Michigan Votes Forum

I support this bill. A citizen has the right to engage in any legal activity they choose when not at work, including smoking. I expect my right wing friends who frequent this site agree, since they are such ardent defenders of a citizen's right to smoke, even in situations where smoking interferes with the rights of others to clean air.

 i wonder, jman, do you believe that your rights end when you punch that clock? do they start back up when you punch out?

why do you voluntarily give up your rights so easily? i don't believe that i give up any of my rights when i go to work. i believe in my duty to support myself and my family, and my obligation to do a good job at work, but i give up no rights, and i do not stop being a citizen on the job.

i also rely on no outside sources for me getting and keeping my job. no union keeps me employed if i do not do my job. on the other hand, i feel no fidelity to my job once i'm through doing it. i feel that my employer has no right, duty, or interest in controlling my life outside of my work. i give no control to my employer to do so, and i do not accept any attempt at controlling my life outside the job.

you support this bill in name only, as it is exactly the type of bill you would support based on your past posts. you only support it because you are trying to 'posture' as someone who believes in rights and freedom, while acting like someone who doesn't.

I support this legislation. 

 that is surprising, tb. as a socialist, you are supposed to be against individual rights and in favor of big government over the will and rights of the little people. perhaps there is hope for you yet.

 Now this is an interesting twist from the right and the left.  Everyone is in favor of this bill because it supports "individual" rights.  But it seems to me that you are all missing the individual rights of the employer.  After all, it is his capital at risk.  Shouldn't he have the right to hire and fire who he/she chooses?  Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in firing someone because they smoke while they bowl.  But, these type of laws create a slippery slope where once you tell the employer who he can fire and who he can't, he loses control of his business, and other potential employers refuse to risk their capital because of all of the intervention.  Then no one need worry about whether the employee should have been fired because the jobs were never created in the first place.  Government needs to stay out of business and this is a bad bill despite its good intentions.

 employers may certainly decide who will and who won't work for them, but employers have no right to dictate what a citizen does on a citizen's time.

This is one of the few pieces of legislation introduced this year that might make some sense.  What an employee does on their own time should not be an issue for an employer.  If they break a law, the law should take care of it, but if they have bad personal problems not affecting their work, it shouldn't be the employer's right to fire them.  If an employer sets up legal criteria for hiring people that someone can't meet, then they won't be hired in the first place.

This wouldn't apply just to smokers.  If I worked at Burger King but favored pizza, should my employer be allowed to fire me for being seen eating in a pizza joint?

At least it appears this law could possible make sense.

Good bill.  

What a person does during his or her time off is not an employer's business unless it can be shown the activity materially interferes with that person's on job performance.  Even then, it is the on-job performance that is properly at issue, and not off-job activities.   

 silence, the employer is not dictating what a citizen does on their own time, they are free to choose what they do.  The employer is free to decide if they want to keep someone employed.  You need to look past whether the employer is an ass because he fires people for reasons unrelated to their job performance.  The market will take care of him in the long run because the best people will refuse to work for him and he will eventually fail. 

" If I worked at Burger King but favored pizza, should my employer be allowed to fire me for being seen eating in a pizza joint?"

The employer should be able to fire you for whatever reason he wants.  Why would you want to work for an idiot? 

This is a good bill.

Employees are not chattels to their employers, nor should they be thus regarded.

 This is a bad bill.

Why are the employee's rights more important than the employer's?

changeagent:

Why are the employee's rights more important than the employer's?

The real question is, why do you regard employers' rights as more important than those of their employees?  

This bill merely puts employee and employer on level ground when it comes to off-work or off-duty activities.  The employee is not entitled to interfere with his employers' free time activities, and likewise should be protected from interference in his off-work activities by his employer.

This is a good bill that should be passed into law. 

I agree freespeaker, this is a good bill. It is a false dichotomy to pit employer's rights against employee rights. The employer is not paying the employee on his off hours, therefore should have no right to dictate legal off hour activities. The only rights violation would be the rights denied to the employee to live his life, within the confines of the law, as he sees fit, if the employer dictated behaviour off hours.

 As usual from the post I've seen from both of you, you either miss or choose to ignore the point.  The employer is not infringing on the right of the employee to do whatever it is they want to do, he is simply choosing whether he wants to employ them or not, for whatever reason.  The employ can continue the behavior if they choose to.  No one forces the employee to work for the employer, yet this law and the many others like it, force the employer to hire or keep people he does not want to employ.  I don't know if the two of you are too dense to understand this or just too emotionally attached to the perceived injustice of someone being fired for a stupid reason (I suspect the later).  Granted, in most cases I don't think employers should fire people for things they do outside the work place, but that really isn't the point.  You need to consider the long term and short term consequences of all these laws.  Business owners, those who create jobs by risking their capital should be able to hire and fire who they choose.  No one has a "right" to force an employer to hire them.  Are you ready to let employers force people to work for them?  Again I ask, why are the employee's rights more important than the employers?  They are both humans, should they not both have rights?

BTW, I wonder if you ever see a behavior that a person could do outside of work that would warrant an employer firing them?  Personally, I would fire someone if I found out they were a pedophile.  How about a wife beater, a murderer, a terrorist?

As usual, changeagent, you see every law as an infringement on your rights, rather than a protection of the rights of others. I do not presume you to be dense at all. That would be an excuse, not a reason for your opinion. You just have an acute case of tunnel vision. You might have the idea that an employer can discriminate against someone for any reason, and employees are at the mercy of employers because, as you say, they risk their capitol. But they have capitol to risk, and a market to risk it in, because of our government and our economic system, which is designed not only for the welfare of the employers, but also the welfare of the employees.

And BTW, I specifically stated an employee can do whatever they legally can off the job. The off job activities you describe are all illegal, and would warrant dismissal from a job under this bill.

 Favoring the rights of one person over the rights of another person erodes the rights of everyone.  First it's the pot smokers, then it's the tobacco smokers.  First it's the car dealers, then it's all businesses.  Then it's the jews and the homosexuals and the meat eaters and the gun owners and the free speakers.  Yes I have tunnel vision.  It's focused on the rights of all humans to live for their own sake, without being forced to live as others see fit, with each person's rights ending where the next person's begin.

changeagent:

 Favoring the rights of one person over the rights of another person erodes the rights of everyone.  

That, of course, is exactly the point of this bill.  

No employee has a right to dictate what (legal) personal activities his employer may engage in off the job.  Likewise, no employer has a right to dictate what (legal) personal activities his employee pursues on his personal time off the job.  Unfortunately, some employers attempt to dictate and restrict what (legal) activities their employees may engage in on their own time off the job, which makes legislation like this necessary.    

Yes I have tunnel vision.  It's focused on the rights of all humans to live for their own sake, without being forced to live as others see fit, with each person's rights ending where the next person's begin.

Then you should support this bill with great vigor, because it does exactly what you are advocating.

Employees are free individuals, not chattels or slaves owned by their employers.  Conditions of employment properly are job-related, and not related to what legal activities an employee pursues on his own time, off the employer's clock.  

 FreeSpeaker I'm beginning to wonder if you read my posts.  One more time.  The employer is not dictating what the employee can do, he is only choosing who he employs.  The employee is free to choose where he works.  The employer should be free to choose who he pays to work for him.  I've explained this in detail in my previous posts.

FreeSpeaker:

Employees are free individuals, not chattels or slaves owned by their employers.

Of course this is true.  Slaves have no choice whether to work for their keepers or not.  Employer/employee relationships are contracts in which each person should be able to enter freely.  This is becoming less and less the case because laws like this allow the employee to choose where he works but prevent the employer equal choice.  Ultimately this causes less and less people to be willing to risk their resources to start a business because the employer/employee contract is out of balance.  As this happens, only very large concerns are able to comply with all the regulations and we end up with not only fewer employers and fewer jobs, but also large corporations represented by lobbies influencing the laws in their favor and creating less competition.  Ultimately the people you are trying to protect are the ones hurt the most because employees have fewer and fewer choices as to where they can work.

Please, put your point of view to the side for a moment and think this through.

Changeagent, I have read your posts and having thoroughly thought through this issue, reach conclusions that evidently disagree with your interpretation of things.

In our society, employees are not chattels or slaves owned by their employers.  Employers have broad authority to govern employee behavior and activities as they go about their jobs.  As free individuals, what legal activities employees engage in during their off-the-job time is their business, and not their employers'.  

On-the-job performance is the employer's legitimate concern.  If on-the-job performance is substandard, the employer certainly is entitled to discipline or discharge his employee for that.  If on-the-job performance is up to job performance standards, then the employer has no legitimate beef against the employee.  "Job performance standards,"  of course, can be very broadly defined, which provides the employer tremendous leeway in dealing with employees.

This is a good bill that does not upset the equation of the legitimate employee-employer relationship.  It protects individual freedom and should become law.

FreeSpeaker:

In our society, employees are not chattels or slaves owned by their employers.

I've addressed this, now, if you would be so kind as to address my point below from and earlier post, I would appreciated it.  If not, I guess this isn't really a discussion.

The employer is not infringing on the right of the employee to do whatever it is they want to do, he is simply choosing whether he wants to employ them or not, for whatever reason.  The employ can continue the behavior if they choose to.  No one forces the employee to work for the employer, yet this law and the many others like it, force the employer to hire or keep people he does not want to employ.  

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Abraham Lincoln, in his first state of the Union address.

The point you seem to be missing changeagent, is that for an employer to consider what an employee does after work as a criteria for continuing his employment, or hiring him to begin with , is discrimination, which is illegal. This bill defines that form of employment discrimination.

changeagent:

The employer is not infringing on the right of the employee to do whatever it is they want to do, he is simply choosing whether he wants to employ them or not, for whatever reason.  The employ can continue the behavior if they choose to.  No one forces the employee to work for the employer, yet this law and the many others like it, force the employer to hire or keep people he does not want to employ.  

Changeagent, I have told you that I believe your interpretation of this issue is incorrect.  That is a conclusion I reached after due and careful consideration of your repeated arguments and the facts.

Your contention is that an employer has the right to force employees to give up their right to engage in legal activities as they please on their own time as a condition of employment.  In effect, you contend an employer has the right to say, “when you work for me I pay you for eight hours a day of work, but you are beholden to me and must live under my rules 24 hours a day.  None of your time or life is your own.” 

Henry Ford tried that experiment in 1914.  It worked for a while, but soon fell apart.  In the end, it helped give rise to unionization in the auto industry.

Ford’s experiment, and employer efforts to impose that kind of regime on employees is offensive and unacceptable in a free society like ours, where an employee is not a chattel or slave owned by his employer. 

This bill does not propose to force any employer to hire anyone he doesn’t want.  It simply sets a reasonable limit on employer rules that seek to control employees’ legal activities and behavior beyond the scope of the work day.  The scope of such control properly starts at the beginning of each work day and ends when the work day is over.

This is a good bill that should become law.

I do not expect to change your perception of this bill with my analysis.  Nor, has your analysis of it persuaded me to change my perception.  You have articulated your position; I have articulated mine.  So, what say you, in the interest of civility and each of us getting on with our own business, we quietly agree to disagree and refrain from further exchanges about this bill?  

 Yes, and here's a radical thought for you...discrimination should not be illegal.  It may be stupid, it may be unfair, but it should not be illegal.  There is no way to go through life without discriminating in some form or another.  I discriminate against ignorant or stupid people.  I discriminate against lazy people.  I discriminate against statists.  I would discriminate against you if you tried to work for me because I know the philosophical basis from which you operate.  In my business I discriminate against unproductive people.    If they cost more than they contribute, I try to get rid of them, even if I like them.  I have to, or the jobs of the other 50 people in the organization will be in jeopardy.  Now, if they happen to be fat, or female, or over 55, or have a skin color other than white, I have to risk being sued for "discrimination" even though I would never discriminate based on those criteria.  That fact puts the jobs of the other 50 productive people at risk.  That is one of the reasons businesses resist locating in Michigan and this bill is just another straw on the camel's back.

Re. the Lincoln quote, I could not agree more.  But remember, the business owners labor too.  Typically they labored a lot in order to accumulate the capital to start their own enterprise.  They hire employees who essentially lease their labor to the employer.  Each should be at liberty to end their contract when it no longer serves their needs.

Freespeaker, not being able to fire someone is the same as being forced to hire someone.  You are forced to give your money to someone you don't want to give your money to.  It is tantamount to robbery.

I'm happy to end the discussion but, this is a bad bill and it should be trashed. 

changeagent:

Yes, and here's a radical thought for you...discrimination should not be illegal. 

But it is, and for good reason. You confuse discrimination with preference. You can choose to hire a person because of his skills and intelligence, or not hire a person because they lack those skills and intelligence. That's a preference. Choosing to hire or not hire someone because of their skin color, or where they go to church, or what they do on their own time is discrimination. You obviously don't think discrimination should be illegal, but that's not the issue here.

You suggest an employer has the right to fire, or not hire, employees for any reason. Not only is that extremely arrogant, but not very wise either. You as an employer or prospective employer have limited your choices of employees based on nothing that has to do with their job skills. Employees, and those applying for employment, do have rights. If you are an employer, as I am, you should be aware of that fact.

The many employment discrimination laws on the books, going back to the civil rights act of 1964, are federal laws. Enforcing these laws has nothing to do with businesses locating in Michigan. The same laws apply throughtout the US.

gypsy:

You suggest an employer has the right to fire, or not hire, employees for any reason. Not only is that extremely arrogant, but not very wise either. You as an employer or prospective employer have limited your choices of employees based on nothing that has to do with their job skills. Employees, and those applying for employment, do have rights. If you are an employer, as I am, you should be aware of that fact.

 Exactly!  And because that is true, the market would take care of the problem.  Once an employer demonstrates foul characteristics such as racism, it will become difficult for him to find good employees because the better employees would not work for a fool (or would require much more compensation to do so).  Either way, that will make him less competitive and eventually he will fail.  Soon, even racists would not hire based on race because it would lead to failure of their business.  I thought I made this point earlier.

gypsy:

The many employment discrimination laws on the books, going back to the civil rights act of 1964, are federal laws. Enforcing these laws has nothing to do with businesses locating in Michigan.

True, but this is a Michigan law and Michigan is very over regulated, which, along with the tax rates, keeps businesses from locating here.  You can dispute that if you would like but I personally know several business owners who have built production facilities elsewhere because of this.

You're relying on the "market" to be moral. That is a fallacy. If you are religious, you know about rules set down by all religions, such as the 10 commandments. Why didn't Moses just let the people, aka the market, set their own rules. Like you are saying, I'm sure the murderer and thief would have still been punished, even without rules in stone. Apparently Moses didn't trust the market to function properly without guidelines. Acknowledging the current state of our economy, due in large part to letting the market police itself, I must agree with Moses. We need rules.

I agree, to a point, with your suggestion that businesses will go where they can find the least interference from government. But that certainly isn't the first consideration for where a business locates. First on my list is you locate where the market is. That helps explain why some businesses are leaving Michigan. With the steady decline in the auto industry, the market has dwindled in Michigan, and with it go the businesses that fed from that trough.

gypsy:

You're relying on the "market" to be moral. That is a fallacy.

Now there is a topic that could be debated at length.  You are relying on the government to be moral and history has shown that they never are.  Every government eventually abuses its power and the people pay the price.  If you look at the poorest countries in the world, it is not more government that they need but more economic freedom.  The question is really which is more moral, government or free markets?  The current state of economy is as much the result of government intervention in the market as it is the market cycle itself.  A free market will have natural ups and downs.  Government intervention makes them worse.

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments because humans are imperfect.  I am not an anarchist, I believe in the rule of law, just not so many of them!  Unfortunately, governments are composed of humans and their weaknesses become even more acute when supported by centralized power to coerce.  God also advised against the people having Kings because of the dangers of governments.

You make the case every unregulated free market supporter makes. That is, government is bad. You characterize the government as being seperate from the people, a force unto itself. That may be true in a monarchy, or dictatorship, but then only for as long as the people allow it. In a democracy, or more accurately a federal republic such as ours, we, the people, are the government. Governments don't abuse power, people do. That's why we have elections.

I am a supporter of free markets too, but not without regulation, for the same reason Moses gave the Jews the ten commandments. As you say, humans are imperfect, both in government, and in the free market. Elections take care of those imperfections in government, regulation takes care of them in the marketplace.

You have your opinion of why the economy is in it's present state, I have mine. I feel mine, (lack of regulation) has much more evidence to support it.That is also a debate we could have at length.

In an attempt to steer the discussion back to the bill in question, I feel this is a regulation needed to keep the authority of the employer in check, and allow employees their personal dignity, without any damage to the marketplace.