OT: No smoking in the land iof the free

I take it some posters, here, believe that in the interest of freedom, an employer should be free to ask anything and the prospective employee is free to walk away if he finds the question objectionable.... and that's that..... however, I don't think the issues of personal privacy, individual rights, and civil rights are that simple.

It just seems obvious to me that questions asked that don't directly relate to the description of the job sought by the applicant are for some *other* purpose.... and are as inappropriate in scope, detail, and intent as the governmental "nanny laws." And should get a big NOYB with clearly defined legislation to that effect.

However, it appears from some of the responses that this is a topic that is not likely to be subject to reasoned and civil debate and I think I'll just let it go with that.

Reply to
Gene Kearns
Loading thread data ...

I only have a problem with the word "collective". It's more of a cascade, like dominos. The "gummint" is the cascaded will of the people. Sometimes a domino knocks down two others. Sometimes, it falls silently.

Yours,

Doug Goncz Replikon Research Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Reply to
DGoncz

| >So much for getting the government off our backs. | | | And mabee I can go out in public without getting short of brath from | an extreme sensitivity to smoke.

What about the minority with allergies to products and stuff considered normal in our environment? Who should I complain to if I'm allergic to say.......leather? (I am actually, but I'm not lawyer shopping!) Folks managed for years living with all kinds of things that weren't good for them, and it wasn't until personal responsibility took a nosedive that lawyers started making money hand over fist about it. If the lawyers couldn't do it, then whining activists get their favorite judges or legislature to do their dirty work for them. If I live near a freeway who do I sue for the fumes I inhale every day, all day? Are you extremely allergic to engine exhaust? I bet we all are, as it seems to be a kind and gentle way of committing suicide!

Reply to
carl mciver

Honestly I'm flat-out amazed that when I talk about walmart, and how they were making their employees work mandatory, unpaid overtime, there was hardly a flap here.

In fact the most common response was, hey, don't like it, work someplace else.

It *is* illegal for walmart to force mandatory overtime, it *is* illegal for them to lock their cleaners in at night. Nobody seems to care.

But god forbid they should say no smoking - then you get a riot on your hands.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

It's different up here in the "great white North" We've got what they call the "charter of rights and freedoms". It's against the charter to ask your age, sex, marital status, sexual preferences, religious affiliation, nationality, etc etc when interviewing a job applicant.

It is illegal to discriminate on any of the above.

That's how we ended up with the supreme court of Canada pretty well forcing the government to pass a bill allowing gay marriages (or invoke the "notwithstanding clause" that no government wants to use.

Under the same charter, we WILL have a challenge on bigamy - there are religous groups who beleve plural marriages are their right. The charter will not allow us to forbit the practice if it is challenged.

Next thing, if that passes, you will have some splinter group decide marrying and having sex with 6 year olds is their religous right - and if their pockets are deep enough to challenge to the supreme court, you pretty well know where that will end up too.

Mabee some government will have the guts to invoke the not withstanding clause and put their foot down.

Not the present government. Only place Martin and his liberals can poot their feet right now is firmly in their mouths.

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

In hiring and employment, it's not much different here, really, although the laws are more complex, because they're divided between federal law and state laws, which vary somewhat.

In all 50 states, if you employ fifteen or more people, you can't discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, gender, pregnancy, national origin, religion, disability or age (if the person is older than 40). Age discrimination only applies to employers with 20 or more employees.

Most states have similar laws, often extending the minimum down to four employees. A growing percentage of states also prohibit hiring discrimination on the basis of marriage, sexual orientation or weight.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Åx??T]kÛ@|??â$ ¨v?RhBH

-ÍC)-?Ò?´Ò-?n?»?eÿûÎÙjÒ#?ïcvfvt?ÇQÓõ??>>?q±? ?K×ö0uqy§CRïÄså9-:¬OA?xêqÆt\x?⻿ûÖT«·W«W?\VËå]?Uå:SUUQÜÈm>}óZné??? ¾#ãâ~pºë??$Dò?¨kK´-,ÅOIs»??KVÇÎîA?å'`g¦H&0õ?G­@æmIk®Í?°uw??F6Òp?ù41{j¹á`\>?íac2é¸¤É XmLØQ?'kRõ\Øß"??Þ,i?ãÒÒNÇY/µ?\\ÁíÀ ¶å~KmüI:Bk$ÖAzñæ?Ù?õY­M?HÚR05 :öTÒ¸óÆ? çD½qG ¤?}u(F(cÖâ$í2/4?NÁ:?8DTËeÀ1gÐh?débùä??ÂñeS?kL³?d?)¢3anÂRO¼?Éödâ "ýØS£?Ïõ[Ã?tO]Ð)??ÜÁËÀ?¢qQaªZYK?[ðoéÇÝéM?"oG ÈE?M,#U|±%=PDÐ]sÐ:¨ø?Ø?ýù×b?÷Gr¨?×y[ó1cêÄM Õa?ofêh¡5û?@À uªM~ÅÐ?[P? Mq¸$ÖÈ?Û??º?9Tô1ÒJ}Prúþ?gÕ|­ä??ç ª®?ßG??SñÇr?q???Ïî«?_Hº£q

Reply to
Ed Huntress

No all the people want what they allways want, rules and government for everybody but ME. It's how there comes to be so many laws, there passed to controll that other guy. And since americans no longer can visulize themselves as ever being in business for themselves they can't immagine an employer has any rights. Says right there in the constiution These first 10 amendments were written to insure the rights of the people, unless they are engaged in some form of enterprize.

Reply to
Dan Buckman

Im always fascinated by the people to buy a house at the end of a runway near an existing airport..then try to shut it down because of the noise.

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

Reply to
Gunner

The TV show Survivor is being sued by two individuals in wheelchairs because the handicapped are not represented on that show.

Blink blink...

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

Reply to
Gunner

On 18 Feb 2005 14:15:50 -0800, jim rozen vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Which includes me. No matter how bad the gummint does what it does, or why, it is _supposed_ to watch out for lil ol me. The rest is _complete_ tooth and claw.

Reply to
OldNick

On 18 Feb 2005 18:38:41 -0800, jim rozen vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Well, I am sorry if I did not support you. You had a much more major point than mine.

I agree that there are other issues, some of them far more invasive.

This one struck me as the end of the line. I started it. So until I had my say there was no argument!

Sometimes I read the replies to other OPs and just give up.

Reply to
OldNick

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:11:20 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@sny.der.on.ca vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Is it? Smoking? Riding a bicycle? Bussing to work? Having children?

tell me that an employer cannot dump on you for smoking.....at home...

I reckon this giy Way is actually a N U T and has found a way(co) around the laws. But he did find it.

Reply to
OldNick

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:26:11 GMT, "Siggy" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You have hit the nail on the head. I agree with your logic, and it was the intent of my header.

Do you _agree_ with the actuality?

Reply to
OldNick

Y'know, this is a clear case of a frivolous lawsuit...

Point 1: Last season had a handicapper - The guy with the prosthetic leg.

Point 2: Y'ask me, saying "no wheelies" on Survivor is just plain common sense - Unless perhaps they *WANT* to be humiliated... Show me someone wheelchair bound who could do *JUST THE OPENING 10 MINUTES* (of finished tape as "the folks at home" saw it) of the first episode of the currently-in-progress season, and I'll show you someone who has no reason to be in a wheelchair.

For those who didn't see it, the show opened with 20 bodies in what looked to be a WWII lifeboat rowing along something like a mile or two from land. Here comes Jeff in a power boat to say "Welcome to Survivor Palau. You're about a mile from where you're supposed to be. Get there however you like. First two to shore get immunity. This game is on." - I'd give someone wheelchair bound zero chance of even COMPLETING the challenge, let alone managing to WIN it. Or perhaps "Joe/Jane Wheelie" thinks that the game should be "dumbed down" to their capabilities? And in that case, why bother to have the game at all?

Then again, "wheelchair level" handicappers could provide "cannon-fodder" for the able bodied at tribal council - Saying that they'd be extrememly unlikely to win any immunity challenge that wasn't purely mental (and there aren't many of those for immunity) would be phrasing it kindly...

Reply to
Don Bruder

Nonsense. They're all handicapped. The pinheads are 'way overrepresented.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

You're telling me that people actually waste precious time watching that garbage? Seriously? If I must say so, it's probably the only thing that makes "Smack Down" look intelligent. Gawd, I can hardly believe it.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

I'm with you on "smack down" - A more bogus bunch of bullshit will never be found, short of announcing a "watching paint dry" competition.

I said pretty much the same thing when Survivor first came out. Now that I've seen a couple of seasons, there actually IS some strategy and skill involved. The only "downside" I can see to it is that they keep billing it as if it were actually about "survival", when aside from the self-imposed starvation (There has yet to be a Survivor series where there wasn't WAY more than enough food to keep everybody fed, and fed VERY well - *IF* the fools would actually get their shit together and catch/eat it rather than watching it walk through the camp) there's nothing even remotely resembling a test of "who could survive" - The winner, whoever it ends up being, has never (at least IMO) been the person who was the best "survivor" (in terms of "You're in the middle of BFE with nothing but a machete. Your goal: Live to be rescued", but always the one who was able to "play politician" well enough to keep everybody else from sending him packing - Nothing to do with "survival" in the "survival training" sense, and everything to do with popularity/politics.

But I do enjoy the challenges - Some are quite impressive, both in terms of physical skills neeed to complete (let alone win) them, and the amount of creativity and effort that goes into designing and building them. The ones I like least are the "sheer endurance" ones - "Put one foot here, put the other foot there, put another body part of your choice someplace else. Now stay there. Last one standing wins" - BORING!

Reply to
Don Bruder

Or, to put it another way, they want government to pass laws to beneift them, and put control over the other guy.

This is why you hear me squalking so much about there should

*not* be a law that requires motorcycle helmet use, and there *should* be a law to prohibit cell phone use in cars.

Because I drive a motorcycle. I don't like the government exerting control over me, and I would really, really, really like to keep all the morons from using phones in their cars because they all drive to endanger me.

The guy who doesn't ride says, "yep, helmet laws are good because they *might* save me one dollar in a year in insurance costs. And by the way, I want to be able to use my cell phone anytime, anywhere no matter if it hurts you, because I can use it to make one extra dollar in my business in a year."

Yep.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:54:43 GMT, the inscrutable Don Bruder spake:

That last question is of utmost importance, Don. Why? (Indeed, even without the "in that case.")

I'd rather swat flies on the computer or hit myself in the forehead with a ball peen hammer than to EVER watch a shitcom or that "reality" spewage.

500 channels of WHAT? Music channels are Sat/Cable TV's saving grace.
Reply to
Larry Jaques

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.