My Photo
Location: California, United States

I am a neolibertarian minded individual who feels that freedom and individual rights take precedence over the wants of government. I believe government exists to serve the people and not to protect us from ourselves. I am an advocate for private firearms ownership, smaller government, reduced taxes and freedom to live your life however you choose, providing you do not directly hurt others.

Add to Google ReaderAdd to Bloglines
Add to FeedloungeAdd to Technorati
Add to netvibesAdd to My Yahoo
Add to My MSNAdd to Rojo
Add to NewsgatorAdd to My AOL
Subscribe to FeedAdd to Windows Live

Blogroll Me! Libertarian Party (National) Libertarian Party of CA Constitution Party

Declaration of Independence

The U.S. Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report

2004 US DOJ Report Affirming 2nd Amendment Secures Right of Individuals

The Community for Life, Liberty and Property

The Life, Liberty, Property Blogroll


Homespun Bloggers Blogroll


American Flag League Blogroll

Blogs For Borders Blogroll

Screw the UN

Blogs That Link Here

Blogwise - blog directory Bloguniverse - blog directory

Haloscan -Comment Tools

Support this site by ordering great liberty themed books, movies and more! If you can't find what you want, click on the "Powered by Amazon" link in the lower right corner of my store and I'll get a referral fee for your purchases. You can also click this link to go directly to and have your purchases support this site.

Clicking on an item in these menus will take you to an article with that same title.

Self Defense/Foiled Crimes

Illegal Immigration Issues

Firearms/Ban Related Issues

Privacy Related Issues

Open the menu below and select a month and year to view archived posts for that month.

If you enjoy reading, you really must get one of these. I carry mine with me all of the time and read at least 5 books per month on it.

A Feast For Crows
This latest installment of Gearge R. R. Martin's "A Song of Fire and Ice" series isn't quite as gripping as the previous books but is still a pretty good read.

Book 10 in the Sword of Truth series continues to keep the reader riveted while repeatedly emphasizing the duty and importance of self defense.

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
A follow up to Guns, Germs, and Steel that explains the geographic, environmental and socio-economic reasons that can cause civilizations and communities to collapse.

Mara Belly Dance Lessons Krav Maga Belly Dance
Return to p.i.e.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Revisiting Employer vs Employee Rights

Whenever I post an article proposing that employers should not be able tell employees how to live while they are out of the office, I invariably get a comment along the lines of:
"Employers should be able to offer employment on their own terms, and if the employees don't like it they can quit."

My recent post "2 Women Fired for Having Nicotine in Blood", was no exception to this rule. In the post I complained about Weyco terminating employees who smoked while "off the clock", and how they enforced this rule via mandatory blood tests. Fellow LLP member, The Unrepentant Individual, disagreed with me in his post. Here’s a quote:

How about, why don’t you let the owner of Weyco decide who he does and does not want to employ, based upon the criteria he determines. This isn’t government here, nobody is forcing these employees to work for Weyco. He has in no way infringed upon their “rights”, because the only right here is the right of contract.
If we take this logic to the farthest extreme, the so called “right of contract” would trump basic human rights. What if Weyco decided to fire all employees who have not been surgically sterilized in order to make sure that childcare issues never impacted productivity? What if all staff were required to vote only for political candidates that favored Weyco’s industry? How about requiring them to maintain a small shrine to a certain god both in their work area and in their homes? If the "right of contract" is all that matters, such abominations would be considered acceptable.

If these examples are too extreme, consider the inverse of the smoking issue: If it's ok for the employer to forbid nicotine in the employees' blood, wouldn't that imply that it's also ok for Weyco to require that the employees always have nicotine in their blood? Most people are non-smokers, and thus probably find it easy to side with anyone who forbids smoking. What if the tables were turned? Would people still side with the employer if he fired non-smokers instead and only kept the smokers?

I believe employers pay employees for the successful completion of units of work, whatever that work may be. As long as staff correctly produce the required units of work and do not otherwise disrupt business, they should be left alone. I don’t mind if an employer bans smoking in the office, or if they fire individual smokers because their frequent smoke breaks make them unproductive. I do, however, object if the employer fires people just because they have a legal and non-impairing substance in their blood.

If we take any isolated case and let the employer do as they please, the employees can indeed vote with their feet. If enough employees quit, the employer will go out of business. This system won’t work, however, if all employers offer equally miserable terms and workers have nowhere else to go (look at the beginnings of the industrial age). Just because an employee agrees to be exploited doesn’t make it right to exploit the employee. If that were the case, it would be ok for pedophiles to engage in sex with children as long as the victims don’t know enough to object. While I object to minimum wage laws and don’t like undue restrictions on employers, I do draw the line at letting employers intrude upon the personal lives of employees.

Labels: ,


<< Home