Say Anything Blog

Rob asks, “You’re excluding racial (or gender, in most instances) discrimination from that, right?”

No I’m not.

Andrew says, “I don’t think discrimination should be illegal (unless the employer is the government). However, I do find it wrong morally and ethically, but that is just my personal opinion and doesn’t pertain to this subject.”

My thoughts exactly Andrew.

I think you’d agree that affirmitive action is bad, wouldn’t you?

Of course.  And I’ll never stop sounding the alarm of it’s wrongness.  At the same time, if a private company wants to impliment this hideous policy I’ll support it’s right to do so.

I agree that firing based on smoking and weight is wrong, and even hiring based on weight is pretty discrimatory.  His idea of providing bonuses and other incentives for improving one’s health is very good, though.  He’ll probably actually end up saving and making more money in the long run.

Andrew says, “I agree that firing based on smoking and weight is wrong, and even hiring based on weight is pretty discrimatory.”

Correction: it is discriminatory.  But is it wrong?  And why?  Shouldn’t people be able to hire who they want, based on any criteria they want?  It’s their money, isn’t it?

“If you don’t want to take the test, you can leave,� Weyers told Reuters. “I’m not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here.�

The job that Weyers offers isn’t anybody’s right to have (at least it shouldn’t be), so what’s the problem?  It’s his money and he should have a right to spend it as he sees fit.

Shouldn’t people be able to hire who they want, based on any criteria they want?

You’re excluding racial (or gender, in most instances) discrimination from that, right?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’d agree with all that likwidshoe.  I don’t think discrimination should be illegal (unless the employer is the government).  However, I do find it wrong morally and ethically, but that is just my personal opinion and doesn’t pertain to this subject.  But there’s one problem with all of this; discrimination will never be legal in this country.  What’s worse is that discrimination frequently comes back to bite us all in the ass and causes more problems in the long run.  I think you’d agree that affirmitive action is bad, wouldn’t you?  Could you imagine the government enforcing weight quotas to ensure that fat people had “equal” opportunities?  It all works like a pendulum; we swing it one way and its going to come back and go the other way.

That’s interesting, likwid.  As you know I’m firmly against affirmative action...but I certainly don’t think employers should be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based only on their skin color.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob says, “...but I certainly don’t think employers should be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based only on their skin color.”

And I say: their money, their right (however wrong and disgusting it may be).  It’s all about freedom and rights.

Likwidshoe -
There is no universal extension of freedom and rights - they will come into conflict, and we have to adjudicate between which right is more important.

For example, we each have a right to freedom of movement - however, I would not go as far to suggest that my right in this regard permits to deliberately walk into you, because that would clearly violate your right not to be threatened with, or be the recipient of, physical force.

Now you are undoubtedly correct when you suggest that there is a right for employers to hire people according to criteria they wish to select. However, that is simply not a conclusive argument for letting employers do what they wish. Just as my right to freedom of movement has to be curtailed in certain specific circumstances, so, equally, must this right of employers be curtailed, because it will inevitably come into conflict with other rights, particularly (in the case we are discussing here) that of prospective employees to be treated equally and fairly.

I would argue that the latter right is far more important, certainly in the instance of skin colour. This is for two good reasons. 

A) Skin colour cannot be altered by the prospective employee (unlike deciding to wear make-up, which is a case we have discussed here previously), and

B) Skin colour has no bearing on the ability of the person to do the job they are applying for.

You clearly think that the (absolute) rights of the employer (to employ on the basis of race) are more important than the right to free and equal treatment, and you would be entitled to this view.

I would counter, however, by pointing out that rights, in essence, provide the tools for administering society. They are not abstract entities. Thus if, by according one right a higher priority over another, we find ourselves confronted with unpleasant consequences (namely, employers legitimately turning people away simply because they are of a different race), we should perhaps rethink which right is actually more important.

Mark says, “Thus if, by according one right a higher priority over another, we find ourselves confronted with unpleasant consequences (namely, employers legitimately turning people away simply because they are of a different race), we should perhaps rethink which right is actually more important.”

I’m thinking about which right is more important.  I do know one thing though - you have no right to demand that someone hire you.  So this really isn’t a case of “which right is more important” because the right to get and/or be employed for the job in question doesn’t exist.

The owner said it best, “they have a choice whether they want to work here”.  His money, his rules.

’I’m thinking about which right is more important. I do know one thing though - you have no right to demand that someone hire you.’

Well, absolutely. I can agree with this, simply because at no point have I argued for such a right.

I think, perhaps, you have skewed my position somewhat. Either that, or you are raising a separate (and dare I say, rather obvious) point.

Read my post again - I was merely positing the existence of a right to free and equal treatment - which is something else entirely from ‘a right to demand that someone hire you’. 

No such right exists, nor did I argue for its existence.

Mark says, “Read my post again - I was merely positing the existence of a right to free and equal treatment - which is something else entirely from ‘a right to demand that someone hire you’.”

Demanding (as in: demanding because it’s a right) “free and equal treatment” is a back-door claim of a right to a job.  For example; saying, “I’m the most qualified, so I should be hired, regardless of color, height, weight, smoke status, etc.” is a claim to a right to a job.  Imagine saying “no” to someone who had just said that.  The next thing said would be, “but it’s my right.” A right to demand that someone hire you.

If we’re talking about governmental jobs or service sector jobs that take government money, then I’m all on board with the “free and equal treatment” clause; but private citizens on private property?  No.  That job isn’t anybody’s right.

You clearly think that the (absolute) rights of the employer (to employ on the basis of race) are more important than the right to free and equal treatment, and you would be entitled to this view.

Absolutely.

I would counter, however, by pointing out that rights, in essence, provide the tools for administering society. They are not abstract entities. Thus if, by according one right a higher priority over another, we find ourselves confronted with unpleasant consequences (namely, employers legitimately turning people away simply because they are of a different race), we should perhaps rethink which right is actually more important.

So you’re saying that we have to weigh “free and equal treatment” versus personal property rights.  Well,..you know what side I’m on.  I’m on the side of freedom, even in it’s ugly forms.  The bedrock of freedom is based upon personal property rights.

Likwidshoe -
I don’t think we can translate the ‘right to free and equal treatment’ into a ‘right to demand that someone hire you’ as easily as you suggest.

If we are going to perform this shift, I would suggest you qualify it, and phrase it differently - at the very least, ‘a right to demand that someone hire without regard for your skin colour’. Simply presenting it as ‘a right to demand that someone hire you’ is misleading.

As skin colour has no bearing on the ability of the prospective employee to do the job (and therefore has no detrimental consequences for the potential profit and resources of the employer), this is surely an extraordinarily minimal restriction of the property right you are arguing for, and to present it as more important than preventing racist discrimination strikes me as perverse. But hey, that’s just me.

One other thing; I have slight issue with this claim -

‘The bedrock of freedom is based upon personal property rights.’

Is it?

I would again suggest a rephrase - ‘The bedrock of the Lockean conception of freedom is based upon personal property rights.’

Argue for the superiority of this form of freedom over others, by all means. (I might even have some sympathy with you.) But please don’t claim it as the sole form of freedom, or the only way in which freedom can be understood. That’s just pig-headed.

Mark,

Good comments.  Well thought out and correct on the John Locke view of private property being the bedrock of personal freedom.

I do, however, disagree with you in that I believe this subject ultimately boils down to a claim of “a right to demand that someone hire you”.  But I can see by your arguments that you present a logical second opinion.  I’ll definitely give it more thought and flesh out my opinions.

Cheers.  *tips hat*

It’s interesting to me that EMPLOYEES should be perfectly free to do whatever they want - including smoking or engaging in other unhealthy activities.

But an INDIVIDUAL who is an EMPLOYER has no such freedom.  The EMPLOYER must surrender his FREEDOM to do whatever he wants.

Can someone please explain the rationale for this DISCRIMINATION??

Folks, I feel you are losing sight of what is happening here. This employer is making a decision base on health insurance. Ok, so is the employer saying the person can not smoke on there own time or is it the insurance company saying we will lower your cost if the person does not smoke?
The next thing I would like you all to think about is this, if this happens and it is not fought in a court of law for this person to be able to do as they wish off company time then standby. As insurance companies will then dictate to all employers as to what there employees can and can not do. Oh I am sorry did you just eat that Big Mac, well that is not healthy for you and could cause you be FAT, which is a health issue. Or, oh did you have a beer on the weekend with some friends, oh well you might have a drinking problem and that is a health issue. Or, better yet did you have sex on the weekend and you did not use protection now that is a health issue as well. “I am sorry but the health company states you can not do that or they will raise my insurance cost so sorry you have to go.
People whether it is right or wrong it is OUR time not the bosses, if I want to have a Cig, Beer, Sex, it is my time not there’s. If they want to pay me 24 hours a day then find they then have the right to say what I can and can not to until then get out of my face. If you let an employer subject you to a piss test for anything other then drugs you are opening yourself up to all kinds of problems. What’s to stop them from checking for other problems that might be hidden and when found out could cost the insurance company money, what is to stop them NOTHING. The other thing is if you do lose your job for not subjecting yourself to the piss test, then what is stopping the insurance companies from putting your name into a database so the next job you go for and that insurance companies rejects your request for insurance base on the past employer.

I think you all need to look at the whole picture here. If one gets away with it then everyone will jump on the ban wagon.
Then some people are fine with being controlled I for one am not.

THINK!!!!!!!

I don’t believe employers should be allowed to fire someone for smoking on their own time any more than I believe the government should force businesses to become non-smoking due to so called health concerns. I don’t care how politically correct it is. Any time a business or the government tries to force their views on anyone it is wrong and must be stopped.

Richard says, “Oh I am sorry did you just eat that Big Mac, well that is not healthy for you and could cause you be FAT, which is a health issue. Or, oh did you have a beer on the weekend with some friends, oh well you might have a drinking problem and that is a health issue. Or, better yet did you have sex on the weekend and you did not use protection now that is a health issue as well.”

Good points.  But is it wrong?  You’re paying for insurance, and part of that insurance plan includes risk assessment.  Expensive life insurance policies already do this, why not health?  Why shouldn’t a fat ass Big Mac addict be charged more for health insurance?  Stands to reason.

People whether it is right or wrong it is OUR time not the bosses, if I want to have a Cig, Beer, Sex, it is my time not there’s.

If you think this way then don’t work at places that tell you not to smoke as a condition of employment.  If you don’t like that contract - don’t sign.

If they want to pay me 24 hours a day then find they then have the right to say what I can and can not to until then get out of my face.

In a way, they are paying you 24 hours a day.  Health insurance doesn’t stop when one leaves the workplace.  Health insurance is full time.  24 hours.

I think you all need to look at the whole picture here. If one gets away with it then everyone will jump on the ban wagon.
Then some people are fine with being controlled I for one am not.

I think you’re jumping to conclusions.  There is a marketplace for health insurance for smokers and fatasses.  The market will fill the need.  I’m sure in America alone they’d make a bundle on just those two groups.

John Swanson said, “Any time a business or the government tries to force their views on anyone it is wrong and must be stopped.”

Non sequitur. Nobody has to work there.  Nobody is forcing their views on anyone.  It’s ultimately the choice of the employee on whether or not he wants to work there.