If you're a smoker, scratch Akron Children's Hospital off your list of job prospects.And why shouldn't employers be able to lower their costs by eliminating all kinds of high risk activities from job consideration?
As of Nov. 1, the hospital will not hire any applicants who test positive for nicotine, regardless of their experience and qualifications...
''We're proud to be taking the lead on this,'' said Children's spokesperson Laurie Schueler.
Why not refuse to hire motorcycle riders, or meat eaters or...gun owners?
We can just social engineer out the behaviors we want to discourage.
It would probably be even less risky if we kept our employees on premises at all times, fed them individually-calculated portions of tailored gruel, led them into padded stalls at shift's end, monitored their interactions and audio-visual inputs to keep out depressing thoughts...
It's interesting how you can condition laboratory animals to press the right button so a food pellet drops out. The downside is, I'm afraid the spirit that made America great is lost on Proud Laurie.
41 comments:
"Brave New World," the ultimate school-to-work program. We're not QUITE there yet. People are only being BEHAVIORALLY modified to fit certain jobs, not genetically.
Fascinatingly, people who take big risks to earn big returns in their business or personal lives, or in rescue crews or the military, also take risks such as hanggliding, skydiving and smoking cigars. Look at GOVERNOR Schwarzenegger.
Do they really want the passive and easily-intimidated doing brain surgery and investment planning, defending our nuclear plants, deciding what crops to not grow or what potential oilfields to not explore? A nation of "good Germans" who "see nothinggg! Nuh-THING!!"??
I'm surprised, David. You don't think employers have the right to hire whomever they want?
"And why shouldn't employers be able to lower their costs by eliminating all kinds of high risk activities from job consideration?"
Do you have an answer to your own question? Do you have something against voluntary contractual agreements?
After re-reading your comments, I may have misinterpreted the thrust of your post... There's a difference between disagreeing with a practice and wishing it illegal. Which is the case? Should an employer be "allowed" (by law) to ask employees if they own guns and make employment conditional on their response?
Los Angeles city council is planning to ban fast food restaurants in South L.A. They see a correlation between the concentration of junk food outlets in that area and an overweight, out of shape region of the city. They are The Deciders.
People who want to eat what THEY want will have to ... drive, or get someone to drive. Yeah, smog's healthier than a few extra pounds.
At least EVERYONE gets to breathe air pollution, even sprout-eating marathon runners and Critical Mass bicyclists.
Unintended consequences.
Hey, buddy, wanna buy a vial of crack and... a Big Mac?
No, I'm surprised, Nick.
Where did I advocate a coercive edict backed by state guns to force anybody to do my will? You don't think I have a right to criticize, or that the first step to creating resistance against this trend is for people to be aware that it's happening, and then to extrapolate where it could lead?
This "behavior risk assessment" very well COULD grow to include people who participate in shooting sports or who simply own guns they never shoot and keep in the safe.
Anyone see the movie "Gattaca"? A DNA analysis determines not only health and intelligence tendencies but POTENTIAL value to society. DNA is indeed destiny as some people are guided into high-tech endeavors while others -- based solely on their genetic profile, no aptitude tests or hands-on performance -- are shunted off into more menial jobs regardless of their desires.
Carried to its "logical" extreme, we could do away with ... elections.
This goes beyond employee and employer rights. Some smokers and heavy drinkers are in excellent shape otherwise. Some never get cancer or emphysema or cirrhosis. Some people who do everything right die suffering anyway. One size does NOT fit all. Neither government nor an employer should be able to reach into your home on your off time. That is serfdom.
Hell, obesity is one of the worst health problems in the country today, and from my experience, the health care industry has some of the most overweight people I have ever seen. Walk through a hospital sometime; you'll see what I mean. Why aren't they discriminating against fat people?
Whoah, David, did you read my second post? I recognized exactly what you're talking about and asked a clarifying question. I guess I have my answer...
It didn't come in to my mailbox until after I'd posted a reply, Nick.
nick, that "all or nothing" attitude is the essence of fascism.
there's no contradiction in being a proponent of "employer choice" and denigrating these "reasonable restrictions" you are defending.
huh. "reasonable restrictions." where have we heard that before?
When urine testing for other chemicals became acceptible, this was a logical consequence. Every "drug warrior" or nanny who wants to protect anyone from himself is helping to keep the boot on our necks, and adding his weight to it as well.
Drunks have always been sent home from work if they were impared. Or fired if they showed up at work drunk too many times. That would be just as effective for anyone who is impared by anything else, as well, without allowing for encroachment of the control-freaks and police state.
Liberty for ALL or "Welcome to the USSA".
that is, i'm assuming you're defending them.
otherwise is this not just an ad hominem (ad davidnem? hohoho. latin jokes.) for its own sake?
Penises and vaginas have killed more people in the last 40 years than smoking has since the discovery of tobacco. Add to that total the pre-penicillin deaths of syphillis sufferers and combined with AIDS, there can be a much better case for barring all wearers of such deadly accouterments.
The same can be said for almost any other cause of premature death, also.
Where the Hell does Proud Laurie with her assumed vagina stand on that issue?
Texas recently spent 750,000 tax dollars to test for steroids in teenagers attending Texas high schools. They found exactly 2. My son wants to play soccer, so, mandatory urinalysis for him.You know he might be some kind of threat or something. I told him it's no sweat, I had to have them for 20 years in the Army. They even gave them to me when I was in the VA hospital a half a dozen times. That and mandatory race relations class. I worked the classes much the same way. Don't say a word and fill your cup full of piss as requested. After all, I might be a racist drug addict. I can't tell you how adroitly and succinctly the Armys' an VAs' attitude informed my own.
I certainly AM defending their right to enlist such restrictions without government forceful intervention (as David later articulated). I at first misunderstood his stance to be that of advocating that employers not be ALLOWED to employ such hiring practices.
I think we all see the problem. But if your solution to the problem is "there ought to be a law", then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM.
If no one here thinks "there ought to be a law", then hallelujah we're all on the same page. However, if for example johathan believes employers should NOT "be able [allowed, right?] to lower their costs by eliminating all kinds of high risk activities from job consideration" - then jonathan has an issue with freedom.
And jonathan, if you think that an "all or nothing attitude is the essence of fascism," what does "Give me liberty or give me death" sound like? If you want some freedom but not all of it, you don't really want freedom.
nick,
All of your arguments depend upon the valid existence of the unimpaired freedom of contract. Does this still exist in the USA? What about the regulatory corruption cycle?
The regulatory corruption cycle is where regulators in government and their regulatory targets become corrupted through the power of business influence, and government wields its power with the false appearance of legitimacy, whilst being under the control of business. Business becomes the government and government becomes a puppet of that business. This happens because businesses offer those regulators who have proven themselves most adept at building fiefdoms very high salaries and prestige in exchange for the regulators coming to work for the business. The hiring business now has access to that regulator's black book of deep contacts within government. This enables the business to wield massive influence within government. Government employees jump at the chance to do the bidding of the business in the hopes that they too will be offered a high salary (six or seven digits) by the business in the future.
When the former regulator has proven his ability in business, he then is hired back by government at an executive level (essentially as an operative of the business), and the business' influence in government grows even more than before. The desire of government employees to appease this business grows even more than before, and it continues in a never-ending cycle.
When the regulatory corruption cycle is combined with business' control of congress through bribery (err, political contributions), we have a form of reverse fascism where business has seized control of the government, instead of government seizing control of business as is the case under traditional fascism. The net effect is the same either way: government and business merge into one corrupted mass, seeking to increase their own opportunities for profit at the expense of freedom and individuality, and it is all done in the name of the "free market," which, I hope can be plainly seen, is no longer as free as we might have once thought.
So, when something is presented as being decided by or dictated by the "free market," are we really so certain that this is really the case? What is to be done? How do we free the markets from this corrupting influence?
(I believe that people perceive the problem, but they are not quite able to put it into words. Hopefully, the preceding text constitutes those words.)
Actually if this is a private hospital, they should be allowed to do this. However, I think it's stupid as hell.
Are they going to have random Nicotine testing?
Oh, in case I was too obtuse in my preceding post about the regulatory corruption cycle, here is the short version:
Actions by businesses are frequently presumed to be legitimate acts done in the name of freedom of contract, but, upon closer inspection, they are revealed to be edicts of a fascist government that have been carefully disguised as freedom of contract.
The problem is that if Ohio is anything like Connecticut, government is creating a massive market distortion. Our classifieds are filled with jobs in the medical field, because the state has pumping money into a huge, state-owned hospital, and disbursing entitlements for medical expenses. So does the federal government.
Even a privately-owned hospital will be reimbursed from a government treasury, or from an insurer that is paid by municipalities -- as part of a contractual agreement with a union. It makes you wonder who provided the motivation for this hiring policy decision.
Perhaps Ms. Schueler is not a petit tyran, and there are legitimate reasons. Smokers tend to take more breaks. It might be risky to let a smoker manage oxygen storage facilities. However, the article suggests this is otherwise, since the policy is to test for nicotine, not smoking.
I see Nick's point. It is a free market solution to let companies hire as they wish, but it appears counterproductive to eliminate a whole class of people based on something that may not be a vector of poor work ethic. It is also a concern because companies have been coerced to pay for employee medical expenses. I would think this would come below MRSA on the list of priorities.
I personally don't think 'thar auter be a lawr' against this. However, I'm tempted to dig out the stats mentioned, because I smell "bad numbers".
Nick,
Do you believe the hospital should be able to turn away patients who are associated with high risk behavior, too? Patients who test positive for nicotine? Gunshot victims?
It would not bother me, of course. In a free market society, the hospital would fold, rather quickly. You can't just make a feel-good decision and walk away. You have to game out all the unintended consequences. Once you start discriminating, it tends to snowball.
Residents in New Jersey can now "voluntarily" have black boxes installed in their cars for "insurance rate reductions."
I heard this on the news as well.
C'mon, one of you guys answer the question: Ought there be a law to keep employers from making such discrimination?
All of your "the problem with that..." arguments smack of the same pragmatism that I abhor on the 2A debate. Answer this one question, all of you (in your minds or on here, I don't care): Ought there be a law?
III
corbinkale:
Do you believe the hospital should be able to turn away patients who are associated with high risk behavior, too? Patients who test positive for nicotine? Gunshot victims?
Yes. They "should be able" (allowed, no law) to send someone away with a terrible gunshot wound for ANY reason. Your comment about the consequences of frivolous denials shows you know what would happen if they did. So what's the problem?
Residents in New Jersey can now "voluntarily" have black boxes installed in their cars for "insurance rate reductions."
Stupid. But they should be allowed to be stupid. And it's not just in New Jersey.
nick, No, there should be absolutely NO "LAW". But there should also be no law to force anyone to associate in any way with those who show themselves to be disgusting bigots. Shunning should be allowed to take its natural course against people or businesses who discriminate. That is the way: let the market decide.
nick said:
"Ought there be a law to keep employers from making such discrimination?"
NO. However, I think you may have missed the point of my earlier posts. Due to the
fascist merging of business and government through the regulatory corruption cycle
and political contributions, business IS the government. Therefore, when
business takes an action and proclaims that it is acting under freedom of contract,
business is, in fact, making a law via its position as the government.
You are asking the wrong question. The question should be, "can government,
masquerading as free enterprise, make laws that prevent employment based on
disfavored personal habits?"
I understand your point. What are you advocating?
kent, I couldn't agree more.
nick said: "I understand your point. What are you advocating?"
Freedom of contract.
Well anon, have you ever heard of "contracts of adhesion"? Look it up and then look up the traditional court view of them.
If after a couple days you don't understand. Ask, I'll tell you.
Hi straightarrow,
Oh, I am quite familiar with them, and I am certainly not arguing for any such thing. In fact, your example perfectly bolsters the point that I am trying to make, and we are actually in perfect agreement.
As a fist principle, we must accept that we as individuals have all rights, and among these rights exists the freedom of contract. Once this issue is agreed to, there is then the opportunity to address those issues that interfere with freedom of contract like disparity of bargaining power and other such issues that pop up in contact negotiation.
So, for the sake of clarity, I am actually making the point that you think that I am not making: sometimes negotiations that appear to take place under freedom of contract are not actually free due to an intervening circumstance which prevents true freedom of contract from occurring. The specific example that I have been harping on is the corrupt merger of business and government. Another example that perfectly agrees with the point that I am making is the one that you brought up. An adhesion contract is an example of an intervening circumstance that prevents the operation of freedom of contract.
That is the point that I am trying to make. We must always be careful to examine any claim of freedom of contract to make sure that it is actually a truthful claim.
I'm game for a "contracts of adhesion" discussion. I'll grant the premise that a contract should be void if one party didn't have a choice but to accept it. However, I would say that it is likely that in all (or almost all?) cases he has another option.
That option may be very undesirable, but that's what causes the (presumably) high price (high demand).
To argue otherwise is to head down the slippery slope toward renters not being able to evict tennants because "they don't have any other place to live". It's cold-hearted, but it's not the landlord's problem, and the tennants don't have a claim on his property.
If you're in a poor position to bargain it's not the government's job to make your position more favorable (or so I would contend - I'm open to discussion).
Maybe I misunderstand contracts of adhesion?
No, you seem to understand them. In such contracts all the power resides with one side. However, it is not a contract of adhesion if there are other acceptable alternatives for the weaker party. Such as the ability to walk away and that will not cause irreparable harm.
However, many people find that to not accept such a contract puts their very lives at risk, that is not an acceptable alternative. There are other less dramatic effects that are also not acceptable. that is what litigation is for. However, if one is not in a position to forego such a contract it is highly unlikely that he can support the litigation to fix it.
Company towns, are a good example. We still have them, by the way, but due to past excesses on the part of the companies, many of their predatory practices against people who had no acceptable alternative have been outlawed.
That is a good thing. Like yourself, I am not in favor of government being involved in every facet of our lives. However, do you not think the state would take a hand in favor of the company or business if and when they were resisted on such policy?
In this instance, should an employee refuse a urinalysis for nicotine, would not cops come and remove him and arrest him for trespass because he would not waive his fourth and fifth amendment rights and would not accept the firing for his exercise of them?
If the state were to stay completely out of it. I say, the company has the right to try it. As long as the state doesn't protect them. But that is a leveling of the playing field that our "betters" cannot accept.
I was once ordered to perform an operation that was and remains impossible in the physical world. When I explained that for two systems to be joined, they had to intersect somewhere, and currently they did not, and that to make them work I would have to modify at least one of them.
I was told that I could not modify one of them, but that I would be fired if I did not join them. I liked the man I worked for, but I told him to go ahead and fire me then I would do what I thought appropriate. He asked if that was a threat. I said "Count on it."
As it was kept between us and he didn't like his alternatives any more than I liked mine, he decided to listen. We solved the problem and mated the two systems and everything worked perfectly. None of which would have been possible if the state had become involved, because I would have been rendered powerless, legally. Not in actuality.
I would have had no such reaction if what was asked was not impossible. He could have fired me for refusal to do the possible and I wouldn't have said a word. But sometimes those in authority need a dose of reality.
So, when company policy infringes a personal right I support the company as long as they do not enjoy the benefit of protection by the state, and their policy does not do irreparable harm. Seems fair.
As for this particular case, I come down on the side of the company as their legal right to
institute such policy at their workplace. I sincerely hope though that they suffer severe consequences for such interference in the lives of others for activity not at their workplace.
As for this particular case, I come down on the side of the company as their legal right to
institute such policy at their workplace. I sincerely hope though that they suffer severe consequences for such interference in the lives of others for activity not at their workplace.
On THAT, I absolutely agree.
Now, to your personal example... I believe you do not have a right to be employed by that man. I believe he has the right to terminate your employment for any reason. I believe he has the right to refuse entry to his property for any reason. Thus, I believe he would be justified in employing the force of the state to protect these rights - after all, that's what they're there for.
In that case, he wouldn't be using the state to limit your rights (remember, you don't have a right to a job or a right to be on his property), he'd be using the state to protect his own.
The state isn't protecting a company as much as it's protecting an individual's property rights. Do I understand you correctly - that you believe the man should NOT be able to call the police to have you removed from his property when he fires you (for whatever reason)?
"Now, to your personal example... I believe you do not have a right to be employed by that man. I believe he has the right to terminate your employment for any reason."-Nick.
I agree. And I have the right to whip his ass if he does it out of the stupidity of requiring something that is not possible, just because he was in a bad mood and didn't understand the problem. But, mostly my reaction was to the disrespect shown me when I tried to explain to him what the problem was and he tried to scare me into something that no one could give him. I get really snarly when people try to scare me. Not reasonable? Maybe, probably, but if that is the arena the other person chooses we will have to see who cowers first. Sorry, that's the way it is.
If he had said, "You're fired, collect your pay." I would have collected my pay. Not a word, no harm. After he tried intimidation he moved the game to a whole new arena.
As for the other issue, I am damn tired of law enforcement being a publicly funded private security force for the wealthy and/or connected. When they trespass my rights the law should be protecting me, no matter the company's reasons. Private property rights do not bestow divinity on the property owner.
\
I own property, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate to anybody what they do off it. In those instances, damn right I don't believe they or I have the right to police protection for such a violation of others' rights. Let them personally enforce it through their own efforts if they really believe in it. On their property they have a right to decide what is acceptable to them. In that case they are entitled to the force of the state. When they try to force their policies into your home or elsewhere that is not their property they are not entitled to the use of the hired guns of the state.
When they try to force their policies into your home or elsewhere that is not their property they are not entitled to the use of the hired guns of the state.
And do you recognize that making your behavior at home a condition of employment is NOT the same as FORCING their policies into your home?
Either way, she has shown herself to be a bigot who discriminates against "niccers" (users of nicotine) and should be shunned.
No, Nick, I do not. If you do I perceive you as a weakling. Sorry. I know that sounds harsh, but if you won't be a man in your own home, where will you be one?
*chuckle*
It's not harsh, it's silly. You are such a character.
You believe that you should be able to exercise your rights at the expense of the freedom of others. You should be able to carry your gun wherever you want, and no one has the right to say you're not welcome on their property. You should be able to work for whomever you please, and they have no right to decide whom they want to employ.
If standing up for the EQUAL importance of everyone's rights makes me a weakling in your eyes, I don't give a damn.
And as far as me being a MAN in my own home... Well it's just not polite to talk about that on the internet.
Now if you want to stick to the point, I'll be happy to continue. But I think you'd rather indulge the thoughts of doing what you want, where you want because you're such a MAN.
I stuck to the points, you did not. Further you lied about which of us is for equal protection of the rights of all.
You also misquoted me.
All to hide the fact that you have already determined that other men can rule you if there is a price for resistance to that. Fine. You are allowed to be a coward. You have no right to demand others fall in line with it so you won't feel bad about yourself.
My way stands for EQUAL importance of everyone's rights. Your way says another may force into your private life his desires for your behavior.
I know you can read. Therefore I must assume your misrepresentation of what I said is due to dishonesty and shame.
Ahd YES, I am a man. not a MAN, just a man. Somehow you seem to feel threatened by that. More revealing of you than of me.
When an argument is lost use ridicule and a supercilious attitude seems to be your only recourse. That's fine too. I would rather know whom I can trust at my side or back.
I could discuss this more and in a more congenial spirit, but I choose to let it pass as I realize your opposition is emotional reinforcement for you lack of respect for yourself due to your willingness to accept mistreatment.
Have a nice life. I seriously do hope you are never charged with duty to loved ones wherein you may have to stand against others you fear.
I do not contend to have the "right" to carry a gun on someone else's property against their will. I do not contend to have the "right" to be employed by someone even though I do not meet the terms of their choosing.
Do you? Yes or no?
Post a Comment