Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

A private company can do all of that. The Boyscouts are a private organization, and the supreme court says they can descriminate against gay kids.



Not if the rules of the company say otherwise.

I'm not trying to defend the decisions of this particular company, or of any company which chooses such invasive restrictions to employment. I think organizations benefit themselves by respecting personal freedoms as much as they respect their own private rights.

But I am defending the right to privatization by companies and organizations. As I said before, I'm not a laywer, so I could be wrong about the laws regarding rights of private entities, but I'm pretty sure that private is private.

Wrong, Rosborne. No employer (private, public or in between) has the right to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The only exception would be if the job is such that your gender or your age would prevent you from performing your duties in an adequate manner. That's Federal law. The moment you have a certain number of employees (I think it's five[5]), you come under that law, regardless of how "private" your firm is. The Boy Scouts of America is an entirely different matter. Scoutmasters are all volunteers, not paid employees.

Really? I didn't know that. So being an employer puts you in a different status from a private club like the boy scouts? And the rationale for this has something to do with boy scout counselors being volunteer?

I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two institutions which drives this distinction. Why would the Boy Scouts, or any other institution be allowed to discriminate, but a private employer wouldn't?

The difference has to do with "rights". I have a "right" to seek employment (generally firms advertise positions, even if only by word of mouth) and to be treated humanely by an employer (See Wage & Hour).

I do not have a right to join every "club" that comes along. I may not like the "Boy" Scouts or the Ku klux Clan, but they have a right to exist and may exclude me from their membership purely because I am female if they wish.

Membership vs. Employment are two totally different things. The employer does not have to provide health benefits and firing people because they refuse to submit to tests for what they MAY have done on non company time is unconstitutional. IF I gain 10 pounds and that puts labels me obese, and I am a typist, does that effect my job performance, no, but if I am a police officer, there may be grounds consider me unfit for my duties. I'll bet most of us could be considered unhealthy by someone's standards. LOOK OUT AMERICA, if they get by with this...

But doesn't a private employer have the "right" to hire whoever they want, or to refuse whoever they want? I guess not, based on what you and Merry are telling me, but I wasn't aware of this.

I thought private companies had the same rights as private organizations and private clubs.



Why are membership and employment two different things? Does it actually say this in the constitution?

ros, the simple (and somewhat cynical) answer is "money." A person earning a salary or wage has rights which his employer cannot infringe. No one may deprive another of an opportunity to earn a livelihood. Membership in an organization which confers no financial benefits upon the member is nothing like employment, even if the club should be a club of gamblers and the prospective member [Iexpects[/I] to make money. duce is absolutely correct. There is a world of difference.

Ok, I understand your point, but let me play devils advocate for a moment to hopefully understand this better...



Are you saying that we all have a right to employment?

Or are you saying that we have a certain set of special rights as a result of employment?



I agree with that. But I'm not sure that's the same as depriving someone the opportunity of working for you (the organization) specifically. Unless of course, you are the *only* form of livelihood available.

Do people have the right to work for an organization, even if that organization doesn't want them there, for whatever reason? And if so, where is this right specified? Is it one of the articles of the constitution, or the bill or rights, or is it an implication of anti-discrimination restrictions applied to private organizations?

Thanks,

The only requirement for employment should be the applicants ability to perform the task(s) required. Be that the education, skill or manual dexterity etc. The employment process is to select the best qualified applicant.

Hi Duce,

In this case, I'm more curious about the law, and the fundamental arguments which guide it, rather than what "should be".

In particular, how do you reconsile the privacy rights of an organization with the privacy rights of an individual when they are in conflict.

Merry has stated that the law requires rights of employment over privacy rights of private companies, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is accurate, which is why I was asking for references in the constitution which specify such rights.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so Merry could be completely correct. I just don't know. Merry how certain are you of the legalities in question here?

Use a Search Engine (Google is Good) and type in employment law. You will get over 32,000 sites for reference points and books you can purchase on the subject.

If you are more locally interested, each local statutes as well regarding what types of businesses it licenses and what fees are check out the State of ______ Code and search for "employment". It's not just the FEDS.

PS If you feel you have been a victim of such action contact the ACLU. (Surely you have heard of them).

I'm quite positive, Ros. I am not saying that a person has a constitutional right of employment. What I am saying is that no employer has the right to discriminate against a prospective employee on any basis save that of ability. Now, the matter of 'ability' is necessarily a subjective judgement. So a biased employer may well decide that a specific job applicant is not desirable because of his/her race. religion, gender etc. etc. But he had better keep these thoughts to himself. He is under no obligation to hire anyone he deems unsuitable. He is not required to explain the reason behind not hiring someone. But if he consistently turns down qualified applicants, all of whom just happen to also be, let's say, Jewish, his little company will eventually come under the scrutiny of the US Labor Dept. It matters not one whit that his company is not publicly owned. If it is a business enterprise, it is doing business with the public and is subject to all the laws that regulate business enterprises.

Right to privacy does not enter into this. As I said, he doesn't have to reveal his reasons for not hiring someone. But a business does not have the same right to privacy as an individual does anyway, at least not where the government is concerned. A privately owned business doesn't have to make its P&L statements available for general inspection by the public, for example, but it sure does have to make them available to the IRS or any other investigative government agency.

Hi Merry, I'll have to take your word for it. The law is interesting, but it's very complex, and probably more so that I have time to research.

I do find the question of privace ussues interesting though. I'm not sure where I fall on the issue of whether a company should be required to expand its hiring beyond its own desires. In general, I'm a big believer in privacy, and I hate to see those rights restricted, even in a company.

And that great American Ronald Reagan made it patriotic to smoke!!

Pine-Thomas Paramount Productions would have fired his ass if he DIDN'T smoke in his workplace!!

Damn! I'm getting old. I can well remember when most large companies thoughtfully provided ashtrays on every desk for their workers. The non-smokers were relatively few and never dreamed of objecting to the "harmless" habit of their mates. Not only film stars like Ronald Reagan, but famous athletes like Ted Williams, hawked Chesterfields. I'm getting nostalgic now for TV programs that were sponsored by tobacco companies, e.g. Your Hit Parade where the week's top ten pop songs were given what later became known as the MTV treatment.

Must have been a real blast to work in the nuclear power business in the early days.


"Radiation? I swear it makes me as regular as clockwork! Take a barrel of this waste home and add it to your family's meals - if it was unsafe they'd ban it wouldn't they?"