User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:02:08 AM EDT
[#1]
In the early coal mine days, the company hired employees with promises of prosperity, owned the housing, mandated that the employees buy everything from the company store, had their own police to enforce policies, and used dept to keep the employees from leaving. The miners worked 16 hour days as they watched their families starve as company store prices increased above their wages and caps were placed on their dept. The ultimate result was war and unions.
Some things are simply wrong and telling someone that they can't do something that is legal to do in thier home, even if it doesn't impact you, is WRONG! 68% of America thinks owning a AR is not right. Yes, a company should have the right to tell you not to bring your firearm to work but to tell you that you can't own them crosses the line. Yet, some here don't seem to get it. This topic is bigger than just a cigarette. It is about freedom and the direction our country takes. Ultimately asshats like this employer will continue to press the limits until those pressed press back. You may not smoke now nor apporve but eventually they will get around to you also. Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:02:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Sue under placing a mandate on my time away from the office withoug providing compensation. If an employer wants to control whatever legal activity I engage in after work, they should pay me a stipened for that priviledge. Note: in regards to drug tests, I said LEGAL. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:05:08 AM EDT
[#3]
At my company you have to be a smoker to get promoted. It's like a damn club out there on the patio, and they're always out there.
On a related note, I firmly believe that taxation of smoking and shit like this from the government (I know it's a private employer in this case) is going to cause serious problems with the populace. Smokers don't mess around when it comes to their nasty habit. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:05:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Why not, if we're going to be a nation of sheep, we might as well be physically fit. Anti-obesity fits more in with my bias system than anti-somking anyway. I wonder how all the people who said nothing about mandatory drug testing in the workplace will feel once it's their vice that's targeted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:07:50 AM EDT
[#5]
As far as the bathing argument, that is a non-sequitir. It is not the lack of bathing at home that is the issue, it is the funk the bring in the door with them that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:10:27 AM EDT
[#6]
They might be able to take insurance benefits away from you, but the only possible legal way that I can think of for employers to ban employees from smoking off site, is to have that in a signed contract.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:23:04 AM EDT
[#7]
I completely agree with you. It's about my freedom to hire whoever the fuck I want without you or the .gov telling me otherwise. Your overly dramatic parallel of the coal miners doesn't hold water. One has nothing to do with the other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:24:26 AM EDT
[#8]
i don't smoke, but this 'total control' of peoples' lives smacks of stalinist russia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:27:52 AM EDT
[#9]
Unless you changed jobs, last you posted you can't hire or fire anyone since the girl you are giving the review is on your shit list! I submit your personal issues are clouding your decision process on this one.  People should be able to fire someone and people should be able to quit if they don't like the conditions but no one has the right to tell another how they should live as long as it is legal. Freedom doesn't begin with a company but with the individual. Ultimately, actions like this companies is what leads a nation to socialism just as the coal mine wars almost did at the turn of the century with the birth of unions and then communism. Tj |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:35:13 AM EDT
[#10]
What is with that state??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:42:22 AM EDT
[#11]
I don't smoke, but I'd be updating the old resume.
If you're not on their plan does the policy still apply? If it does I'd hit the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:44:01 AM EDT
[#12]
The simple and just solution would be to exclude smokers from the company health benefits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:45:31 AM EDT
[#13]
LOL, That makes too much sense just like make them pay the premium difference does!  Tj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:46:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Ultimately, actions like this companies is what leads a nation to socialism just as the coal mine wars almost did at the turn of the century with the birth of unions and then communism.
bingo. and those wars were fought with weapons. people died. the companies lost profits and lost even more of their precious 'control'. all because they wanted to save a buck or two so badly that they put profit before freedom. now, they are in a climate to grab some of that control back...and just like the times before, their greed knows little bound. personally, i would love to meet the miserable exscuse for a human being that came up with this 'policy' and the spineless jackasses that implemented it. it would be fun watching the bean-counting suits piss themselves. groupthink at its' finest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:49:34 AM EDT
[#15]
This is just some stupid shit, it is amazing that so many here support this kind of thing. I am a representative of my emplyoer wight hours a day, that is all, they do not own me, it is none of thier business if I smoke a carton a day after hours. Unless there is some way to prove or disprove a person is involved in a hundred other risky acitivities on thier own time, this is nonesense. What are you jackasses gonna say when they decide to tell you they are firing everybody who is left handed? your always in teh way and do everything backwards, causing a drop in effiecency, What about when they decide to fire everybody who drives over the speedlimit (what do you mean they aint got no right putting a monitoring device on your car)? Obviously you should get fired for owning firearms, how about people who are active participants? Politics is very stressing and emotional, that could cause a heart attatck. Not being sterilized has already been mentioned, no clip no worky, babies cost to damn much money. What about short people, or tall people adjustable chiars costs extra, if everybody were 5'8" you could save some money.
Crap like this goes against every thing America is about, it is not your employers place to tell you how to live your life, if they want to charge you extra for insurance that is fine, if they want to tell you not to smoke during work hours that is fine, if they want to deny you insurance completely if you smoke that is fine, but when they tell you what you can do in the privacy of your own home, barring any illegal activity they have crossed the line. Edited to add: What are you folks going to do when your office installs explosive residue detectors in the lobby and fire anybody who would dare fire a gun and come into work the next day? Will that be cool? Will it be thier perogative? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:49:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Man I have never smoked and can say that THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG!!! Yeah, don't let people live thier lives. They come in bust thier ass and then can't enjoy a smoke. What kind of crap is this? I guess it is easy for me to say , but I think I would be looking for another job! This such horse shit!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:50:48 AM EDT
[#17]
Employers should have the right to hire or fire anyone they please. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that they would fire employees for using a substance that is perfectly legal. I don't understand these liberal asshats. Either make tobacco illegal, or stop restricting smokers rights!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:52:51 AM EDT
[#18]
It's about freedom FROM the government. Don't like the company policies? -- Quit and get another job. THAT is the only way to influence change in a private company's policy. CMOS |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:58:53 AM EDT
[#19]
Employers should have the right to hire or fire anyone they please.
[donald trump]you're fired![/donald trump] ain't it great when tv reality comes into your life. yup...i don't like the looks of your tie ...your fired! your wife, my secretary, wouldn't blow me. she's fired! you ate fish last night for dinner? you're fired! gave that client an honest answer insted of lying...you're fired. had a winston last last after fucking your girlfriend? you're fired! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:00:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Anyone that didnt see this comeing wasnt paying attention. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:02:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Classic!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:04:24 AM EDT
[#22]
It's about freedom FROM the government.
this has nothing to do with the government. this is about control of your freedom by a group of corporate dweebs...and those that support them. support this kind of behavior and don't bitch when union organizers come a knocking and people start voting for kerry. do you know what gave rise to american communism in the first half of this century? labor practices. there's right and there's wrong. if you think behavior like this is right and just, keep supporting it. just don't kick to hard about the repercussions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:06:32 AM EDT
[#23]
why not just deny health care benefits to the people who work there that smoke instead of just firing them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:12:04 AM EDT
[#24]
The basic question is: at what point does anyone have the moral right to interfere in a contract entered into by two private individuals? If person A offers a contract for work to person B, clearly stating that "I do not wish to hire someone who does X" - no matter what X is - does anyone not a party to that agreement have a right to complain?
I can see valid complaints by those already working at this company, having the rules changed on the fly. But new hires, who know the company's preference beforehand? I'm not so sure. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a company with such odd rules. Meddling under the guise of 'fairness' or 'anti-discrimination' has done more to decrease freedom, and expand the powers of government over private property than just about anything else. Consider Ebay. They do not want anything to do with gun transactions, legal or otherwise. Should ebay be forced to host auctions for items they do not wish to list, even if the items are legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:15:43 AM EDT
[#25]
This is not ebay saying that you can't sell gun parts on ebay, this is Ebay telling you you can't sell gunparts on Gunamerica.com. This is companies sticking thier nose where it doesn't belong, this is youre boss firing you because you stuffed it in her pooper and didn't post pics. What are you going to say when you boss tells you that you have to bring him video tapes of you fucking your wife or you will be fired! Edited to add: That would be the same thing right? He is not telling you that you have to give him videos of you and your wife, only that you have to do it to keep working there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:23:58 AM EDT
[#26]
IIRC this has been tried before . The company in question banned some otherwise legal activities , like smoking , and some other things that they didn't like .
I believe it was the ACLU that took it to court and won a ruling that the company could only limit the activities if the employees were considered at work . The ruling didn't say the company couldn't impose the rules , but in doing so they had employees working 24 / 7 which violated the DOL rules for hourly workers and in the case of part time workers it tripled + their pay under Minimum wage laws . They also stood to lose big money on benefits and incentives/bonuses that were accrued by hrs worked , so the backed down on it . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:26:48 AM EDT
[#27]
What's frightening is not what one company or a few companies have done but the precedent it sets. Sure, if you smoke, you can go find a job somewhere that allows you to have a personal life. Eventually, though, your options will become fewer and fewer as more companies adopt similar policies. Eventually, in the name of saving money on health insurance premiums, most or all may adopt similar draconian measures and one has to ask "where will it stop".
Corporations don't give a rats ass about your health except as it effects their bottom line. This will become nothing short of private sector social engineering that will add to the many factors that are ruining this country. The land of the free and home of the brave is becoming the "Brave New World". It's just happening slowly enough that not enough people are taking note. Do your part. Boycott companies that intrude into the private lives of their Remember, when considering the common good, Freedom should always take precedence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:43:19 AM EDT
[#28]
Um, Cigarettes ARE narcotics. Just slightly more socially acceptable ones than heroin or crack.
I don't really like seeing a guy do that, but it IS HIS company. Hes not required to keep people based on their cociane addiction, so why should he have to keep people based on their nicotine addiction? I would think that most smokers would either quit or become so unproductive that they merited being fired if they were simply not allowed to smoke at work for the 8+ hours they're there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:49:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Um, Cigarettes ARE narcotics.
huh? wtf, over? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 9:54:51 AM EDT
[#30]
Who pays???
1) Employer subsidizes the REAL cost for ALL employee’s healthcare as part of their pay in order to attract good employees who can help make a profit. 2) Smoker/heavey drinker/fat/sexually promiscuous employees’ behaviors result, on average(!), in more healthcare problems, greater costs and ultimately less productivity than other employees. 3) Healthcare plan wants more money (they are in business, too) to pay for greater use by the at-risk employees. As the employer, what do you do? You want to offer bennies to attract & retain the good employees. Can you keep passing the costs along? Not popular! Reduce benefits? Not popular! Reduce pay? Not popular! What about giving each employee a little more money, dropping the healthcare plan and letting everyone buy their own coverage… no corporate healthcare plan? That’s not popular either… the real cost is suddenly very apparent (especially for at-risk employees) and many of your employees don’t get appropriate coverage. Now the employer has even more unhappy employees and more lost productivity to deal with while trying to make a profit. Or, you tell the guys that are driving up the costs that they have to be part of the solution… not popular either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:17:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Both good points in illustrating that freedom is often uncomfortable. And a lot of times, it makes no sense. Again, if an employer changed the terms of an employment contract on the fly - to require stuffed-pooper pics of the missus to keep an existing job - there'd be a legitimate gripe. In that situation, I'd just quit, then tell the local newspapers why.  But that would certainly be grounds for a lawsuit. It would be a breach of contract. No argument there.But if said pictures were a known requirement of employment beforehand, the freak just wouldn't get a resume. And those who would work for him would be the ones comfortable with such a ... 'policy.'  Sewage seeks its own level, you might say.My concern rises when people demand law that interposes itself between someone and their private property. There's too much of that already. If you have a room for rent, and one of the propspective tenants works at a porn shop, are you wrong for renting to the schoolteacher instead on that basis? Neither's activities away from the residence has any bearing on you. So on what basis can you lay claim to a preference in your renter? Answer: it's your private property, and your preferences are not required to make any sense whatsoever. Athletes often agree to 'morals clauses' which have no direct bearing on how they perform on the field, and govern off-hours conduct. This is not seen as a tragedy, because most people have no sympathy for those athletes who sign them - simply because they make a lot of money in the process. My point here is not whether someone's rules are reasonable or not. I agree that the non-smoking at home rule is preposterous, if not completely insane. My question is: who has the right to make them, in regards to use of private property. If it's not my property, it's not me. And it's not me by proxy, through force of government. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:25:26 AM EDT
[#32]
i'm surprised there aren't more 'assault rifle workplace massacres' after reading this shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:32:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Could that be because cocaine is an illegal substance and nicotine is not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 10:59:32 AM EDT
[#34]
LOL, You are either very young or very very lucky. We're not talking about contracts between people before the fact but after. It's changing the deal after the fact. You take a job under certain conditions which is an agreement. In this case, we call it policies. The company changes the agreement! They're justified automatically no matter what it is, BS! Yes we all know healthcare is rising. Hell, I spent almost two months without any as I negotiated my own. Last week I helped the President of the company I work with decide on what he was going to do next year. The company I left lowered the benifits to their Union twice in two years without strikes or without telling them they have to change how they live at home. Some changes are necessary and people bitch but understand. What rips your heart out is spending 25 years of you life in a company putting your soul into it's products and people to watch it torn to pieces by assholes who's only goal is power. I stood in line for my potato as my personal in writing contract was violated time and time again. Alwyas was for the good of the whole. I've been there and seen that and even as one of the chosen few, QUIT! No I'm not a moral saint or knight on a white horse nor a person with a cause but a simple man who has to sleep with his own concious at night. The company is going under now as I and others bury it. This company isn't making business decisions for profit. They are making social decisions. It's that simple. You guys can fly your flag of capitalism as you march the country to socialism. Tj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 11:08:50 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 11:15:23 AM EDT
[#36]
I agree. I've said as much in two posts. Why that keeps getting missed, I don't know.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:01:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Some Faschist asshole once said "You might live in a Democracy, but you don't work in one" Welcome to the future Drone! PS- it said smoking, what about chewing tobacco??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:06:42 PM EDT
[#38]
What difference does it make if the policy was there when you took the job or not, it is thier compnay not your, the yare free to change the damn policy as they see fit aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:07:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Look, the bottom line is this: It's a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY! Just like you can tell someone that you don't want them in your home (for ANY reason), the BOSS/OWNER of the company can tell you that he doesn't want you to work for him for any reason he wants! Is it fair? Well, yes and no.
I simply equate it to bathing... People who smoke smell really bad - that's true - not meant to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's a fact. To non-smokers, smokers smell bad. People who don't bathe smell really bad. Would you find it "unacceptable" or piss and moan if a company said that they would fire their employees who refused to bathe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:26:57 PM EDT
[#40]
I can accept a company that says you can't smoke on company property or company time. Their company, their rules. But when that quitting whistle blows and you leave the premises, the company has NO business telling me what I can and cannot do, just as long as what you are doing is legal. It is that simple.
If the company is allowed to do this, then it would be allowed to dictate what the employees eat, drink, what kind of vehicle they can drive, what kind of activities the employees can participate in, all in the name of 'reducing healthcare costs'. I certainly wouldn't do any business with said company, let alone work for it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:32:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Maybee this employer should also fire people who eat fast food outside of work as well because their n ot being healthy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 1:39:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Maybe GM will start firing workers who own Toyotas or Fords?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 2:07:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Welcome to the real world of the small business owner or independent contractor. We need to kill the requirement for benefit plans by employers. Most employees see them as platinum grade products and are angry when they find out they are bronze. So much for customer satisfaction. It's a farce and a sham from all angles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 3:36:48 PM EDT
[#44]
2) Smoker/heavey drinker/fat/sexually promiscuous employees’ behaviors result, on average(!), in more healthcare problems, greater costs and ultimately less productivity than other employees.
Geez I love this one. I'd take one smoker/heavy drinker/sexual promescuous/fat hard ass hard worker over two skinny ass pompous lazy twerps any day! Not aimed at originator. Productivity has little to do with ones appearance or personal habits off the job period! A man proves his worth through deeds in life not his apperance! IMHO, work ethic is everything. Potential health costs.......uggh....why not fire anyone over 50 for eventually everyone gets old and will have health costs. Let's not hire women for they get pregnant. Let's not hire gays for they have a high risk of aids. Let's not hire blacks or medeterainains because they have a high percentage of sycle cell enemia. Let's not hire tall people cause they have higher degree chances of joint ailments. Lets not hire skinny people cause they have a higher chance at abdominal issues. Definately let's not hire atheltes for sure as the world they will break a bone or sprain something. Let's only hire what the TV tells us too. Preppies that go to the gym and have no life but then they typically don't have a strong work ethic for they have to get the gym instead of working over. Hell let's outsource the whole damn mess to China then we don't have to worry about this shit anyway! Some of you have been watching way too much TV and allowing the tube to dictate to you what to do in life. Personaly I think I would rather take my clues from the guys that make six and seven figures a year. News guys make shitty incomes but hey they are on TV. Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 4:12:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Yes, I agree. Productivity is not directly correlated to one's apearance, but it is a fact that people with the issues noted have more sick time/health problems (less productivity, all things being equal) than those that don't. It isn't comforting, but the employer must decide how to make a profit with the people & resources available. I think most of us would agree that firing people that have these issues is misguided. In addition, there probably will be negative repurcussions on employee recruitment & morale as well image problems in the community and with customers. So, perhaps the employer is shooting himself in the foot. The community & the marketplace will ultimately determine if he has made a good decision. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 4:21:30 PM EDT
[#46]
This is not the only company to do this and it's been going on for 10+ years. Welcome to last decade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:32:42 PM EDT
[#47]
and what will give rise in this century is people the couldn't prove themseselve a viable commodity. The only people that object to this policy are the ones that aren't a viable commodity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:35:46 PM EDT
[#48]
if the company changes the "contract" after the fact, you're perfectly within your rights to quit. Period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:48:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Reminds me of boiling a frog............................................................
drop a frog in a pot of boiling water and he will hop right out trying to save his life........................ but put him in a pot of luke warm water and slowly turn up the heat, and the dumb little bastard will sit right there until the meat rolls off the bone. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 5:59:45 PM EDT
[#50]
I've been pretty mych smoke free for 4-5 months now.This shit is enough to make me light up again just out of spite.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
