started now.

Good Luck! You never know we might be neighbors in Canada one day!

[raccoon]

179. As a lawyer said who appeared on "60 Minutes",

in nearly all states, employers can fire you for any reason or just no reason, and there's nothing you can do about it.

What really ticks me off is when someone who's working for a school, library, etc., fires somebody just for the heck of it. It's not THEIR school, THEIR library, etc. I've seen this happen. I know of a medium-sized PUBLIC library where a witch of a library director did this to someone who had been working there 10 years. After that, at least the library board finally got their heads out of the, er, sand, and told her she couldn't fire anybody without their prior approval. This was in a "right-to-work" red state where "employee's rights" is an oxymoron.

[peacebaby3]

190. I knew a man who was fired several months before he was going to

retire with some bullshit excuse given by the company. It was well known by everyone there that the company just didn't want to pay for his retirement. He really didn't have any rights so he just tried to go on with his life. He managed to open up his own store doing the same kind of work he had done his whole adult life. He didn't want to because he had planned on retiring but he didn't have much of a choice. It was a very small operation that he ran with his wife acting as the secretary/receptionist/bookkeeper, etc. My dad was a contract worker that really only did work for the other company, but wasn't officially employed so he started taking a lot of work from Mr. M (the man who was fired so the company didn't have to pay his retirement)because our family really thought the company screwed him over.

Well, it turns out about 30+ years earlier when Mr. M went to work for the company that fired him, the papers he signed had included a clause that if he ever left the company he would not be able to engage in the same kind of work/services for 5 years after he left so the company sued him and won! This was the only type of work Mr. M had done throughout his career and didn't have anything else to fall back on. He had to close his little business and go to work in some barely above minimum wage job with almost no health care. His wife got a rare form of cancer during this time which basically wiped out every bit of his savings (Oh, he also had to pay the company that had fired him some kind of money for the amount of time he had his business open after he lost the court case.) His wife passed away about a year or so after her diagnosis. My dad had to go back to taking most of his jobs from the other company so we could survive, but he took any other job he could get first. They also reduced what they would pay my dad as a punishment for him supporting Mr. M who my dad had worked with over 20 years. My dad didn't have any choice, he had a family to support and just like Mr. M, it was the only thing he had done his entire working life.

I've always thought this was a complete travesty. Another good example of why there needs to be some protections on the books for employees.

[raccoon]

194. That is awful, peacebaby. Both Mr. M. & the person I knew

got totally shafted by employers. And I'm sure other stories like these could be heard all over the US. Yes, there DOES need to be some protection for employees. But in today's political climate, I don't have great hopes of it happening.

[peacebaby3]

196. I know. This would be a battle even under the best of circumstances.

With the * admin and the right wing congress, etc. it will probably be a long time before it would have a chance.

[LincolnMcGrath]

187. Where was the Marlboro Militia when they came for the Heads?

Dang old smoking threads. lol


There are companies that do not allow smoking/drinking at home. (I don't support that notion) The Harley Davidson painters in the KC plant have their diet mandated to them.

[LeahD]

199. Maybe a diet that neutralizes the toxic effects

of the paints and laquers they're spraying?
:sarcasm: