henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 19, 2011 23:57:55 GMT -5
They had a segment with Morley Safer about employees' rights to live the lifestyle of their choice, , , after work. Employees said what they do after they leave work is nobody's business.
But they also had some employers who said the employer policies can easily be for 24/7/365, , , , and the courts seem to agree.
One employer had a policy of no smokers on his payroll. (Two former employees who had been fired were interviewed.) One employer had a policy of not hiring anyone who had a family member that smoked. One company let an employee go because he drank the wrong brand of beer , , that someone had given him by mistake. Another had a program that rewarded employees who participated in an exercise program. Another had a policy of only hiring people that fit the correct "height to weight" profile and said you would be terminated if you gained weight beyond that profile.
One employer was a police department in Florida. All the others were just run of the mill employers with no particular "people image" connected to their businesses or professions.
And it seems to be the case that none of the employees who are "victims" of these policies have a legal leg to stand on. The law says either meet the employers' policy or find other work.
How about that? Where are we going in the United States, and why?
I wonder if the people who advocate legalizing drugs might care to speak up about these, or similar other employer policies regarding lifestyles.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 20, 2011 0:16:36 GMT -5
Sorry Henry but we all watched ten year old singer Jackie Evancho on PBS instead of 60 Minutes.. And if you don't know about Jackie then you missed an awesome talent or child progeny IMHO
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 20, 2011 0:18:42 GMT -5
...didn't watch Jackie, or 60mins, don't want to legalize drugs, but I also don't have a problem with "The law says either meet the employers' policy or find other work."
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Jun 20, 2011 0:29:51 GMT -5
I haven't seen 60 Minutes in years.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jun 20, 2011 5:26:01 GMT -5
I watched 60 minutes but do not remember that segment maybe it’s an old one. I have no problem with employers setting policies. I worked for a large corporation that required people to stop smoking and for the obese to change the lifestyle. This only applied during working hours but it would be difficult to smoke after work only and lose weight eating junk food after work. The company paid for the programs and expected participation. This was to keep insurance cost down. The company also had its own insurance but it was administered by BCBS.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jun 20, 2011 7:15:14 GMT -5
Who would you rather be driving the big rig next to you on the interstate? The guy that drank 12 pack or more the night before and is hungover or the guy who smoked pot?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 20, 2011 7:20:10 GMT -5
Who would you rather be driving the big rig next to you on the interstate? The guy that drank 12 pack or more the night before and is hungover or the guy who smoked pot? I'd expect both to be fired, if not arrested...
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jun 20, 2011 7:22:45 GMT -5
Who would you rather be driving the big rig next to you on the interstate? The guy that drank 12 pack or more the night before and is hungover or the guy who smoked pot? I'd expect both to be fired, if not arrested... Arrested for what? Good god we live in a nanny state.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 8:06:12 GMT -5
At will employment at its finest- however there are limits.
I would definitely prefer to be next to a driver that got high rather than drunk the night before- no contest. Also, the drinker may still have an arrestable BAC depending.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 20, 2011 8:48:21 GMT -5
I'd expect both to be fired, if not arrested... Arrested for what? Good god we live in a nanny state. We have a very nanny state...but arresting someone for driving while intoxicated does not fit that description IMO. Just because someone drank or smoked pot the night before does not mean the effects are completely worn off when they get behind the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jun 20, 2011 8:51:02 GMT -5
Arrested for what? Good god we live in a nanny state. We have a very nanny state...but arresting someone for driving while intoxicated does not fit that description IMO. Just because someone drank or smoked pot the night before does not mean the effects are completely worn off when they get behind the wheel. 1) Blood alcholol levels are a poor indicator of ability to drive. 2) MADD has progressivly brow beaten states and the federal government to lower BAC levels to the ridculous point of 0.08, up next 0.05.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 20, 2011 8:58:10 GMT -5
I think there is a serious blurring of lines between personal and professional. Employees are supposed to give their undying loyalty to a company but not in the reverse. They seem to have the right to know everything about you including your hobbies, habits, and all of your medical information. But, not in the reverse. Do you really want employers having the right to control your entire life>? They can tell you how to live regarding health habits, your social life, what you can believe or think polititically, socially, spiritually and on and on. Pretty scary stuff. ...a good point... yet we are not indentured servants... we can find other employment... apply the same slippery slope question to government healthcare and ... ? ...and, imo, employee handbooks will begin to relax a bit concerning lifestyle choices if we go to the single-payer system...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 9:21:55 GMT -5
Anyone see Gattaca? Coming soon to an employer near you.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 9:23:52 GMT -5
Just because someone drank or smoked pot the night before does not mean the effects are completely worn off when they get behind the wheel. No such thing as a weed hangover- but you can sure as hell still be intoxicated
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 20, 2011 9:46:29 GMT -5
Anyone see Gattaca? Coming soon to an employer near you. Actually it was the government in Gattaca not the business that controlled all aspects of the peoples gentic strains, so you should really say coming from a government near you. The story was nice over coming challenges, my favorite part was the end, one to the stars one to the boiler.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 9:58:10 GMT -5
DNA was used to decide who got the good jobs and who swept the floors- same could happen here plus it will be DNA deciding who gets health insurance or not-if we allow it. Employers already have too much power and I think we should rein them in a bit.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 20, 2011 10:01:09 GMT -5
DNA was used to decide who got the good jobs and who swept the floors- same could happen here plus it will be DNA deciding who gets health insurance or not-if we allow it. Employers already have too much power and I think we should rein them in a bit. It was the government NOT business who made the decision to base everything off of Genetic testing. But, bash business, when they leave and take the jobs with them you may then be happy.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,469
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 20, 2011 10:27:21 GMT -5
... I wonder if the people who advocate legalizing drugs might care to speak up about these, or similar other employer policies regarding lifestyles. Only that which truly impacts a person's ability to do their job should be considered by employers. Courts are in place to determine what "truly impacts" if there is disagreement.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Jun 20, 2011 10:32:43 GMT -5
I think there is a serious blurring of lines between personal and professional. Employees are supposed to give their undying loyalty to a company but not in the reverse. They seem to have the right to know everything about you including your hobbies, habits, and all of your medical information. But, not in the reverse. Do you really want employers having the right to control your entire life>? They can tell you how to live regarding health habits, your social life, what you can believe or think polititically, socially, spiritually and on and on. Pretty scary stuff. I agree. All of these employment requirements have more to do with a corporation's bottom line instead of an honest concern for the employee. An employer has absolutely no right to make stipulations as to how one lives their life outside of the workplace. If a lifestyle habit, effects an employee's work performance (like alcoholism could), then fine - warn them and then get rid of them if the problem persists; but other than that or similar circumstances, butt out. What if an employer stated that as a stipulation of employment, a couple was not allowed to have more than one child or any children at all? Having children is a lifestyle choice and children can at times have an effect on one's work performance (missing work cuz child is sick, home stress over possible teen problems interfering with an employee being able to give 100%, etc.). I am purposely giving an extreme example so that people will think about how this could be a very slippery slope. I guess you might think that this type of thing doesn't effect you if you don't smoke, drink, or are overweight; but this is only the beginning. Eventually there WILL BE something that will impact YOUR FREEDOMS.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,469
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 20, 2011 10:33:10 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 10:42:18 GMT -5
They had a segment with Morley Safer about employees' rights to live the lifestyle of their choice, , , after work. Employees said what they do after they leave work is nobody's business. But they also had some employers who said the employer policies can easily be for 24/7/365, , , , and the courts seem to agree. One employer had a policy of no smokers on his payroll. (Two former employees who had been fired were interviewed.) One employer had a policy of not hiring anyone who had a family member that smoked. One company let an employee go because he drank the wrong brand of beer , , that someone had given him by mistake. Another had a program that rewarded employees who participated in an exercise program. Another had a policy of only hiring people that fit the correct "height to weight" profile and said you would be terminated if you gained weight beyond that profile. One employer was a police department in Florida. All the others were just run of the mill employers with no particular "people image" connected to their businesses or professions. And it seems to be the case that none of the employees who are "victims" of these policies have a legal leg to stand on. The law says either meet the employers' policy or find other work. How about that? Where are we going in the United States, and why? I wonder if the people who advocate legalizing drugs might care to speak up about these, or similar other employer policies regarding lifestyles. Would "wrong brand of beer" guy have been an employee of a competing brewer or distributor?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 10:43:02 GMT -5
I think the most amazing thing I learned from this thread is that "60 Minutes" is still on. I didn't know that.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 20, 2011 10:49:08 GMT -5
Ford did a great rendition though I prefer the original by Merle Travis, or the newer rendition by the late Johnny Cash. What I have never understood is the complete hostility to business, especially by those who are above the "working class" we want you to have a better way of life, while pushing for measures and legislation that are driving these jobs away.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Jun 20, 2011 10:59:22 GMT -5
I think police officers should adhere to weight standards. Nothing worse than to see a fat police officer, carry around an extra 20 to 30 pounds in addition to their equipement chasing someone and can't catch them.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 20, 2011 11:43:09 GMT -5
Yes. He was drinking a Coors, but he was a Budweiser truck driver.
I see some agreement that employers are reaching too far. I can understand the sentiment. Heck, why should employers have anything to say about employee lifestyles? Never mind that the lifestyle abuses end up affecting the employer's ability to compete with the bottom line of foreign products. Never mind the employees don't buy the products they produce, in favor of cheaper imports. Never mind lifestyles have an effect, (a bad effect), on absenteeism and health insurance costs. What's all this BS about employers wanting to get involved in what people do in their life outside of the working day? What we need is more union protection from all those nasty old employers.
Right?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 12:11:52 GMT -5
Well, you know for sure I think people ought to mind their own business for the most part. I have expressed before that I'm deeply concerned about this notion that because it's a "private company" and you have a "choice" about whether or not to do business with them, or work for them then you have no rights in dealing with them except this notion of "take it or leave it".
I would argue that when all of life becomes a series of contracts of adhesion where you can no longer participate in the mainstream of life without "agreeing" to follow all kinds of arbitrary rules set by "private" parties-- then you're not really free at all. If we have to live like Ted Kazinski as the alternative to the "choices" presented- we have a problem.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 20, 2011 12:23:52 GMT -5
I totally agree. There are some police officers that should be ashamed of themselves. I would rather fend for myself than count on some of the guys I've seen. Extra 20 pounds I might be able to handle. Some of our guys might be carrying around an extra 75 pounds. Yes - please - go chase the bad guy. At least I can stand behind you if gun shots ring out.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 20, 2011 12:58:46 GMT -5
I totally agree. Me, too, Thyme. Heck, if Budweiser can fire a truck driver for drinking a Coors beer that he didn't even buy, , it was given to him by somebody else, , , why can't General Motors fire a line employee for driving a Toyota?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 20, 2011 13:00:54 GMT -5
I totally agree. Me, too, Thyme. Heck, if Budweiser can fire a truck driver for drinking a Coors beer that he didn't even buy, , it was given to him by somebody else, , , why can't General Motors fire a line employee for driving a Toyota? 1 is an at will employee one is a Union member, different rules for different employment contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 9:36:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2011 13:07:48 GMT -5
I don't like this at all. Yes, it could easily lead to a point where average people can't get jobs for a million reasons. Which will make them gov't dependent robots, which could then lead to really horrible things like mandatory sterilization and fun things like that. Yep-- chipping away at our rights a little at a time, while turning people in to gov't drones.. sounds like creating a master race to me..
|
|