This is an interesting development.

I 'll be curious to see how the courts decide on a company's refusal to hire a homosexual person on the basis that they are engaged in an unhealthy lifestyle, or a young black male whose life expectancy is significantly lower than his peers…

Those evil businesses. I guess they hate children.

This is a small preview of what would happen under universal(govt) healthcare. If they pay the bills, they are going to want to control everything in your life that might impact your health: what you eat, how much sleep you get, your behavior…all of it. Welcome to totalitarianism! But it gets worse: A lot of what we now think of as unhealthy will later be determined as healthy, and vice versa. In other words, we will be controlled by polling data, not real scientific information. Look at what they do under the name of the still-unproved "global warming". Essentially, the cabal of the political class and the MSM will be in charge of our lives.

spartacus,

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between a "privately owned business" and a "publicly owned business" that requires the latter to hire anyone off the streets.

Bat One,

In a privately owned company (ex. Spartco widgets inc.), as Anna says, I get to lay down the rules. In a publicly owned company, such as the one I work for, and own some although not much stock in, who makes the final decision? It usually falls upon the shoulders of someone with a title beginning with the letter C, who is doing the bidding of accountants. He, she, it really could not care any less about my, or other shareholders opinions about a relatively trivial issue such as this one unless it were to come up for vote on a proxy ballot, except that mandates are currently in vogue within the upper management clique.

Don't get the idea I think smoking is a good idea. I've been a heavy smoker for years, tried repeatedly to quit only to start again and make up for time lost. I'm opposed to the intrusion into personal lives. No smoking or possesion of tobacco products on company property I have no problem with, I work for a company with exactly that philosophy, but when you tell me I can't smoke in my own house because I work for you, then I take issue.

When you get above a certain number of employees you start having to abide by Federal equal opportunity guidelines which tell you pretty much who you have to hire.

The problem is, like some have suggested, that once you start singling out people for their personal attributes and habits, you start infringing on people's freedom and rights and management in businesses will always find a way to eliminate things that management doesn't like. You won't see them not hiring people because they drive a car when smog kills many more people, causes more health issues every year, and puts every single person at risk when compared to smoking.

Health care at companies is part of employment packages and is something that an employee earns as they work there. It is not something that they are given.

As a nonsmoker, I abhor smoking. And few if any of us would question employers' prerogatives to regulate the conduct of employees while on duty and/or on employer premises, but this is entirely different.

Just who does Westgate Resorts president and CEO David Siegel think he is? Is Westgate Resorts in America?

As with government, once private employers are allowed to dictate any one aspect of one's private life, where does it stop?

As Alexander Hamilton wrote over 200 years ago, the power over a person's subsistence is a power over that person's will.

Following Siegel's and his company's apparent "reasoning," why not require employees and job applicants to submit to employer monitoring–don't laugh; the technology for this is already widely available!–of whatever they, even (indeed, especially) on their own time and off employer premises, read, watch, or listen to; who they associate with and what kinds of organizations they participate in; what Web sites they visit and what they send or receive online; and the like?

We can't have employees who dare to write or read online or other letters like this one or otherwise explore, much less spread, ideas about "controversial matters" that the employer might not like, such as notions about fairer tax policies and a stronger "social safety net," or–horror of horrors–about employees and job applicants actually having (gasp!) rights and about even daring to regulate business to stop privacy abuses, pay inequities, the destruction of health-care, pension, and other benefits, or the like, now, can we? Gotta protect that almighty bottom line and the freedom to select our employees and run our business as we see fit!

Such employers seem to have a pathological "need" to make sure that only the "right" types of people are hired, that employees have the "right" attitudes and, to use that now-favorite corporate buzz word, are a good "fit" (read: are sufficiently cowed and properly docile to accept existing abuses and any possible future ones the employer might decide to inflict).

In general, our activities outside of working hours and off employers' premises are none of an employer's business unless they pose an actual and substantial conflict of interest or otherwise materially and substantially impair one's ability to do one's job.

As National Workrights Institute legal director Jeremy Gruber has noted, employers that delve into our lives outside of work "are making decisions . . . wholly unrelated to the employment relationship. . . . It has huge consequences for freedom in this country, when people are afraid or are changing their behavior because of what a potential future employer might say or do."

Many people, especially in today's job-scarce economy, are now even hesitant to take part in *any* form of political activism–posting online, writing a letter to a newspaper, calling a radio talk show, taking part in a march or a rally–for fear that an employer might somehow frown on such actions. Today, the Internet and like means make it frighteningly easy for employers to snoop into our personal beliefs and activities.

This sleazy practice must be stopped through legislation like California's, which specifically forbids employers from dictating or attempting to dictate employees' political activity. Better yet, every state and Congress should adopt legislation, as a few states (including California, Colorado, and North Dakota) have, generally protecting the right of employees and job applicants to engage in any lawful off-hours, off-premises activities they choose without fear of employment discrimination.

It is not so much about that oh-so-sacred bottom line as it is about power and control.

It is time to reclaim your and our rights–before they are lost forever, before we are all forced to live at the mercy of out-of-control employers like Siegel in a global Stepford, a massive, high-tech "company town" that controls not only our work tasks but our other actions, our minds, and our souls "24/7."

As someone else asked, would Siegel and his company reject money if the investors who offered it were smokers? If he next decides not to hire or retain overweight people (apparently lawful in most states), will such a diktat apply to him as well?

I, for one, will do all I can to avoid purchasing his products and services, and I also will do all I lawfully can to make Siegel's arrogance and stupidity known to others–and urge others to take his actions into account when themselves deciding whose products and services to buy and use.

Do the same. Get at least 10 other folks you know to do likewise–and tell Siegel and his corporate fiefdom so.

Scott Enk
Wisconsin
(where state law generally bans employment discrimination on account of use or nonuse of lawful products during nonworking hours and off employer premises!)

Many people, especially in today's job-scarce economy…

Not true; our employment rate is over 95%. So much for "job scarcity".