Wanna work better not smoke at all

[rahmota]

Ok now this is taking thigns a bit too far. I just read on the news about the Cleaveland clinic joining the trend of treating smokers as if they where undesireables and not hiring anyone who smokes. Even at home in the privacy or their car or otherwise outside of company time and property. To ensure that they do not the clinic will be testing people for tobacco use as well as drugs. Last time I checked tobacco was not a controlled substance to be lumped in under mary or other stuff. Morality police indeed.

Ok I can understand and accept banning smoking in the workplace or certain public areas. It is not exactly a clean habit but it is a person's choice if they do it in their own area or outside in an area where a person does not have to be enclosed with the one doing it. But to say that a person does not have the right to smoke in the privacy of their own home or at all if they want to have a job. Great choice change your personal habits or we wont employ you.

Scotts Miracle Gro was also mentioned in the article as a company that will not employ people who smoke. Last year they stopped hiring smokers and told all employees to stop or they would be fired.

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to? This may not be the sign of the apocalypse but it is one more chink in the ediface of personal freedoms in america. Where everybody is supposed to be good clean living little obedient sheep instead of individuals with a brain and the ability to choose right or wrong and goof up and make mistakes. Next thing you know Taco Bell will have pianos and you'll get a ticket for swearing in public.....

[Greenday]

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to?

You don't think this already happens? I'm sure there are plenty of places who do this all the time. And since they are private companies, it's not like anyone can tell them otherwise. Besides, if the government steps in to stop them from hiring as they want, what's to stop the governemt from doing to to all companies? Or to stop the government from controlling other parts of all companies?

[rahmota]

Oh I'm sure it does which is why we need more governmental control over companies to prevent them from setting such unfair and discriminatory standards and practices. Its not such a bad idea to set firm rules on what companies may or may not use as hiring and firing practices, behaviors, standards, and profit and price controls. Capitalism and the free market as it stands now is a grossly unfair, exploitive and evil distribution of welath where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle gets squeezed all the harder. Nationalization of some of the more essential companies in the interest of the national good wouldnt be such a bad thing either.

[Boozy]

Besides, if the government steps in to stop them from hiring as they want, what's to stop the governemt from doing to to all companies? Or to stop the government from controlling other parts of all companies?

The government already steps in to tell companies what they can and can't do. You can't refuse to hire someone because of race or religion. Companies can't force people to work on Christmas Day in most cases, pay less than minimum wage, and expose workers to hazardous conditions without safety precautions. If anything, I believe that there aren't enough laws governing employers.

The companies rahmota describes are likely refusing to hire smokers because of the inevitable costs to their health plan and the expenses resulting from missed work due to illness. But the same reason can be used to refuse to hire someone who is overweight, or who has diabetes, or who has disabled children.

Tobacco is a legal substance. Job discrimination based on the private at-home administration of an non-controlled legal substance is wrong.

[KaeZoo]

So if companies get away with controlling peoples personal lives like this whats next? Companies not hiring people because their too fat? Too ugly? Not the right kind of music they listen to? This may not be the sign of the apocalypse but it is one more chink in the ediface of personal freedoms in america. Where everybody is supposed to be good clean living little obedient sheep instead of individuals with a brain and the ability to choose right or wrong and goof up and make mistakes. Next thing you know Taco Bell will have pianos and you'll get a ticket for swearing in public.....

"Personal freedom" doesn't include an employer's freedom to choose whom he would like to have working for him? But it does include a worker's right to force his employer to accept personal habits that are likely to cost the employer money?

Governments are a much, MUCH bigger threat to personal freedoms than employers (yes, including huge, evil, heartless corporations). If a private company wishes to limit your lifestyle choices, you have the option to disassociate yourself from that company. If a corporation tries to restrict your lifestyle choices, and you don't comply, they're highly unlikely to break down your door, shoot your dog, and place you and your family face-down on the floor with cable-ties on your wrists.

People still do get tickets for swearing in public, in some areas, and they're not written by Taco Bell. But if you start swearing inside a Taco Bell, then they have the right to remove you from their property. That's a personal freedom that Taco Bell's owner's have: they aren't forced to associate with people who will disrupt their business.

[Boozy]

People still do get tickets for swearing in public, in some areas

That's horrifying to me.

Freedom of speech is the most sacred of personal freedoms, and democracy can't function without it.

Americans stand by and watch corporations swallow up the media into huge conglomerates and let it happen in the name of individual freedom. But the only ones enjoying individual freedoms are these corporations. The US now only has the 17th most free press in the world. Explains why the government and their corporate buddies have been able to get away with so much for so long.

[KaeZoo]

As previous response attempts tend to dissolve into long, off-topic rants; let me just say that I couldn't disagree more with the expressed views on corporations, capitalism, the state of our free press, the idea of nationalizing private industry, or the idea of the state meddling in hiring and firing practices.

On topic, I just want to state that increased government oversight and regulation does NOT generally result in increased personal freedom. This is true whether the regulation is of individuals or corporations. It's also true regardless of the intent of the regulation.

In specific, if there was a blanket government restriction against hiring and firing based on an employee's personal habits, even when said habits have an effect on the business, who's going to get hurt more? The big corporations, or the upstart small businesses?

[Boozy]

In specific, if there was a blanket government restriction against hiring and firing based on an employee's personal habits, even when said habits have an effect on the business, who's going to get hurt more? The big corporations, or the upstart small businesses?

Obviously, a lot of things that employees do affect the businesses they work for. Conversely, a lot of things employers do affect employees' lives. The reality is that the balance of power is on the side of the employer. In an economy with high unemployment, its not so easy to walk away from a job. And in an increasingly monopolistic consumer climate, its not so easy to "vote with your feet". This is where the law needs to step in.

I'll say it again: The exact same argument could be used to justify refusing employment to overweight people, people with diabetes, people with children at home (and thus will need more health coverage), and people who engage in other high risk behaviour like unprotected sex or sky-diving.

The exact same argument could also be used to fire existing employees.

How much information about your private life are you willing to give an employer?

If you still don't see a problem with it, then I understand. Its a personal choice as to the kind of society you want to live in.

But personally, I don't want to have a job that allows my boss to ask me what I did on the weekend and then fire me if he doesn't like the answer.

[AFPheonix]

Pretty much. Unless it's something that affects your job performance, then it should not matter to your employer whether you smoke or not.


Now, if you're taking an excessive number of breaks to go smoke, then that's something else.


Part of the problem could be solved if we revamped how we pay for healthcare in this society. If businesses were not responsible for paying into an employee's health care, the business most likely would feel more inclined to hire older people, people with disabilities, and other habits/hobbies that carry inherent risks, as long as they do the job competently.

[MadMike]

I'm a firm believer that what you do off the clock is none of the company's damn business.

Some people will argue that if employee is doing illegal things and the public finds out, and can reflect poorly on the company, so I'm not going to get into that. I can see both sides of that argument, I still lean in favor of the employee in that situation.

At the very least, the company should have no say in any perfectly legal activity that the employees do on their own time.

[rahmota]

Exactly as long as what the person does off the clock is legal and doesnt affect the person showing up, doign their job to the best of their ability then the company has no right whatsoever to interefere in that.

As for the government control being more fearful than megacorps look at where the true power is in this country. Money is power. Many of these ceos are paid more than half of congress put together and certainly more than the president of the united states.

As for the rest Boozy beat me to a lot of it. Small business are already being assimilated or driven out by big chains or otherwise forced to adopt the same business practices against the consumer that the big guys use. The average consumer's choices are already limited and a re becoming more so each year at the hands of the megacorps. And like he said in such a tight employment market what is a person going to do? With at-will employment a reality the employer can fire you for just disagreeing with them or holding the wrong political view and all they have to say or do is come up with some lame excuse that you misbehaved or broke company policy and there is nothign you can do. Consumers and citizens have no rights and powers against the mega corps.

And you are right the discussion about nationalization is not a part of this topic compleately but I would rather live in a world where employers are forced to treat their employees as free and worthy citizens and people than slaves and tools to be used up and thrown away at a whim or because they indulge in a hobby or activity or otherwise hold a POV the company doesnt agree with.

[KaeZoo]

I'll say it again: The exact same argument could be used to justify refusing employment to overweight people, people with diabetes, people with children at home (and thus will need more health coverage), and people who engage in other high risk behaviour like unprotected sex or sky-diving.



Unlike smoking, a person with diabetes cannot choose to stop having diabetes.

And I can see, in some professions, where an employer might justifiably ask that an employee not engage in high-risk behavior in his off time. At the very least, an employer is justified in taking an employee's behavior into account when considering things like promotions. If I'm running a company, and I need someone for a long-term, critical position, then I would be foolish not to take it into account if a person I'm considering likes to engage in high-risk activities in his off time. For example, if I'm considering someone for a position where they had access to large amounts of company money, should I be legally bound to ignore the fact that they like to gamble for huge sums at a casino every weekend? If I own a football team, should I be prohibited from writing a restriction in my star quarterback's contract against riding his motorcycle without a helmet in the off season?

I'm not even arguing in favor of the companies that have instituted smoking bans. I'm simply saying that government intervention against the practice is a very bad idea. Except in very narrow areas, the government needs to stay out of private employment contracts between employers and employees.

[KaeZoo]

As for the government control being more fearful than megacorps look at where the true power is in this country. Money is power. Many of these ceos are paid more than half of congress put together and certainly more than the president of the united states.

Both true and irrelevant.

Sure, look at the money. The relatively small group of people in our Congress exercise control over amounts of money that make the CEO payrolls you're talking about look like a drop in the ocean. And where does the money come from? From people who are forced to pay it, or be thrown in jail. Megacorps at least have to give you something you want before they get your money, but when the government botches its' job, it uses it as an excuse to require even more money from you.

The government has much more control over my life than corporations. If I choose not to give my money to a corporation, or a group of corporations, I can go on living. It's possible to arrange my life so that I never have to buy gasoline, for example. I can grow my own food, buy from local farmer's markets or barter with my neighbors for the things I need. But I cannot be employed, travel, marry, educate myself or my children, or own my land without government approval. If I don't approve of what my government's doing, I cannot freely choose to stop giving them my money.

If my employer doesn't like what I do on my private time, they can fire me. If my government doesn't like what I do on my private time, it can break down my door, threaten me with violence, remove my children from me, confiscate my property and money, and imprison me. It can take away my home or car if they believe I've committed a crime, and it doesn't need to return them even if I'm found innocent. It can provide my local police department with military-grade weapons, vehicles and aircraft to be used against me.



The average consumer's choices are already limited and a re becoming more so each year at the hands of the megacorps.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. In virtually every area that isn't a government-mandated monopoly, consumers have more choices than they've ever had before. Books have recently been written positing that consumers have too many choices.

And like he said in such a tight employment market what is a person going to do? With at-will employment a reality the employer can fire you for just disagreeing with them or holding the wrong political view and all they have to say or do is come up with some lame excuse that you misbehaved or broke company policy and there is nothign you can do.

They can, but most don't. The fact is, employers cannot impose arbitrary employment requirements without paying a price. Companies that make things tough on their employees have to pay more for their labor, experience higher turnover costs, and lose ground to more progressive companies. You can rail against corporations if you want--it's probably a reflex by now--but many national corporations have very progressive employee policies. Look at Disney Corp and their policies toward employees' same-sex partners, for example.

The big corporations you hate aren't, as a rule, going to fire people over political views. Their local management might. Small employers might. Your congressman might. But big corporations don't become big corporations by fussing about what their employees do on weekends---UNLESS it's something that harms the business.


Consumers and citizens have no rights and powers against the mega corps.

Of course they do: they can choose not conduct business with them.

And you are right the discussion about nationalization is not a part of this topic compleately but I would rather live in a world where employers are forced to treat their employees as free and worthy citizens and people than slaves and tools to be used up and thrown away at a whim or because they indulge in a hobby or activity or otherwise hold a POV the company doesnt agree with.

The "slaves and tools" comparison doesn't hold up. Unlike slaves, employees are free to leave their employer any time they want.

There is already a mechanism in place to keep companies from "throwing people away at a whim": companies that do this FAIL. If you're willing to admit that having a good employee helps a company, then it should be obvious that losing a good employee hurts a company. Successful companies do not create policies that cause good employees to leave.

A business that wants to succeed will not create an employee policy that hurts the company. The companies that are putting anti-smoking rules in place are not doing so because they don't like smokers. They're doing it because they believe that the benefits of the policy will outweigh the costs of the policy. They have every right to make that determination. Maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. If they're wrong, their business will be harmed, and later on they'll reconsider.

[rahmota]

In this modern world do you really think you can cut yourself off from all corporate influences and controls? Unless you go compleately amish and withdraw from the modern world you cannot. I'm a farmer. I grow a lot of my own food, I shop yard sales and discount markets. I still have to pay tithe to the oil companies greed because I have to drive anywhere thanks to living in the country. I have a cooperative electrical company but I still have a phone from corporate america. I have simplified my life as much as I can and still be a part of modern america and I still have to deal with corporate america.

And yeah the government is there asking for their share. Unfortuantely they are not in the business of protecting the citizen. This is a plutocracy of the rich and for the rich and who are rich? Corporate leaders. Most of Congress has a vested interest in protecting corporate america because their personal profits would fall congressmen are rich, the days of mister smith goign to washington are over if they ever really existed.

Yeah right there are too many options? BS! If the only options one has are all bad options then what options do you really have? None. I ask you this? Look at all the gas stations in your area. Notice how they are all within a penny or two of each other on gas prices. Thats collusion.That is a lack of options. Biofuels are derided and propaganda is spewed trying to supress them so that the oil companies can continue to rape the public and reap record breaking profits each year. How many stores are there in your area? Big boxes are assimilating and destroying smaller stores not because people are deciding and choosign not to shop small stores but because the big boxes are able to buy cheaply made chinese crap, pass it off as a bargin and undercut others. Yeha its nothign personal just business.

And no the government cannot do all of that as easily as you claim. yes they can harrass and hassle and with probable cause enter into your life in ways that are wrong. These are problems that need to be resolved and can be resolved if people focus on the problems and are not distracted by the bread and circuses that the government throws out to protect the corporate overseers and true masters. They cannot keep your property without due process and renumeration of you. Of course this is fair market value which is set by corporate america.

As for corporations having to be nice and not do things to loose employers thats more bunk and BS. I used to work for a company that had a 100% turnover rate every three months. The nickname was whackyournuts security because of how poorly they treated their own employees. But you know what the company is still in business and doing quite well from what I see on the net. Look at Walmart the amout of lawsuits brought about by employees is amazing yet walmart doesnt appear to be having trouble. In this pitiful job market wageslaves cannot afford to just walk away fom a job (or two or three like some people have to have to just make ends meet) as the company knows they are replaceable. Or that the company will just run understaffed and not care if people dont get the service they think they should because really where else are they goign to go?

Unlike slaves, employees are free to leave their employer any time they want.
Yeah they are free to leave. But companies can give bad references making it harder to get hired. Companies can and do look upon that as a troubled worker and make it harder to get a job. Moving fom one mcjob inot another is the most common thing for people. Wageslavery may not be the same as real slavery but the lack of options is just as real.

Except in very narrow areas, the government needs to stay out of private employment contracts between employers and employees
And I say that we need broad sweeping and directly specific laws and regulations protecting the employees from the employers so that the employees will not be exploited unfairly. So that employers discrimination against employees they do not like or agree with can be stopped. Union representation needs to be increased to help protect the employees. Vital national companies such as the oil companies need to be nationalized in the interests of the greater good so that the grossly greedy rapacious profiteering they engage in can be stopped.

And as for Disney co yeah they are really progressive just some highlights:
(1) Trying to get tighter intellectual property rights in violation of free speech including the stopping of parodies and a reduction in public domain availability of items.
(2)Using college interns as cheap slave labor instead of paying them as employees for doing the same work as employees.
(3)Using sweatshops in asian countries to produce their mass market items. Including human rights violating countries such as cambodia that use children to assemble their products.

Among a plethora of other violations, exploitations and generally abusive policies towards their "guests" and employees. Which are not uncommon among most of corporate america. So they have finally joined the modern world and are "giving" their samegender employees what they deserve, the same basic coverage as everyone else. One of the reasons we need to control the government to control corporate america and ensure a fair and level playing field for all citizens and employees.

[rahmota]

here are a few definitions and factoids for you to consider:

Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally de jure (based on law) voluntarily employed but de facto (in fact) a slave. It describes a condition where a person is compelled to work in return for payment of a wage in order to subsist. Wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power, submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely survive.

1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) live in "severe poverty."

Forty-six million citizens--30 percent more than in 1996--are without health insurance.

While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.

Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.

A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is employed by Wal-Mart, a company notorious for union-busting and widespread use of part-time workers to avoid paying benefits. The discount retail giant is the top private employer in the world, with 1,140,000 workers, more than twice as many as No. 2, DaimlerChrysler, which employs 466,938.

U.S. corporations dominate the Top 200, with 82 slots (41 percent of the total). Japanese firms are second, with only 41 slots.

Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.

Between 1983 and 1999, the share of total sales of the Top 200 made up by service sector corporations increased from 33.8 percent to 46.7 percent. Gains were particularly evident in financial services and telecommunications sectors, in which most countries have pursued deregulation.


globalissues.org

[KaeZoo]

The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…----Milton Friedman



In this modern world do you really think you can cut yourself off from all corporate influences and controls? Unless you go compleately amish and withdraw from the modern world you cannot.

And why is going "completely Amish" not an option? Amish live in the country too. They're not "withdrawn from the modern world"; they simply choose not to use many of the goods and services that it offers. So why isn't it an option for you?

Maybe because you're not willing to give up all the goods and services that the evil corporate world has given you? You can rail all you want about how you can't avoid corporate influence, but you're not adding the obvious corollary: you can't avoid corporate influence without giving up the things you want that corporations can provide. There's things that you want, it pisses you off that you have to rely on corporations to get them; but you can't seem to get your head around the idea that if the corporations didn't exist, neither would those things.

And yeah the government is there asking for their share. Unfortuantely they are not in the business of protecting the citizen. This is a plutocracy of the rich and for the rich and who are rich?

The people who provide what others want, and receive money in return?

I doubt we have any basis for communication here, because your "rich = evil" viewpoint seems pretty ingrained. But in the world I see, some people get rich because they convince others to give them money. The way they do this is by providing those others with things that they want or need. So, many of the rich are people who are very good at providing other people with what they want and need. So, given that definition of "rich", what's wrong with giving power to people who are good at giving others what they want or need?

Furthermore, a free enterprise (capitalist) system is the best available for allowing people to amass wealth based on their own skills, talents, brains, ability and work. There simply is no other system that does a better job allowing people to succeed on their own merits. The less government interferes, the more efficiently the system works; so if you're not happy with the people who have the power now, then removing government roadblocks will help other people amass more power. Government regulation ALWAYS harms small, upstart enterprises more than it harms large, established enterprises; because there's always a cost to complying with regulation, and those with more resources will be affected less.

Yeah right there are too many options? BS! If the only options one has are all bad options then what options do you really have? None.

I didn't say there are too many options. I said that books have been written claiming that consumers currently have too many choices. I don't happen to agree with the books; not because I don't think consumers have more choices, but because I don't think there's any such thing as "too many choices".

What I said was that consumers have more choices than ever before, and that's true. You seem to think that having fewer providers results in consumers having fewer choices, and that's demonstrably untrue. Despite the growth of corporations, and the reduction in smaller businesses, virtually everyone in the US has a greatly expanded selection of goods and services compared to a decade ago. The average person has a much bigger selection of food and groceries to choose from, many more entertainment options, many more information options, many service choices that weren't available before, and at lower prices than have been available in the past.

Despite consolidation in the mass media industry, the average person is exposed to a much greater variety of news, entertainment and opinions than have ever been available before; and if he wants more information, he has research options that didn't exist for him a decade ago. Despite consolidation in retailing, the average person has a hugely expanded selection of goods to choose from, and doesn't have to travel as far to get them.

Just because you don't like the providers, you claim that the only options are "bad options". Because these extra choices come from private enterprise/corporations, you pretend they don't exist.

I ask you this? Look at all the gas stations in your area. Notice how they are all within a penny or two of each other on gas prices. Thats collusion.

It's also not the case. Gasoline prices in my general area do vary much more than a penny or two. Obviously, they all rise and fall at about the same rate and about the same time, but that's because they all respond to the same market factors; it's not evidence of collusion. Also, it's common sense that if you have two gas stations on the same street, their prices aren't going to vary much, because the station which posts a much higher price isn't going to sell any gas. Again, not collusion; just a response to smart consumers (another thing which government regulation proponents like to pretend don't exist).


Biofuels are derided and propaganda is spewed trying to supress them so that the oil companies can continue to rape the public and reap record breaking profits each year.

Ah, so if it's critical of biofuels, it must be propaganda. There couldn't possibly be anyone outside of greedy oil companies who have reservations about the idea of converting our food source to a fuel source. Bought much milk lately?

And of course, if oil companies are making record profits, then it must be because they're "raping the public". Let me ask you: if you produce more fuel than you did last year, because there's more demand for fuel than there was last year, and as a result you sell more fuel than you did last year, then how the hell would you explain it if you DIDN'T make more profit than you did last year? But no, it must be because the greedy oil companies are raping the public. (Substitute "apples" for "fuel" in the above, if you have trouble getting past your "greedy oil executives" mental block).

Note that our government's meddling in biofuels actually will help cause gasoline prices go up. The big bottleneck in fuel production, and a big part of the rapid price swings, is the lack of refinery capacity. Problems with one refinery (like one that closed due to flooding very recently) have a big effect on gas prices because of the lack of reserve capacity. But government subsidies for ethanol (which I think, long-term, is a pipe dream) have resulted in oil companies refusing to invest in new refineries. Why put money into building a refinery, if there's a possibility that the government will mandate a switch to ethanol production by the time the refinery is completed? Yet another example of unintended consequences when the government meddles in private enterprise. (By the way, Iowa election primaries have a hell of a lot more to do with the government's support of ethanol than a desire to free the country from Big Oil).

How many stores are there in your area? Big boxes are assimilating and destroying smaller stores not because people are deciding and choosign not to shop small stores but because the big boxes are able to buy cheaply made chinese crap, pass it off as a bargin and undercut others. Yeha its nothign personal just business.

The Big Box stores I visit have the cheaply made Chinese crap on the shelf right next to the higher quality goods. Before the big box, it's not like there was a store selling cheap imports and another one selling high quality merchandise. There was one store (if that), and what they had was what you had to choose from, unless you wanted to drive forty miles. So the consumer didn't have much of a choice, and now he does. What is wrong with that?

And no the government cannot do all of that as easily as you claim. yes they can harrass and hassle and with probable cause enter into your life in ways that are wrong. These are problems that need to be resolved and can be resolved if people focus on the problems and are not distracted by the bread and circuses that the government throws out to protect the corporate overseers and true masters. They cannot keep your property without due process and renumeration of you. Of course this is fair market value which is set by corporate america.

The government can and does do everything that I listed, right here in the US and right now. You specifically had an issue with where I said that government can take and keep my property? Check out the concept of asset forfeiture (http://www.fear.org/). If you don't believe in anything else on the list, I'll gladly provide links.

It's hard for me to believe that in a thread dealing with issues of personal freedoms in the privacy of one's own home, someone can seriously claim that private corporations are a more serious threat than Government. It's ludicrous. I guess the drug war doesn't count?


Wageslavery may not be the same as real slavery but the lack of options is just as real.

And just as rare, at least in the US. People who have skills employees need can and do work their way into better jobs. People who lack skills get crappier jobs. That's the way it works, and that's the way it should work; otherwise there's no reason for anyone to try to improve his or her job skills, knowledge, or talents. The motivation to get a higher paying or better job is what gives the US a skilled workforce. What would be the effect of government regulations that ensure that everyone is happy exactly where they're at? It would mean that people would stop growing, which would mean that business would stop growing; and whether you like it or not, business is what keeps society functioning.

The people in the low-end jobs, in my experience, aren't people who are skilled workers but just can't find an opening doing what they know how to do. They're either people who are just starting out, and expect to be able to move into a better job in the future; or people who, for some reason, aren't able to develop job skills that better employers need. People who develop skills develop choices. It works.


And I say that we need broad sweeping and directly specific laws and regulations protecting the employees from the employers so that the employees will not be exploited unfairly. So that employers discrimination against employees they do not like or agree with can be stopped. Union representation needs to be increased to help protect the employees. Vital national companies such as the oil companies need to be nationalized in the interests of the greater good so that the grossly greedy rapacious profiteering they engage in can be stopped.

How about the vital interest of agriculture? Shouldn't we nationalize that too? In the public interest, should you be told what to grow, who to sell to and for what price?

How about the vital interest of free speech? Should all media companies be nationalized? Should we rely on our government to ensure that all voices are heard, even if they threaten government interests?

If you think that a nationalized oil company will provide better service or lower prices to consumers, you are wildly deluded. Here's the situation we have right now: anyone who wants to buy gasoline, can, at any time that he or she wants. Prices are higher than ever, but still low compared to other countries; and low compared to what you get in exchange. Pay three bucks, move yourself, family and cargo fifteen miles. Guess what? It's a pretty good deal. Of course, there's a down side: some people you don't really like make a lot of money.

To stop this, we'll move to a less efficient system. Rationing may have to be instituted. You may have to purchase a vehicle that doesn't meet your needs. There's a very good chance--sorry, no, there's a certainty-- that there will be fuel shortages, long lines, limits on how much you can buy.

If you want to turn an industry into one big, nasty cluster-fuck, put the Government in charge of it. Why? Because government employees don't have to satisfy consumers. Private companies do.

Government is NOT GOOD at looking ahead and predicting future trends. Government is NOT GOOD at giving people things they want. Government employees are good at keeping their heads down, avoiding risk, and waiting for retirement. Government leaders are good at popular, short-term "solutions" designed to win votes and nothing else.

One of the reasons we need to control the government to control corporate america and ensure a fair and level playing field for all citizens and employees.

I'll say it again: government regulations help established corporations, and punishes upstarts and innovators. Period. Every time.

Your idea of a "fair and level playing field" comes down to the idea that nobody loses. To do that, you want to ensure that nobody wins. Screw that. People who work hard and have the skills have the right to profit from them. Governments do the most to help that ideal by just getting out of the way.

[rahmota]

Oh by the gods you quoted Milton Friedman so I can see there is no further point in this discusion. Friedman is an enemy of humanity and an apologizta for the greedy fatcat scumbag trash that would sell their own mother's kidneys just to make a buck. Friedman should be taken out and horsewhipped with the other trash.

Corporations are less trustworthy than government. Although our government is set up (right now especially) to protect and preserve the status quo of the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor who are getting shafted.

Your statement about job skills is dead flat wrong as there are many instances of highly trained and skilled workers who are thrown out of work when their company shuts down who are lucky if they can get a job at mcdonalds. Read the newspaper. Not because they do not have the skills but because the jobs are leaving this country and not coming back. Companies are being permitted to replace american workers that have to have a decent living wage with sweatshop workers comapnies can get away with paying cents on the dollar and no benefits to or illegal aliens they can exploit with no fear of the employees turning on them.

This country is messed up beyond all sense and sensibility right now. The American empire will collapse from the weight of the growing underclass poor and the exploitation of them by the rich. Its happened to every other empire and will happen to this one too. It'll take a major event before socity improves beyond the unfair and exploitave system in place now.

[protege]

Your statement about job skills is dead flat wrong as there are many instances of highly trained and skilled workers who are thrown out of work when their company shuts down who are lucky if they can get a job at mcdonalds. Read the newspaper. Not because they do not have the skills but because the jobs are leaving this country and not coming back. Companies are being permitted to replace american workers that have to have a decent living wage with sweatshop workers comapnies can get away with paying cents on the dollar and no benefits to or illegal aliens they can exploit with no fear of the employees turning on them.

Not all of that is the government...or even a company's fault. Quite a bit of that is because of the habits of American consumers. People constantly demand lower prices on everything....be it cars, nails, or food. As such, it's in a company's best interest to try to contain costs. If they don't, they'll eventually dig themselves into a hole.

Fifty years ago, Pittsburgh had probably the most steel mills in the country. In fact, we also had some of the worst pollution in the country during WWII because of it. The skies were literally black 24 hours a day here until about 1946 when pollution controls were installed. Then, just about everything had some Pittsburgh steel in it. By the 1970s though, the end was coming. American steel had simply become too expensive, and had priced itself out of the market. Rather than deal with that, companies, including many American ones, turned to imported steel. What had happened, is that the mill's costs were out of control--wages were too high and the mills themselves were obsolete.

30 years later, there aren't many mills left here. All that's left are a few mini-mills...shadows of their former selves. What they aren't using got torn down and redeveloped...even the big mill in Homestead. What really sucks though, is that when the mills closed, it caused a ripple effect in the area.

How? Nearly every town had one of two things--either a coal mine, or a steel mill. Quite a few of the coal mines that supplied fuel to the mills closed as well. Western PA got hit hard when the mills closed--we lost several thousand jobs, and they'll *never* return...at least not on the grand scale :(

[DesignFox]

I'm coming in rather late, but for the record, as much as the employers claim that they can fire anybody at anytime for any reason...

They can't.

I've been a manager before. It is DAMN hard to get rid of crappy employees. And you basically CAN'T give a bad reference for somebody...you can get in major trouble for telling an inquirer that Sally Slack-Off is a bad employee. The best you can do to get that point across is say that "Yes, Sally Slack-Off used to work here. No, I cannot comment on her work performance at this time."

Also, it is expensive for companies to turn over and hire new employees. So, they keep their same old terrible employees...at least they know what to expect with/how to handle them. You have to make a serious infraction to get fired at any of the jobs I've worked at. It is too expensive to hire and train a new individual and have them turn out worse/not work out for some other reason/ be wonderful but need a higher wage rate. Jackasses don't cost anything. Talented people do.

Why can companies get away with this? Consumers don't want to pay more than they have to for those shiny toys sitting in their homes. As long as that exists, the companies will cut their costs. The most expensive thing in a company? It's PEOPLE. So, yes, companies cut down their labor costs wherever and however they can.

Many retail companies only hire part-time so they can avoid paying their employees health care benefits, vacation and sick time. They run their stores with the minimal amount of employees possible, and cut labor hours and costs at every turn.

All three major retail jobs I've held have done this at great expense to their employees and customer's sanity. But they continue to do so because those same customers refuse to pay the extra dollars required to afford all those employees and still make huge profits.

As long as people are cheap, the companies are going to cut costs. They exist to make money. Plain and simple. And they will do it however they can. The only way this will change is if people start paying more for their shit and going to places that only employ full-time, higher-waged employees...

On the same token, much as we consider places like Wal-Mart evil...that company HAS created jobs. If Wal-Mart went under tomorrow...over a million people would be out of work... I know plenty of people who work for Wal-Mart- and some of them LOVE their jobs and it allows them to LIVE.

Let's think about THAT.

-------------------

Also, in regards to the original topic, not allowing people to smoke is nothing...I have read that employers are searching up people's names on the internet, now. So you can basically be held accountable for what you post in your MySpace, blog, etc.

I don't think it's right...but private companies can and will do whatever the hell they please for as long as they continue to make money.

[rahmota]

I'll have to disagree with you about that. It isnt that hard to get rid of someone with At-Will employment. You just go up and fire them and hire someone else. At the dealership we had 20-30 applications come in during an average week. Usually right after the school year ended in the spring that would double.

I could pick and choose who to use if my crew didnt do their job. Fortunately my crew where all good workers so I didnt have to fire them. My counterpart at the new lot did have to fire a few people before one just because he got on her nerves. Yes that was the sole entire reason he got on people's nerves. So they fired him and had a replacement there by the end of the day. When they reduced payroll they fired me and hired in someone at a lower payrate by the end of the same day.

The reason a lot of people are cheap (especially in the lower social classes in the empire) is because their pockets are being stretched as thin as possible and they have to make their already miniscule budgets go as far as possible. The reaosn they are doing so is because wages for anyone outside the golden circle of upper management has had their buying power STAGNATE over the past few decades as their salaries have not been raised to keep up with inflation and costs of goods.

Why do the wageslaves slaries stgnate while many companies are posting higher profits than ever? Because the ceos and other greedy scum are not wanting to give up their lear jets and million dollar condos and other executive priviledges.

And yeah Walmart has created a lot of wageslave mcjobs. And to use your own words:only hire part-time so they can avoid paying their employees health care benefits, vacation and sick time. They run their stores with the minimal amount of employees possible, and cut labor hours and costs at every turn.

Protege: Yeah the loss of american industrial capacity is one of the greatest tragedies in the death of the Republic. The reason where very complex and varied and many and unfortunate. I'll agree that it would take some social reeducation and engineering to help stop the problems of capitalism but that is not an insurmountable problem. The problems caused by capitalism are not insurmountable ones either.

[Boozy]

On the same token, much as we consider places like Wal-Mart evil...that company HAS created jobs.

This is the attitude that has allowed Wal-Mart to expand so quickly into small towns. You could not be more incorrect.

Studies have indicated that for every Wal-Mart job "created", 1.5 jobs are lost. Wal-Mart employs 65-70 people for each $10 million in sales; small businesses (the ones Wal-Mart is driving out of business) employ 106.

Look at this logically. Wal-Mart doesn't make or create anything. It just sells crap that people already need to buy before Wal-Mart came around. And they employ less people to do it. They also pay these people significantly less than smaller, family-owned businesses, and pay less for health insurance. This caps spending power in Wal-Mart communities. Its a clever plan - impoverish a community to the point where the only places they can afford to shop is at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart and the rise of discount department stores have been responsible in no small part for the massive trade deficit with China. The United States has stopped manufacturing many of their own consumer goods. The US is now owned in large part by the Chinese, and if they ever call in that debt, the US economy will collapse into depression.

Wal-mart is not a good thing.

[DesignFox]

Well, I guess I didn't mean to say that Wal-mart is a good thing...Just try to imagine what would happen if they were suddenly pulled out of the places they came into...lots of people currently employed, would lose their jobs. Whether enough other businesses would spring up into the area to replace them, who knows? Would some of these people, who have limited skills be employed anywhere else?

I would be interested to read your sources for your statistics Boozy. (I mean that sincerely, not as a bash)

Rahmota- I wish I had worked for a company that would let me tell my employees to pack their shit and leave. I had some horrible employees at my one job, and try as I might, I couldn't get my store manager to fire them...or even just hire and train new people and gradually give the slack-jaws less hours. It took one employee numerous infractions and only finally got fired after a serious case of insubordination. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's just the retail environment around here, but most places don't get away with the sort of thing you described. You need to build a case-file on someone to actually, finally, fire them.

I also agree that if the CEOs and upper managers took even a small pay-cut, many employees could live more comfortably. Even middle-management positions are becoming rare and underpaid...so I've noticed as I've tried to work my way up the retail ladder. I genuinely like managing and working with people, so it's extremely frustrating trying to find a job that lets me pay my bills, but doesn't overwork me to the point of wanting to kill myself. But that's another rant entirely *sigh*

[rahmota]

DesignFox: I am not sure where Boozy got Boozy's numbers but I have seen similar numbers from other sources.

The following websites are good places to go for information about the evil that is wally world.

http://walmartwatch.com Ran by the Center for Community and Corporate Ethics

http://goodjobsfirst.org Good jobs first calling for sustainable fair wage jobs and an end to the sprawling suburban malls and such.

http://geocities.com/frentenacionalac About Wal-Mart's abuses in Mexico

http://asdawatch.com Walmart's stores in Britain. they go by the name Asda apparently.

http://wal-martlitigation.com An attempt by a law firm to gather all the data on all the lawsuits against walmart. Basically by lawyers for lawyers.

http://wakeupwalmart.com This one is backed by the unions and so many people will call it biased but they still do have some good information there.

http://retailerworker.com (http://www.retailworker.com/node) This one is by retail workers for retailworkers. Retail Worker is a project of the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. But doesnt seem to have many biases.

Oddly enough Walmart's own corporate website is a good place to find information on what they are up to. Sometiems they let somethign slip that just doesnt sound right and needs further research.

http://walmartfacts.comAlso they run their own propaganda site (needless to say its a bit biased in the company direction.)

http://dol.govAlso the United States Department of Labor and Statistics is a good place to get numbers.

Hope these help.

[rahmota]

Designfox: Ok now on to the other things you said.

I dont know if its a regional thing or not but the employers around Ohio/Northern kentucky definately use the at-will employment agreement and can and do fire a person. Somestiems they will give a reason sometimes its just you're fired clear out. And they wonder why people have no loyalty to the company.

Part of it may be the above average unemployment we have in the region. People are cheap and if they dont like you there are a dozen they can have in before the end of the week. yeah it may take a bit of trial and error to find the wheat in all the chaff but they have the time and power to do it.

And you are right if the ceos and upper management would back off on being such greedy bstrds then they could afford to actually staff properly and pay a decent pay rate. But no thye have to have their second mercades or their third condo and mansion. Bah feh. They will all be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Rapscallion]

http://asdawatch.com Walmart's stores in Britain. they go by the name Asda apparently.


Asda was a British supermarket for years, and then Wal-Mart bought them. That's the reason for the name.

I think it speaks volumes that they didn't change the name.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Raps: Ahh that explains a lot actually. Thank you for the info on that. I hadn't looked as closely at their actions in britain. Are they (ASDA) regarded the same/similar over there as the wallyworlds over here?

[Rapscallion]

Not yet, but give it time. They're gradually being tarnished by association.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Sorry I didnt say this earler Raps, but Lovely. It just seems like Wal-Mart tries to go for the least common denominator sometimes.

But on a different subject. I was informed of an interesting subject from a job a friend recently got. He brought over his employee packet to show me some interesting stuff

In the list of things that can get you not hired or fired, aside fm the usual stuff involving crimes, drugs, violence, etc, is a history of Sodomy and lewd acts. Not being convicted of it or doing so in public but doing so at all. Sounds like an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals to me.

What business is it whom an employee sleeps or does other thigns with?

But considering how also in his employee handbook is terrorist actions, terrorist comments and supporting or otherwise being involved in terrorist groups.

That paragrpah actually scares me slightly. How does the company define those terms? What exactly is a terrorist group? Alqueda, the PTL, Democratic National committee? Eh? What is goign on with that?

[AFPheonix]

What state are you in? It may be illegal for that company to discriminate against its employees with that sodomy thing.

[rahmota]

Well that might be problematic. Not that I am wanting to start anything with this company as my friend needs the job but he and I are in Ohio, the company is HQ in Pennsylvania and a national company and the job itself is in Kentucky. So its a bit thorny as to which states' laws would apply to that or if it might even be a federal situation.

But yeah I wonder if anyone else notices that in their handbook when they get hired in and how often the company gets away with that excuse. It might just be in the greater cincy offices as cincinnati for the longest of time legalized discrimination against homosexuals.