« While I like Senator Santorum... | Main | T-Shirts Coming Soon »
February 18, 2005
Does the company own you off the clock?
Interesting post/comments on the idea. I have mixed feelings, as I see the Companies rights, but also see the potential problems. I do wonder if this is just not another attempt to demonize smokers, as they seem to be the butt (sorry, couldn't resist) of most of these things the last decade or so. Being a type 1 diabetic, I could be in trouble if these things expand, but the lover of liberty in me is not easy with more government intervention. I just wish common sense would make a comeback, but I am not holding my breath....
As I state in my last comment on QandO, if these folks took the job knowing this was coming, they are SOL, as they knew the rules going in. But if it was after the fact, then it seems a bit extreme.
Also part of my question is would the public stand for this if it was other groups that were being affected. Would the public be screaming bloody murder then? I bet they would, if this affected gays, overweight people, etc. and other groups with higher costs (for the company) associated with them.
Posted by Crusader at February 18, 2005 11:46 AM
Comments
Corporate fascists can take away my In-n-Out doubledouble with cheese and grilled onions when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers...
Posted by: tree hugging sister at February 18, 2005 12:51 PM
Well, this is the problem that arises when libertarians encounter the real world. There are some good uses for government, such as preventing these sorts of things. I don't smoke, but i live in NJ, which is arguably as bad for my health. Should my company require me to move to Pennsyltucky?
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 18, 2005 12:54 PM
When it comes to the Govt, it is a fine line between legitimate and excessive. Hence my mixed feelings on the issue.
Posted by: Crusader at February 18, 2005 12:58 PM
And they should for the same reasons kick out employees driving a bicycle in town, eating with chopsticks (you can easily stick those in the eye), reading newspapers (can easily catch fire if you sit next to a smoker) or doing similar dangerous things.
Posted by: Jorgen at February 18, 2005 02:09 PM
I wonder if the company bans pregnancy? Hell, that used to be the leading cause of death for women.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 18, 2005 02:14 PM
I wonder if the company bans pregnancy? Hell, that used to be the leading cause of death for women.
What about the links between abortion and breast cancer? If proven, that would cause a stir, methinks.....
Posted by: Crusader at February 18, 2005 02:38 PM
"When it comes to the Govt, it is a fine line between legitimate and excessive."
To me, that should read "...between limited and excessive."
Posted by: The Real JeffS at February 19, 2005 12:04 AM
As long as companies are held responsible for providing health benefits, pensions etc., they will continually punish statistically dangerous behaviors in their employees. If you expect your company to pay for your healthcare, then one could argue that they have a right to make your coverage conditional upon your rejecting certain high-risk behaviors. Businesses aren't social benefits providers, they are for-profit enterprises. It should be up to the employee to decide: if you want the company-sponsored coverage, quit smoking. The alternative is to just admit that people aren't rational, that they do stupid things, that genetics are a huge variable in human health, that bad luck exists, and that we should have some kind of public health insurance for those reasons.
Posted by: NJ Sue at February 22, 2005 06:26 PM