Should work be able to dictate your life?

steveinaz

CHANGE: The "NO" answer excludes illegal drug testing. Sorry should have included that disclaimer.

I saw a segment on 60 minutes last night that infuriated me. It had to do with corporations dictating to people what they can and can't do---healthwise; on and OFF duty. Some required their employees to work out, lose weight, stop drinking etc; all monitored by the company to ensure compliance. Funny though, they don't care about sleep problems, stress, or any other work-related issues (surprised?).

Why? Healthcare costs. Sound familiar? The almighty dollar is turning this country into **** Germany.

What's next? you got it, just as I stated (and was laughed at) a fews months ago----DNA testing. Now, imagine for a moment, even if you are perfectly healthy, your "genetic" background shows some heart disease, diabetes, mental issues, etc, etc; you can be denied a job OR fired from your job. Isn't so funny any more huh? Companies want "genetically" risk-free employees, they're cheaper don't you know....

The scariest part....it's legal. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it, even changes to policy that occur after you came on board. Lovely.

Another noteworthy tidbit; companies have not been able to demonstrate statistically ANY increase in health care costs related to smoking employees. Should those employees get refunded the higher rates they pay?

Here's a few other examles highlighted on the segment:

- Guy fired for a political sticker on his car
- Guy fired for drinking a "Coors" beer off duty---he worked for Anheiser Busch (yes, he won that one in court)
- Guy fired for having an NRA sticker on his vehicle

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?

ohskigod

yeah, I actually heard about this a little while ago. WHile I see the logic to a small degree, it just imposes way too much on one's life. It's Naziish (if that's a word), but odd in that it's not government imposed, its private sector imposed. it comes down to if they have the legal right to do it. apparently no one has challenged it yet, have they?

steveinaz

I'm sure court challenges are coming as this gets to be more common place with big business. So far the courts are NOT looking at these complaints as being under the envelope of "discrimination" though.

dkg999

I am the lone "yes" vote at this point, however please hear me out prior to flaming me!!!!!!!!

I think for certain occupations, ie pilots, commercial drivers, law enforcement officers, etc. that some restrictions on life style are appropriate and necessary to protect the public. I want the pilot of the plane I am on to be taking care of his health. I want my police officers not addicted to gambling and under the financial control of someone.

Other than that, I have to say that there would have to be justified impacts to a business from an employee having a certain lifestyle. I am OK with higher health insurance costs for smokers. They as a group exhibit higher medical costs. The reasons companies haven't seen the statistics is because insurance and medical companies have just started implementing the metrics to track this data. Companies will see the impact. I am also OK with the contractual provisions against dangerous hobbies in senior level management employment agreements. You don't want your highly paid CEO flying experimental aircraft or sky-diving (for example, not a judgement of those pastimes!). For normal employees, I don't think this is appropriate. What I do from 6 pm to 6 am is my business, as long as it is not illegal and I am able to meet or exceed the expectations of my employer. I also feel that an employees vehicle setting in an employers parking lot in view of clients would not be a rolling billboard for their personal agenda.

I do think the consumer privacy initiatives at the state and national level will prevent this from becoming widespread.

lomic

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?

I don't believe it does.

IANAL, however I am fairly sure the Constitution must only be followed by the government. Once you set foot on private property, only civil and criminal laws apply to what you and your employer can and can't do, plus whatever you agreed to when joining the company in terms of behavior, dress code etc.

bobman1235

I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, I would think that if a company imposes these sorts of restrictions, people would quit. Once they lose enough quality employees, they would either lift the restriction or be stuck with **** employees. On the other hand, I could see it getting out of control, where EVERY good job had these restrictions, and then you could quit but wehre do you go?

Basically, where it's a private company saying what they do and don't want their employees doing I'm unsure of how I feel. But I'm leaning toward it being bull. I mean, I'm against the company DOING it, but as for their RIGHT to do it I'm unsure.

But I have to say, there's way too much control being wielded in the name of health insurance costs. Whatever happened to subjective judgement in this country? Everything's turning black or white. Everything's leaning towards a "zero tolerance" policy. I mean, if I do this or that, but it doesn't affect my work, it shoudln't matter. I could snort the crack rock every night when I go home, but if I come in every day on time and am the best employee in the company, should I be fired?

It's a touchy subject.

Demiurge

I always err on the side of the free market. If companies want to be dumb, let them. They won't last long in this day in age. It always amazes me that the general public wants to dictate how businesses operate as if they can't go elsewhere for work.

steveinaz

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

Demiurge

I also want to add ALL companies are simply reacting to the surge in health care costs. This is not to defend some companies that are using truly sleazeball tactics, but there is definitely a legitimate problem throughout the business world.

It's gigantic, and I know I broke down the numbers for my company here at Club Polk for someone who asked once. It's a huge strain, especially on smaller businesses. You can chalk it all up to frivolous lawsuits. You can't blame the companies for making the logical reaction. Not every business owner is raking in money hand over fist like the common conception of business seems to be. Until the general public starts to realize that the multi-million dollar lawsuits they are awarded have to actually be paid by someone this will never change. Blame, once again, is pointed in the wrong direction.

bobman1235

steveinaz wrote:

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

I have a problem with it too. But the difference is, I'm u nsure on whether they have the RIGHT to do it. If my company ever tried, I'd immediately quit. IMMEDIATELY. So I'm not saying my company would be able to have a say in my private life, I'm just saying, I wouldn't sue them for it, I'd just walk out.

I mean touchy for me, as in I'm not sure how I stand.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

I always err on the side of the free market. If companies want to be dumb, let them. They won't last long in this day in age. It always amazes me that the general public wants to dictate how businesses operate as if they can't go elsewhere for work.

I try to do the same, but some things need governmental intervention. Your employer telling you how you will live is unconstitutional and unacceptable in my book. We had them in England, they were called "Kings."

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

Quit.

Business isn't government. You have an option.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

I try to do the same, but some things need governmental intervention. Your employer telling you how you will live is unconstitutional and unacceptable in my book. We had them in England, they were called "Kings."

Since I am under the impression your employer is the U.S. Government I'm not sure you've got the same viewpoint as me as a private employer. If you being fat, or relentlessly unhealthy affects our bottom line in a big way what incentive do I have to keep you? I think you've got to have a heart, but you can't be afraid to say enough is enough as a business owner either. I've helped out my share of employees with problems spanning the length of what is mentioned above. Being an alcoholic isn't something I need around here. Sure, they don't drink on the job, but it affects their job. One guy got help and he's still with us.

sucks2beme

steveinaz wrote:

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

Troube is, they all want that 16 hours of your time too! Thankfully, do to an
administrative screw up(least by my opinion) a couple of us ended up eligible
for ot again. That has slowed up the amount work I'm expected to do. I still work most weekends. One of my co-workers wasn't so lucky. They pegged him as SUPERVISORY(lead tech) and work him routinely 80 hours. He's been through three wives. They are supposed to put him back on ot eligible, but have been dragging their feet for eight months.
Everyone is supposed to be on call all the time. Fortunately, I no longer drink,
so this hasn't bothered me as much as other guys.
Welcome to the brave new world. Big bother is always watching.

reeltrouble1

Some things I read amaze me. The manipulation is nearly totally complete.

You are right Steve, anything is OK for a buck, it pretty much always has been since day one of our industrialization, well, really even before that, however, with so many technological and scientific advances the abuses come more quickly, are more subltle, done in the name of good yada yada yada, these rules, mores and laws are already present and taking a bit of you and me each day.

Its mostly the USA doing the abusing of people along with other European nations, at least for money, other cultures are abused in the name of Religion, but to be abused for money you have to care about money, which of course their are billions of folks on the planet who dont give a rats **** about insurance, stock markets and so on, well, they dont have any money either, so they are out of the pot so to speak, that leaves the rest of us suckers and seperating us from our cash is a very large priority now adays. Put whatever spin you want on it.

RT1

Demiurge

sucks2beme wrote:

Troube is, they all want that 16 hours of your time too! Thankfully, do to an
administrative screw up(least by my opinion) a couple of us ended up eligible
for ot again. That has slowed up the amount work I'm expected to do. I still work most weekends. One of my co-workers wasn't so lucky. They pegged him as SUPERVISORY(lead tech) and work him routinely 80 hours. He's been through three wives. They are supposed to put him back on ot eligible, but have been dragging their feet for eight months.
Everyone is supposed to be on call all the time. Fortunately, I no longer drink,
so this hasn't bothered me as much as other guys.
Welcome to the brave new world. Big bother is always watching.

What's sad is you guys don't worry at all about what you can control, and everything that you can't.

You can quit your job, and change your government. This is capitalism, not soicialism. The free market works every time it's tried. Affirmative Action, Governmental Regulation on business, Health & Business Insurance, and Taxes are all reasons for your woes, but I guess that's spin. Entitlement mentality seeping it's way into the businessworld now.

You've got a job because someone created one, not because you're entitled to it.

PhantomOG

depends on the job.

I've read some pretty amazingly stupid stories about people in unions and the waste is causes employers as well.

Demiurge

The poll question in and of itself is a bit misleading, BTW, because they're not dictating your life. You've got a choice, and are not bound by any law.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

Since I am under the impression your employer is the U.S. Government I'm not sure you've got the same viewpoint as me as a private employer. If you being fat, or relentlessly unhealthy affects our bottom line in a big way what incentive do I have to keep you? I think you've got to have a heart, but you can't be afraid to say enough is enough as a business owner either. I've helped out my share of employees with problems spanning the length of what is mentioned above. Being an alcoholic isn't something I need around here. Sure, they don't drink on the job, but it affects their job. One guy got help and he's still with us.

Yes, I'm Department of defense; and thankfully Uncle Sam is a damn good employer.

But you're speaking about habits that directly affect and/or are impacting an employees performance---to that end I agree. Employers have always had the ability (rightfully so) to fire these employees. I'm talking about your employer dictating to you what you can and can't do in your private life.

Believe what you want, but having a job is NOT a priviledge. You, as an employee are providing a service, in exchange for that service you are paid by an employer. People hire me because they like the way I perform that service; it saves them money, gets things done more efficiently, and accountability and audit trails are maintained. Personally I would leave a job that attempted any of this recent crap, but I'm in a position where I can afford to make those types of decisions, many people are not.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

depends on the job.

I've read some pretty amazingly stupid stories about people in unions and the waste is causes employers as well.

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

Yes, I'm Department of defense; and thankfully Uncle Sam is a damn good employer.

But you're speaking about habits that directly affect and/or are impacting an employees performance---to that end I agree. Employers have always had the ability (rightfully so) to fire these employees. I'm talking about your employer dictating to you what you can and can't do in your private life.

Believe what you want, but having a job is NOT a priviledge. You, as an employee are providing a service, in exchange for that service you are paid by an employer. People hire me because they like the way I perform that service; it saves them money, gets things done more efficiently, and accountability and audit trails are maintained. Personally I would leave a job that attempted any of this recent crap, but I'm in a position where I can afford to make those types of decisions, many people are not.

They I guess I am missing what the argument is? If you can get fired for being too fat where it affects your work isn't that in effect asking "Steve, would you please lay off the fast food 3 times a day?" This is just an example. I just don't see how them bluntly saying it is any different. You, as the employee, have the right to tell them to shove their job up their ****.

Like I have said, business is simply reacting to the high cost of running business these days. Why should employees care? They don't see it. They only see what the business owner does when he stops doing it. Unfortunately that's how so many see it, and in most cases they're wrong.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but you're simply seeing some of these ridiculous measures as a result of all the frivolous lawsuits. What at one point would have gone by unnoticed is now becoming an extreme example of survival of the fittest. Would you rather an employee encourage healthy behavior or just up and fire you? I don't know, I'd like a more expansive list of options myself.

Everyones situation is different, but generally speaking this all holds true. How many here run their own business? What's the size of the business? Often threads like this treat all business as some giant monster of financial success. Some are doing their best to get by, and trimming the fat is a necessity, not a way to save a quick unecessary buck like some will point out.

As far as jobs. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There's nothing in there about the right to a job at Rick's Paper Mill. They make more because they risk more.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

What? lol, Unions are the biggest joke going.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

sure, they may have done good things in the past, but that doesn't justify their existance now.

Anyways, I'm not totally against unions (don't really know much about them since I don't work in a field that has them). But the articles I've read about "job banks" in the automotive industry boggles my mind. The image of hundreds of people sitting in a room staring at the wall for 8 hours a day for years on end, being paid salaries by U.S. auto companies that no longer need them but can't fire them because of the unions is ridiculous.

Regardless, I just don't see how DNA testing possible employees would be cost effective. Hiring and keeping the best person for each job would make the most sense monetarily to me, regardless of their DNA/leisure activities.

steveinaz

Well, we could apply your stance and say to employers: "Hey look, you knew having your own business would be expensive....you don't like it, so quit."

Right? Does that work both ways?

Before everyone gets all over the map on this, I'm talking about employers telling you what you can and cannot do ON YOUR TIME. Things that are perfectly legal otherwise. This is an employer PUSHING his/her values onto another individual, plain & simple. We're not talking about the slobs at work that don't produce, I'm talking about every employee of a company, regardless of performance.

steveinaz

Who said you have a "right" to work?..I didn't.

I said work is not a priviledge. An employee is no different from a company CEO that bids on potential contracts---both are providing a service for a price, just at different levels.

Economics 101.

Demiurge

I've got a few stories about unions, but I'll leave it out of this discussion unless asked since I know there are lots of union members here...

Well, we could apply your stance and say to employers: "Hey look, you knew having your own business would be expensive....you don't like, so quit."

Right? Does that work both ways?

If the employer quits you don't have a job anyways. So I don't get that point.

Before everyone gets all over the map on this, I'm talking about employers telling you what you can and cannot do ON YOUR TIME. Things that are perfectly legal otherwise. This is an employer PUSHING his/her values onto another individual, plain & simple. We're not talking about the slobs at work that don't produce, I'm talking about every employee of a company, regardless of performance.

The way you preface it who would say yes? It's disengenuious because there's no way a business can push anything on you. You do not need to work for that employer. This is a simple answer.

If you're asking me if I think an employer should be able to fire you because your health has gotten so bad as a result of choices you have made, YES. They should be able to fire you. If someone gets sick from no fault of their own it would be immoral for a business to cut that person off. Most businesses have coverage for that type of circumstance.

The bottom line is that I think you should be able to fire someone for any reason, but I know that's not a popular viewpoint. The dirty secret is that you have to worry about being sued for firing people these days if they have a problem.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

Who said you have a "right" to work?..I didn't.

I said work is not a priviledge. An employee is no different from a company CEO that bids on potential contracts---both are providing a service for a price, just at different levels.

Economics 101.

Your job at ABC, Company is a priviledge. You've got no entitlement in any way shape or form to that job unless you have a contract.

If what I said isn't true why do contracts exist?

I'm surprised this is the same guy who was arguing about smokers rights, gun rights, and helmet laws. They're all the same thing. I'm at least being consistant, despite people disagreeing.

steveinaz

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

The way you preface it who would say yes? It's disengenuious because there's no way a business can push anything on you. You do not need to work for that employer. This is a simple answer.

You're right, provided you as an employee knew the rules UP FRONT. But when the employer decides to change "the policy" in your 22nd year with the company, seems a little unfair doesn't it? It's a little late for you to change jobs and maintain any kind of retirement plan.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

You're right, provided you as an employee knew the rules UP FRONT. But when the employer decides to change "the policy" in your 22nd year with the company, seems a little unfair doesn't it? It's a little late for you to change jobs and maintain any kind of retirement plan.

So, what has Uncle Sam said to you that brought all of this on?

steveinaz

I can't lie brother, (Sung in Joe Walsh's voice) "Uncle Sam's been good so faaaaarrrr..."

LOL!

I TRULY feel for people working in the private sector---it is SCARY. Company buy-outs, bankruptcy, people loosing retirement benefits over night...****, I'm staying with the gub'ment.