A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 18, 2006Thank-you for Not Smoking...OR ElseCBS reports thatin many states you can be fired for smoking or just about anything else. This is what happened to two Michigan women, Anita Epolito and Cara Stiffler. There's legal, and there's right. Confuse them at your own peril. No big deal?Just wail 'til you get a health insurance premium increase along with a notice in the mail scolding you for that 5th donut of the month that put you over your allowance. Big brother? Big brother is the authoritarians of BOTH wings, hands joined together. And many of the rest of us will invite him in with open arms on the promise of $7 monthly saved on an insurance policy. They came for the drug "abusers" and no one blinked. They came for the smokers and many said amen. They'll come more and more for the drinkers and many will say hallleluliah. When they start in on the fat people with renewed vigor, silence will mostly ensue. When the exercise police begin carting people off for treadmill prison, it will be too late. Next will be those too sedentary and the consumers of unhealthy entertainment. When they kick in your front door, how you gonna go? Comments
Wow! This guy is a nut case! I think he might have trouble getting workers after this. I shouldn't say this, but this is the kind of guy you would like to meet in a dark alley and just kick the shit out of. But I don't see why he can't run his business as he so chooses. There are limitations, of course, (racial, religious discrimination) but, unless we want to become France, I think this is just one of those things we have to accept. Posted by: Marc at July 19, 2006 10:16 AMThis is the type of thing that tends to work itself out over time. Employers that act like tyrants tend to have trouble attracting and retaining qualitiy employees..... and in the long run, that can be fatal for a business. Darwin will eventualy take care of most of those type of tyrants. Job markets don't remain tight forever. Also a little publicity about the situation wouldn't hurt. A tyrant can make rules about how he wants to rub his business...but he can't force anyone to buy from him.... and the public really doesn't like that kind of behavior. What cengel said. Individual cases of employers doing stupid stuff are not signs of terrible national trends about which "something must be done". It's almost impossible to fire anybody in France, and look at their economy and incredibly high unemployment rate. I'm quite happy with employment-at-will, thank you. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 10:40 AMindividual cases of employers doing stupid stuff are not signs of terrible national trends about which "something must be done". Which doesn't mean there's no trend, either. Who is counting the number of individual cases? How often should we just tolerate such arbitrariness? IMO, we should address privacy in a straightforward explicit way in federal legislation. And when we do, we should find ways to protect people from arbitrary lifestyle discrimination on the part of employers. Obviously, employers have legitimate interests which may vary from job to job. If the nature of the job is such that it makes good sense that certain behavior be proscribed, then fine. But I'm not willing to say there's no way to draw such lines, or that employers should have such arbitrary dictatorial power. Futher, I expect that a substantial majority of everyday Americans cringes at this story. I's say many or even most people believe that what they do outside of work, if not criminal or defamatory or publicly embarassing to their company, should be their own business. Americans who believe this are, as the story points out, sadly mistaken. They think they have this right, or that they deserve it. Yet they don't have it. Just as obviously, as Pat points out, the over-reaching job protections in France present a cautionary tale. I think most reasonable peope would like to see a system where people are protected from arbitrary firings based on such lifestyle discrimination as these examples show, but that most reasonable people are also, as a matter of fairness, supportive of the notion that employers should be able to terminate employees for job performance issues, or for lifestyle issues which directly and tangibly effect job performance. For example, if you are chronically late for work at a job which has shifts and involves customer service, an employer shouldn't have to be concerned with WHY you're chonically late. Bottom line, you have to be able to do the job. Cengel raises a good point, and I agree with it to some extent, but it's a bit of modern optimism to expect that such correction is always going to occur. It's awfully easy to say that "This is the type of thing that tends to work itself out over time" when it's not you getting the gate. While conceivably true, the amount of consolation it provides varies directly with the extent to which YOU are affected. Think about it this way. Suppose you asked 10,000 Americans "How would you feel if YOU got fired for ? How many do you suppose would respond "well, that's not right." There's your answer, right there. Posted by: bk at July 19, 2006 11:15 AMWell, I can relate. I got "laid off" from my last job because . . . when there was no money for travel (except for VPs) I took 2 days vacation, and spent my own money on air fare, to go to another office, in another state -- because doing my job right required sitting down in person with the folks there. The VP was livid at my "insubordination", my next performance review (which when it left my manager was very good) got trashed, and I was gone. And, since the economy, especially in IT, was in less than wonderful shape at the time (hence the lack of travel funds), I was mostly unemployed for over a year thereafter. But while I feel it "wasn't right," I certainly wouldn't want to change the system which allowed it to happen. Even when it's personally painful, the alternatives are worse. Posted by: wj at July 19, 2006 11:58 AMSo what's your solution, Brian? Prohibit firing except for "cause"? Noticed a lot of terribly effective, productive civil servants of late? Your comment is a direct attack on the very fundamentals of the free market. Yes, these things ALWAYS work themselves out, on the larger scale of the economy. That's what the market does, reward productive decisions and punish stupid ones. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 12:13 PMso what's your solution, Brian? Prohibit firing except for "cause"? Noticed a lot of terribly effective, productive civil servants of late? Yes. For cause. Exactly. The fact that civil servants are seldom fired is a function of bargaining that has led to very onerous and drawn out processes for firing for cause only under narrow definitions, with Mulligans granted. In other words, the cause bar is set way too high. I've heards that there are things like "you have to miss work for 30 straight days before a firing action for absenteeism can be initiated." Where did that 30 come from? From trying to protect employees for arbitrary firings, or from people looking for as sweet a deal as possible? Seriously. Your argument is silly. It's tantamount to saying, "many chicken coops are run poorly by foxes, therefore chicken coops can't be run properly." You usually do far better than that, Pat. I find it amusing that you're attacking me for suggesting that there's ample reasonable ground between arbitrary firing at will on the one hand and ridiculously high standards of proof of cause before firing. Your comment is a direct attack on the very fundamentals of the free market. Now you're getting awfully overheated. My comment IS an attack. It's an attack on the notion that employers ought to be able to fire employees at will, without primary regard for job perfomance (and company's financial health, of course). And it's also an attack on any notion that Americans feel otherwise about the alleged merits of arbitrary firing. You're suggesting that the heart of the free enterprise system is the need for employees to fire empoyees arbitrarily. Which is a absurd on its face, if you ask me. Which you sort of did. :-) I respect and value your insight Pat, and you raise valid issues about how such changes might affect the system. Cheerfully granted. However, let's notice that conservatives can be prone to thinking that nudging a line a little bit one way or the other can throw the whole shebang into turmoil. Change is, compartively speaking, deeply distrusted by conservatives. [Just as it is often blindly advocated by liberals.] Thus comments like "strike at the heart of." Bottom line...I think we can do better, and I think a solid majority of Americans would support trying to do better, since so many of them are surprised to find they don't have protections that they are naively taking for granted despite the fact that they don't exist. Posted by: bk at July 19, 2006 01:37 PMBK, I agree that most Americans (including myself) cringe at stories like the one above.... just like most Americans cringe when groups like say, the Aryan Nation gives public speeches. It does not follow however that we should make such activities illegal ....or that most Americans believe we should make such activities illegal. Government legislation is NOT an appropriate solution for all problems. Nor, do I believe, that simply because something is "unfair", "distastefull", "stupid" or "wrong" that it automatically must also be illegal. Often cases, the proposed cure (i.e. government restrictions) is FAR more harmfull then the actual ill it's intended to address. It certainly is a raw deal if it happens to you.... but so is getting laid off even when your doing a great job if your companies business goes People who can't accept those risks....really need to look at careers outside the public sector.... there are plenty of those available for people who put a premium on job security. However, even in the private sector it's a mistake to think that employees are powerless in such relationships. It often seems like that...but it's not really the case. As much as you depend upon an employer for a living.... they depend upon you to provide services to keep thier business going. If they can't find qualified employees who are willing to do a good job.... they won't be earning a living either. The best thing an employee can do to avoid this sort of mess is to make themselves vital enough to the company that it'll really hurt to let them go. It's one of the main reasons I've mostly looked for jobs in small and medium sized business. Nobody is irreplacable, but loosing the wrong people certainly can severely effect a companies performance.....and most sane employers won't want to risk that over something trivial. Furthermore, there are other protections available to employees...even in big companies. Unions have alot of downsides to them.... but there are situations, like the one described in this thread, where they can have very legitimate benefits. Finaly, don't downplay the importance of publicity. Companies spend a ton of money promoting a particular image of themselves. Getting that image tarnished costs them real dollars.... and nothing is as effective at tarnishing an image as pulling a bone-headed stunt like the one described in this thread and having it publicized. Most sane employers will walk a mile through barbed wire to avoid something like that. In short, there are alot of built in incentives for employers not to behave like that. Granted there are alot of stupid and short-sited people in the business world.....sometimes I think business schools offer complimentary lobotomies to every 3rd graduate....... but the truth is if your working for one of those your job isn't safe no matter how much they agree with your personnal life.
Having been both the employee and the employer, I must agree that employment-at-will and fire-for-anything-I-like both contribute to the health of business in America. Employers have enough hurdles in dealing with bad employees as it is. I fired an employee for doing crack cocaine on the job and refusing to turn over his keys, but because "we did not word it properly" we were forced to pay thousands of dollars in unemployment benefits for the idiot. Those dollars would have been far better utilized in hiring a new worker instead of rewarding the bad one. Small businesses are really heavily impacted by bad rules, however well-intentioned. Employees are not slaves (unless of course, you're a future "guest worker", but that's another thread). Having a big job in corporate America is nice but there are other opportunties out there. If you lose or escape your job, reflect on what you learned and find another. Posted by: Serfer at July 19, 2006 01:54 PMBrian, you toss out a few anecdotes and use them to suggest that this is a bad national trend which needs correcting through some kind of legislation. If you want to change one of the fundamental structures of our free market, then you need a lot more evidence than that. As with many issues, these come down to WHO DECIDES? Does the employer, who has money in the game, get to decide whether he has cause to fire someone, or does a court and the legislature, who have no money at stake? You propose that some solution involving legislative and judicial oversight of employment decisions be adopted. Once you do that, no matter how you slice it, then the court, not the employer gets to decide who is fired (and next, who is hired, since it is terribly wrong to not hire someone just because they have long hair). If my health insurance company thinks they can save money for all their premium payers by raising the rates of the donut-eaters, that's fine with me. I'll go to another insurance company. And if all the insurance companies do the same thing, well, maybe that's because it costs more to treat the donut-eaters than those who take better care of themselves. There's not a place for the government in these decisions. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 02:15 PMI think the distinction between legal and moral is important here. I think we can all agree it's clearly legal to fire someone because they have a Bush for President bumper sticker on their car. However, I have to agree with Brian that it's certainly not moral. The question becomes, should we legislate morality and decency? I find it interesting that conservatives tend to think it's perfectly ok to legislate morality and decency in regards to so-called social ills (abortion, drugs, gay marriage) but feel that it's an affront to the market if you want to legislate morality for employees or if you want to raise the minimum wage. Seems to me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the market works things like this out over time, I would think the market would work things like abortion, drugs and gay marriage out over time. Surely I'm missing something obvious as to why these views aren't consistent but to me, it seems pretty inconsistent. Posted by: Scotch Drinker at July 19, 2006 02:18 PMYou're suggesting that the heart of the free enterprise system is the need for employees to fire empoyees arbitrarily. Which is a absurd on its face, if you ask me. Which you sort of did. :-) The heart of the free enterprise system is the need for employers to be FREE to fire employees based on the criteria they set, not criteria set by government officials who don't actually know the realities of the business. Take the West Virginia guy. Suppose he works for a business located in a 100% "red" county, and all the customers refused to shop there because the employee insulted the candidate. Must the business owner let his business die? I might applaud the courage of a business owner standing up to a community like that, but I would scarecly legislate it. And that's assuming that the story presented is accurate. For all we know, the employer had been wanting to fire the fellow for a long time, and this was just the last straw. Our constitution guarantees us the right to be free from GOVERNMENT control, not private control. When you remove freedoms from employers, you are imposing government control over those employers. And that is just not what this country is about. Employers are people too, and deserve the same freedoms to choose who they do and do not want working for them. Brian, I wasn't sure in your original post whether you were calling for a government solution. Now that you've made that perfectly clear, I can say this is about the nuttiest idea you've ever put forth here. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 02:24 PMScotch, there's a distinction employed here. Abortion and gay marriage are not viewed as marketplace issues but as bedrock-moral issues. Firing an employee harms no one. Abortion does. Drugs are presumed harmful to the social order. Gay marriage is the latest thing to be thought as harmful to society. I don't personally agree with them on these points but that is where they are coming from. One cannot hope to persuade without understanding their point of view and speaking to their concerns. There is an worrisome tendency on the part of all to wish to legislate their own vision of morality. We have become very childlike in demanding that our "parent" define exactly what is right and what is wrong. It is a dangerous trend. Perhaps we should encourage folks to consciously separate "legal" from "right" more often, to help them see that we really don't want Papa defining everthing and having the power to enforce those defintions. We have to live with the resulting messiness and inefficiency and possible unfairness, but that's what it means to be free. As a further point, the practicalities of such a rule are ridiculous. Once the employee has any kind of claim for improper firing available, the costs to fire that employee rise tremendously. Employees do not meekly admit that they've been slackers or caused problems in the workplace. They will not readily concede that they were fired for cause. Instead, they will claim that you fired them because of their nose ring or their bumper sticker or their Mimi-makeup. And once they make that claim and find some lawyer to help them do it, the employer suddenly has thousands of dollars in legal bills, even when they win the case. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 03:00 PMSerfer, I understand that conservatives say there's a distiction however it doesn't make that distinction any less inconsistent in my mind. Firing an employee harms no one? Have we forgotten the employee? Recreational drug use harms only the drug user and most would argue the harm is minimal yet we legislate that morality. Either way, in one instance it's perfectly ok to legislate morality for the idea of the "social good" while in the other it's an anathema. It's fairly easy to build up a paper trail on an employee who is a slacker. Firing a perfectly good employee with no history of poor performance because they have a bumper sticker that the employer doesn't agree with is clearly immoral to me. If you don't think that's immoral, then we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you do find that immoral, how do you reconcile the idea that it's wrong to legislate that morality but perfectly ok to legislate other morality? Posted by: Scotch Drinker at July 19, 2006 03:14 PMScotch, I think it's a bad idea on principle to create a law just because somebody thinks something is immoral. I would much rather have fewer laws than more. Laws are not toys, they are powerful tools and should not be created lightly. Would I fire that otherwise excellent employee? Probably not, but it was not my decision to make, and I respect that employer's right to make that decision. If I were the employee and got fired for that, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I don't have to work for a jerk anymore. Posted by: Serfer at July 19, 2006 03:26 PMAbortion and gay marriage are not viewed as marketplace issues but as bedrock-moral issues. Yabbut scotch is asking WHY that should be so. Firing an employee harms no one. Abortion does. Sure, if you don't count the unjsutly fired employee. Our constitution guarantees us the right to be free from GOVERNMENT control, not private control. Duh. But it CAN guarantee us protection from whatever we decide to put in it, like an expanded right to privacy from employers and marketers. The heart of the free enterprise system is the need for employers to be FREE to fire employees based on the criteria they set, not criteria set by government officials who don't actually know the realities of the business. Sure Pat. If you say so. I think that's a crap reason to leave most americans exposed to the potential of arbitrary termination. Why aren't the realities of unjust termination as important as the realities of business. You love to hide behind the image of witless government officials when focusing on what the will of the people would be inconvenient. As a further point, the practicalities of such a rule are ridiculous. Once the employee has any kind of claim for improper firing available, the costs to fire that employee rise tremendously. As with many issues, these come down to WHO DECIDES? Again, you love to cast the conflict as the one between smart business making necessary decisions and stupid government making witless decisions. But neither the government nor free enterprise has any rationale for existence beyond the good of the people. And as of today, they still get to decide what that is by voting... Brian, I wasn't sure in your original post whether you were calling for a government solution. Now that you've made that perfectly clear, I can say this is about the nuttiest idea you've ever put forth here. Keep hammering Pat. It's still not a nail. You think you can win every argument by turning "democratic decision determined by the people" into "bad big government solution." It's not at all nutty to suggest that the people take the time now to define and protect their privacy while they still have a chance to do so. Posted by: bk at July 19, 2006 03:41 PMIn my experiences, I'm more worried about the subtle, unspoken prejudices that are so commonplace in corporate America than the occasional idiotic tyrrant. In the newspaper business, for instance, there's a premium on diversity (the newsroom should reflect the community, the argument goes) but you rarely see the same reflection in upper management. And I don't just mean a lack of racial diversity, overweight people simply have to work twice as hard to get ahead in the business (managers have an "if they can't take care of themselves, how can they run a department?" attitude). But with the exception of blatant sexual or racial discrimination, there's little recourse to workers. And to be honest, I can't decide if we should start down that slippery slope to offer greater protections, for fear of ending up with a France-type of mess. Posted by: WeekendPundit at July 19, 2006 03:43 PMAnd you keep thinking you can win an argument by saying there must be some way to make it work, without providing a single example of successful implementation of what you call for or addressing how the very real pragmatic problems would be met, or addressing the fact that the "right" you are protecting in the employee (and there is no inalienable right to be employed by somenone) comes at the expense of the "right" the employer to decide who to hire and fire. So propose an actual solution rather than a general complaint, Brian. Point to a successful state or nation which has adopted a "fire only for cause" law and let's compare their economy with ours. You want to fix it, then propose an actual solution which can be debated rather than just some generic assemblage of isolated actions which you claim is proof of an immoral trend. There's a lot of areas where government has gone too far. When it interferes with private businesses, it almost always makes things worse and more expensive rather than better. Not always, to be sure, but very often. Am I supposed to read a handful of anecdotes about people being fired for smoking and suddenly support national laws setting forth what criteria an employer is allowed to use in his hiring and firing decisions? Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 04:03 PMOK, Pat. My first concrete proposal is a federal law in the form of a consitutional amendment that says " Employers may not fire people simply because they smoke cigarettes on their own free time, outside of work. Employers may charge such employees higher health insurance premiums." Now show me how and why this won't work. When you fail, we can go from there, one "can't at a time." We'll do each one by national referendum, on a "e know it when we see it" basis. Each item passed can become known as the "Bill of Privacy Rights." Prepare to get your arse whipped. :-) Oh, and by the way, you know as well as I do that the "point to where it has worked" argument has a fatal flaw...someone has to go first. Those who refuse are known as chickens. Posted by: bk at July 19, 2006 04:31 PMScotch, I pretty much agree with you. I'll only point out that there are all sorts of different flavors of Conservative...and the Moral Majority sort are only one distinct subset. I self define as "Conservative" and I support the right to fire and hire based on ANY criteria the employer wishes (including race, gender, ethnicity and all the other criteria that are currently considered illegal discrimination) at the same time I also support drug legalization and allowing gay marriage. The only reason I'm somewhat less supportive of abortion (after a certain point in the term) is because I happen to believe that after a certain point you happen to have a second human beings rights (the baby) enter into the picture. I think that is a fairly consistant position that government intervention is only justified when conflicting sets of rights are involved. Certainly we CAN ammend the Constitution to do what you want it to do. We can ammend the Constitution to mandate that everyone must watch "The Simple Life" on pain of death... if we really want to. That doesn't make it a good idea. What Pat seems to be arguing...and I agree with him whole-heartedly ... that the kind of government intervention you seem to be arguing for is a REALLY, REALLY Bad Idea (tm).... and that we should democraticaly choose not to even consider it. I understand the motivation behind what you want to do....and it is well intentioned....but I don't have to tell you what road is paved with good intentions do I? Certainly, the devil is in the details of implimentation.... but I can't imagine how any implimentation wouldn't in practical terms turn out to be exactly the kind of nightmare that Pat is describing. Some things are predictable.... and unforunately to me, this scenerio is one of them.
BK, I don't know if Pat'll bite but I will:
Jane Doe appears at the MTV music awards chain smoking in front of the cameras. The American Cancer Society says "I'm sorry, Jane Doe but we don't think it's appropriate for our spokesperson to publicaly engage in one of the leading causes of cancer in the United States, it sends the wrong message to the people we want to reach" Jane Doe respons by suing the American Cancer Society for violating her federal civil rights. 2) John Smith has one of the lowest sales records in ACME, inc history, he also happens to be a chain smoker. The President of ACME, inc... who also happens to be a health nut fires John Smith. John Smith responds by suing ACME for being fired for being a smoker. ACME responds that John was fired for performance problems. Month's of litigation in Federal Courts ensues. Even if ACME wins they incur tremendous costs outside of direct legal fees due to the uncertainty of whether they can terminate John... and lack of morale among the sales staff. They institute in new defensive business practice policies to prevent themselves from ever being subject to the same problem again... which might include an unspoken rule to not hire anyone who appears they might be a smoker.... and meticulously documenting every single instance of possible misbehavior and/or poor performance on all employees so in future they'll have ample evidence to present on any employee if they ever need to proove cause. Of course they have to hire even more staff and equipment to perform such documentation on all employees...passing along the costs to consumers. Furthermore the work atmosphere transforms from casual to oppressive because all employees now feel like they are being constantly scrutinized for faults.... because they are. Furthermore the Federal Courts now have an additional workload of trying to resolve this case.....rather then say trying to resolve whether the government has a right to tap your phone without a warrant. Rinse and repeat about a million times. 3) It establishes an alienable right wish you don't have.... the inalienable right not just to seek work but to work for a specific institution and revokes a freedom which you previously had....who to spend your own money on to provide services for you. In my book, that's a MORAL WRONG in and of itself. Posted by: cengel at July 19, 2006 05:12 PMI would respond, but cengel used just about every example I would have. His second example is the one which would affect every workplace in America. What you never stop to understand, Brian, is the collateral consequences of your proposal. As cengel points out, employers, naturally not wishing to be sued, will adopt ever stricter and more rigorous codes of conduct, becoming ever more meticulous in documenting and consistently disciplining all employee actions inconsistent with the published code. All employees then become clock-watching civil servants, because they justly see that the employer is more concerned about "following the rules" than treating people with a little normal give and take, cutting some slack to high performers, being tougher with low performers. In the end, everybody suffers because you think there ought to be a law. You know, I once prosecuted a cop for driving with an open container (not DWI, because he only blew a .09, not a .10), aggravated flight from an officer, and reckless operation of a motor vehicle (all misdemeanors, technically). Got him to plead guilty on two of the three counts. He had led a high-speed chase after his wife caught him coming out of a by-the-hour motel with his girlfriend. The police chief tried to fire him, but guess what! The civil service board decided that his criminal convictions, which occured while he was a police officer, were not sufficiently bad to be "cause" for his termination. Who decides is a highly relevant question. You want to allow busybodies to decide, who suffer no loss from decisions to continue employing slackers and those who harm the business. I think the people who have money to lose are most likely to make the best decisions. Posted by: PatHMV at July 19, 2006 05:28 PMBK, can you not see that by passing such a law, you would become the authoritarian you seem to be despising? Posted by: Serfer at July 19, 2006 05:29 PMThere was an episode of Boston Legal featuring this very scenario - and a cheap potshot at Justice Scalia by James Spader's character. In any event, I don't really see this as a problem; if you want to smoke, that's your prerogative - but you have no right to do it outside of your home unless it is created by your state, and it's a bit rich to ask anyone else to subsidize your habit, which is what is being demanded here. Would anyone have a problem with employers saying that no employee for whom the company provides life insurance may skydive? I don't see how it's different, excepting that people who skydive simply have an elevated risk of death, while all smokers by definition have an elevated chance of claiming on their health insurance. Posted by: Simon at July 19, 2006 06:05 PMInteresting thread. I have to side a bit with Pat's take. Laws proposed here will force employees into strict contracts and a fortune will be spent in court. Talk about cameras in the office, there will be less liberty. I have the right to fire an employee for looking at my girlfriend the wrong way. Try that in court. Unions often fight for contracts making benefits and firings covered under specific agreements. Maybe the answer is more collective bargaining. If I want a job at a school, I need constant tenure and I sign a contract. Can you imagine a university not being able to fire a teacher for advocating anti-American views? Private sector has the right to seek their own criteria for hiring and have equally subjective grounds for terminations. Of course employer abuse happens but then Stem Cells are still destroyed instead of being used for research. And I trust the House making more laws? May I suggest unemployment insurance? Perhaps more employees should demand better contracts. After an initial training period, employees could have a pre-determined contract kick in for a certain period. The employer would have to prove the employee violated their contract. The employer is then contracting work as opposed to “hiring”. As more individuals become sub contractors (self-employed), insurance should become portable (and pooled) and certain deductions, which are offered business, should be extended to individuals as well. This might fit well into Romney's insurance plan. The public can certainly retaliate against corporations discarding employees like last summer's sneakers. There are clear examples when employees abuse employers. Shall we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect employers? Making us more like France is hardly helpful to America's competitiveness. I did know a eatery/coffee shop once run by a shady Russian couple in the Gramercy area of NYC that regularly fired its employees to avoid reporting some of their wages and having to provide certain insurance. During a certain period, these hires were considered "in training”. They were fired before the city considered them “employees”. There are all sorts of employer abuse of power including firing over lifestyle. Frankly, I think better regulations concerning employers with security clearances and who handle sensitive or dual use materials are more important. The government is going to need to know that AQ isn't a hire at some airport, or that machine press didn't end up in Tehran. Again, I think Pat has the more practical and Constitutional angle. As someone a bit left of center, I still prefer that we focus on getting everyone to follow existing laws rather than create new ones that defy implementation and retard competitiveness unless national security is at stake. Legislating morality is like banning government Stem Cell research, or denying foreign AIDS funds if one also distribute condoms or “plans parenthood”. We don't need laws we need stronger unions. Posted by: Rick DeMent at July 20, 2006 07:08 AMRick nailed it. Posted by: Tully at July 20, 2006 12:13 PMGee Tully, I thought I had said basically the same thing. Unions, collective bargining, contracts and of course enforcing existing laws v more laws. Yes? Posted by: Maxtrue at July 20, 2006 04:38 PMI don't think we need to go back and forth too much more on this. I'm sticking by my guns, just as Pat and Cengel and others are. But here are a few things to point out: • There's no reason to think that the examples of crappy lawsuits etc that have been cited have to be fostered by any rules established. If you can come up with a good rationale why peeple couldn't "initiate a job or legal actrion," why not use our good sense to to exclude such items. I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that circumstances may vary from case to case, and that some employers might have a good rationale for firing a person for a given action whereas another might not. For example, political proseltyzing might be an issue for say, a teacher, or a civil employee, or someone who was a prominent public face. Or even an outspoken dental
BTW, I dunno that we need "stronger unions" if that means giving more power to existing unions. But I think that it could be beneficial if more people had some collective bargaining power and protection. Posted by: bk at July 21, 2006 09:39 AMYep, max. Short reply to the short comment. Now, if we can just manage unions that don't kill themselves off with their own internal corruptions or unrealistic demands of employers, we've got something. Public-employee unions have flourished because their employers are fixed, and have the ability to raise "prices" via taxation. They can't really outsource, but they can force the "consumer" to pay more. Private unions have few such advantages. Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2006 12:28 PMThere's no reason to think that the examples of crappy lawsuits etc that have been cited have to be fostered by any rules established.Yes, there is. Logic and experience. Posted by: PatHMV at July 21, 2006 01:14 PM ..because in Pat's world, past results DO guarantee future performance. We are doomed to repeat ourselves. There is no hope. Learn from our mistakes and from others mistakes and design something that works better? Nope. fairy tale. Clearly we can't run the economic risk of trying to protect americans from abitrary lifestyle discrimination by bosses. Nutty me to think that if we try harder, we can do better and improve the world's lot. Posted by: bk at July 21, 2006 02:11 PMNo, clearly the economic cost of imposing your personal beliefs about what lifestyles are and are not relevant to an employee's ability to do the job are far greater than putting up with a few dumbass employers who fire people for stupid reasons. Brian, "we can do it better than they did before" is a conclusion, not an argument. And it's a conclusion you constantly use in place of actually arguing how we might establish a system which would not suffer from the defects I point out. If you think you can establish legal protections to require employees only for cause, while acknowledging that "circumstances may vary from case to case", by all means tell me how you would do it. You may manage to convince me with an actual argument. But "there's got to be a way" doesn't cut it. Your fundamental argument is that the legislature and the courts can make better hiring and firing decisions than the businesses which are actually impacted by those firing decisions. At some level, you want to substitute your judgment (and the legislature's and the courts') for the businsess owner. And yet you claim that this won't lead to frivilous litigation or costly litigation-avoidance measures adopted by employers, because somehow we can adopt some rules which will "exclude" such "crappy" lawsuits. Try harder all you want, but don't pass more laws which will harm our economy all to protect the ability of rude assholes to keep their jobs because you don't deem their outside-of-work behavior to be "relevant" to their work. True, past results are no certain guarantee of future performance. But they're a pretty damn good predictor, unless you actually have a plan to do something differently, not just a vague hope that we'll find a way. Posted by: PatHMV at July 21, 2006 03:36 PMDon't kill the topic yet. We may be getting somewhere. Or at least I am and I want to share it! We've hashed over the goverment intervention option. Lots of potential problems there. Collective bargaining does protect individual workers but has some drawbacks, not the least of which is the widespread perception that unions are too often obstructive and destructive (e.g. NY Teachers and GM). Younger workers who have not settled on a lifetime career do not see joining a union as having much value. Creating formal barriers between management and employees can create lethargic organizations unable to react to today's challenges. Unions in small organizations just look silly and artificial, and many workers do work in very small businesses. If the government should not, and if today's form of unions cannot, is there a way to bring the nearly 100-year-old concept of unions into the 21st century? Can the idea of individual bargaining, usually common only at higher job levels, be applied broadly to all job levels and become widespread, routine, and flexible? And would that solve some of the issues that have been raised? Or are there other ways to update the union concept to better match today's jobs and workers? Posted by: Serfer at July 21, 2006 04:26 PMI certainly don't have a problem with unions or other market-based solutions, though I don't think the "problem" Brian cites is all that big a problem. Because of racial, gender, age, and disability discrimination regulations and litigation, most large and medium-sized employers have pretty strict human resources guidelines on hiring, firing, and promotions, so that a paper trail is built. As for small businesses, over time those that survive will learn that they do better if they put their main focus on performance rather than outside-of-work activities. And to the extent outside-of-work characteristics affect important but intangible factors like employee cohesiveness and morale, they will factor that into their performance evaluations as well. Also, at the moment the demand for workers is fairly high compared to the supply; employers have a fairly strong financial incentive to only fire employees if they really are bad. Firing good workers because of their political opinions will probably hit the employer in the pocketbook, as it will cost more money to replace the fired guy. Posted by: PatHMV at July 21, 2006 08:57 PMPat, I notice that you didn't address my point of "OK let's start right here with this one idea, and add to the list one item at a time." Because that was my concrete response to your challenge of providing a specific idea. You've repeatedly challenged me to be specific, yet when I was, you completely ignored me, and defaulted back to restating that my argument was "put business decisions in the hands of the courts and legislatures." I call foul on that. Again. No, clearly the economic cost of imposing your personal beliefs about what lifestyles are and are not relevant to an employee's ability to do the job are far greater than putting up with a few dumbass employers who fire people for stupid reasons. I'm not talking about only MY personal beliefs, I'm talking about making the effort to establish the beliefs of ALL the people on such matters. You may well be correct that any such changes I suggest will have an economic impact. This makes the discussion a question of whether we care more about the economy than about the rights and well-being of the people. Do the people exist only for the good of the economy, or do we care about the economy only insofar as it fosters the well-being of the people? Most Americans believe it's the latter. [Of course, they are interrelated. I'll cheerfully concede that. I give you the moral credit of believing that the negative economic consequences would lead to less well being. My point is that "the economy" is not the greatest good, it's a subordinate good. If the economy goes great guns but its benefits are skewed and large numbers of lives are chewed up, ther people have the right, indeed the responsibility to re-asssert their democratic right to establish the proper bounds of the game. Your fundamental argument is that the legislature and the courts can make better hiring and firing decisions than the businesses which are actually impacted by those firing decisions. At some level, you want to substitute your judgment (and the legislature's and the courts') for the businsess owner. I wouldn't say "at some level." I'd say "in some instances." Those instances would consist of only the most obvious ones. Businesses would be precluded from setting arbitrary policies allowing them to fire employees for things like smoking cigarettes at home unless they could show that the policy was necessary for their business's efficacy. And once again, I'd like to stress that I believe that the people can make good decisions about what might be right and wrong. You always re-phrase my ideas in terms of the hated boogeymen of the courts and the legislature in order to obscure the connection with the people. This is a good way to hide the Republican form of paternalism that the people can't be trusted to decide what sorts of business practices are out of bounds. Only those in the know about business can possibly understand. If you think you can establish legal protections to require employees only for cause, while acknowledging that "circumstances may vary from case to case", by all means tell me how you would do it. You may manage to convince me with an actual argument. But "there's got to be a way" doesn't cut it. This is a not an entirely unfair point as far as it goes. But why is it that my side of the argument always includes the need to describe a fully formed, case-by case prescription for change, whereas you side of the argument includes simply pointing at say, the failure of France to do something well as conclusive proof that the undertaking is not possible, or would be so costly as to be unbearable. Spo again, my first concrete suggestion, re-stated, since you eemed to miss it is this: rule #1: "No company may establish a policy that they may fire employees for smoking cigarettes on thier own time, outside of the workplace, unless they can show that such behavior has a negative impact on the company's business, or makes an employee unable to satsfactorily perform their duties."
BK, "But why is it that my side of the argument always includes the need to describe a fully formed, case-by case prescription for change" Because Pat isn't advocating a change to a system. We already KNOW how it works and what the costs and benefits of it are of keeping things the same. You're advocating changing how the system would work. Don't you think it is incumbant upon you to at least detail exactly how you envision that change to be.... so that we can begin to postulate what practical ramifications it might have? We've already pointed out (in pretty fair detail I think) the POSSIBLE ramifications a system that wanted to achieve what you want COULD have. Isn't it incumbant upon you to know describe how in the case you advocate that those ramifications can be avoided (or are inaccurately predicted.. or are simply worth paying)? ------- I know you were adressing PAT in the above post...but speaking entirely for myself, I see 3 potential problems with this rule as far as I am concerned (YMMV) 1) First is a philosophical question. Is working for ACME, Inc a right or a privilege? I would maintain that seeking employment or a livelihood in the general sense is a right... but the ability to be employed by any SPECIFIC organization or indeed work in any SPECIFIC proffesion is a PRIVILEGE. The important distinction being that a person is ENTIGHTLED to seek a livlihood and may not be prevented from doing so while a person is NOT ENTIGHTLED to work at ACME, inc or as a horse-shoe fitter and may be prevented from doing so. What your proposed rule would seem to do is establish working for ACME, inc as a RIGHT not a privilege... a conditional right to be sure, but a right none-the-less. Furthermore, it would place that right in tension with the property rights of the owner of ACME, inc to do what he/she
Right now, with employment at will neither of those determinations need be made or proven beyond the satisfaction of the employer. Under your proposed rule, it is assumed that a court or jury would be asked to make such determination? You must concede that as a practical matter that is a considerably more resource and time intensive proposition then leaving it up to the discretion of the employer? You must also concede that in the case of determining impact to a business you are asking individuals who have niether direct stake in the results nor familiarty with the subject matter at hand to substitute thier judgement for some-one who has both? It is often the case in our society that people bring litigation against other individuals without merit.... in the hopes that thier skills of arguement might prove persuasive enough to gain them monetary reward...or the simple threat and burdon of litigation might deter the defendant from a course of action. Does not your rule establish yet another vector where such litigation can be attempted? ..... and one which can occur with common frequency. Anytime a smoker was fired (regardless of the reason) they would have the potential to bring suit.... and the employer would have to prove to the satisifaction of a jury both why the employee was fired and whether thier behavior had negative impact on the business which in often cases is something far easier to know then to prove.
Your proposed rule would establish an additional risk for business. That upon terminating a smoker they could be sued for discrimination and if unable to sufficiently document cause forced to pay a settlement. A business is only as effective as it's employees. Most successfull business recognize this.....and therefore the importance of being able to terminate employees if they prove harmfull to the business. I propose that there would be two logical effects on the behavior of business caused by your proposed rule. Firstly, they would try to minmize the pool of individuals that could potential sue them. This means that they would be far more likely to EXCLUDE smokers during the interview and hire process simply due to the risk of those individuals suing them should it prove neccesary to fire them.... even when such smokers would be otherwise fully qualified for the position. I believe this is the opposite effect of the intention behind your proposed rule. Secondly, given that it would be impossible to determine during the interview/hire process whether an employee would start smoking during the course of thier career (and thus become a risk) or perhaps even accurately determine if they were secretly smoking at the time of hire, business would turn to the avenue of providing means to ensure they would prevail should a suit be brought. That means they would need to document cause...to be able to prove to a jury that an employee was fired for reason other then those described by your rule (typicaly job performance issues). This means that, as a rule, the business would attempt to scrutinize and document the job performance of every employee...particulary performance failures....so that they would have ample evidence to present on ANY employee should they ever find themselves under litigation. Obviously such scrutiny and documentation has an effect on the work atmosphere and both direct and indirect costs for the business. This WOULD happen simply due to the nature of businesses being risk averse and attempting to minimize the possibility of being sued in the first place and of courts/juries reaching the wrong conclusion in the second.
Brian, you might go back and read the whole set of comments again. When you first put forth your concrete example, cengel explained exactly why it wouldn't work, just as he has done today for the second time. Because I thought he had it exactly right, I stated: I would respond, but cengel used just about every example I would have. His second example is the one which would affect every workplace in America. That's hardly ducking your direct answer. But, just so I myself add something in response... Suppose I show, as the employer, that my healthcare insurance costs more because 10 of my employees are smokers (on their own time). And that those costs are higher even if the insurance company doesn't know they are smokers, simply because smokers, as a group, need much more healthcare services than non-smokers. The higher health insurance costs have a negative impact on my business. Can I fire the smokers, then, under your rule? What if the smoker likes to take his lunch break on the public sidewalk in front of my business, and one of my customers complains to me about having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in my front door. Can I fire him then, for smoking on his private (lunch hour) time on a public street)? What if 10 customers complain. If I run a health club could I fire an employee smoking in the privacy of his own home, visible to no one except his wife? To show a negative impact on my business must I prove that a certain number of potential clients saw him smoking? Must I prove that one (or ten or twenty?) potential clients told me that they thought about joining my health club but decided not to because they saw my employee smoking and thought my whole business was hypocritical? Or, what if I had a very small office, just 2 or 3 people, and one of them was a heavy smoker before and after work, and came in every morning reeking of cigarette smoke. Could I fire them for stinking up the office, even if they never smoked during the day? Would it matter if I was allergic to cigarette smoke, or can I fire him just because the smell is offensive? I'm not making a slippery slope argument Brian. I'm saying, as Cengel said, first that this violates the fundamental property and liberty interests of employers. Second, I'm saying that it would result (not that it risks resulting) in massive amounts of litigation and even more massive amounts of defensive record-keeping. You've yet to even establish that this is a real problem out in the real world, beyond a few anecdotal accounts. As for "the people", I'm not the one engaging in paternalism, you are. You think the employees involved can't protect themselves by finding another job or working their asses off to be so productive the employer doesn't dare fire them. You think the employers must be TOLD to do what's "right", under penalty of law. I think the employees and employers can pretty much take care of themselves, so long as busybodies like you stay out of the way. And if it won't be the "bogeymen" of legislatures and the courts and bureaucrats enforcing these laws, who will it be? Do you want pure Athenian democracy, where "the people" all assemble, listen to both employer and employee, then pronounce the firing "just" or "unjust"? As cengel correctly notes (and as I did earlier), the courts and the bureaucrats and the legislature and YOU do not have any stake in a hiring or firing. It won't cost them anything. So imagine you're the judge. A case of a fired smoker comes along. The guy's got a wife and family, has been trying to quit smoking, but just can't. The employer fired him because customers have been complaining that he stinks. On the one hand, you can uphold the firing, which would really hurt this nice guy and his innocent family. On the other hand, you could order the business to keep him on, which would cost mega-corp. a couple of customers and a pittance of their bottom line. Which way are you going to vote, 99 times out of a hundred? You propose a fundamental altering in the American employment system. You better come up with a lot better answers than what you have so far, because it still sounds plain old dumb to me, no matter how insistent you are that it might possibly work in some possible world that we've never seen before. Posted by: PatHMV at July 24, 2006 02:07 PMBecause Pat isn't advocating a change to a system. We already KNOW how it works and what the costs and benefits of it are of keeping things the same. You're advocating changing how the system would work. Don't you think it is incumbant upon you to at least detail exactly how you envision that change to be.... so that we can begin to postulate what practical ramifications it might have? We've already pointed out (in pretty fair detail I think) the POSSIBLE ramifications a system that wanted to achieve what you want COULD have. Isn't it incumbant upon you to know describe how in the case you advocate that those ramifications can be avoided (or are inaccurately predicted.. or are simply worth paying)? No. In fact, your statements are a very good example of conservative bias in favor of the status quo. Your assumption is that the current system is optimal, and that change would be bad. You haven't shown a single thing that demonstrates that the current system is optimal. You've simply stated what you like about the status quo, and stated that you perceive risk in change. I would maintain that seeking employment or a livelihood in the general sense is a right... but the ability to be employed by any SPECIFIC organization or indeed work in any SPECIFIC proffesion is a PRIVILEGE. This is a very clever and often useful distinction to make. However, it doesn't address my constantly repeated point that we live in a democracy, so it's the PEOPLE who get to decide. Most basically, America's ideals involve letting the people decide, and that includes such things as rights and privileges, and what they shall be. As you now, the mechanism by which the people decide is by electing representatives who make laws and rule in courts. Perhaps you find this more regrettable than I do? The fact is that employment involves some form of contracting upon a deal between 2 parties. (maybe no more than a handshake)There's no reason to think that any such deal shouldn't be subject to principles of fairness as democratically determined. Platitudes about property rights are nice, but if you understand the mechanics of democracy and how America works, you really have to concede that, at least technically speaking, these property rights that you regularly exalt are only another form of rights whose nature is subject to democratic decision-making. So if you DON'T think that property rights should be subject to democratic decisionmaking, then you are in essence declaring that you're agnostic about democracy. Nothing wrong with that by the way. I'm agnostic on it myself. But there it is for both of us to notice and acknowledge. As far as your lengthy speculation on how business would respond to a rule precluding firing people for smoking on their own time, it's spendid speculation on your part to suggest that businesses would collude in bad faith. Perhaps even via email! :-) Let's notice, at this point, that any such businesses who chose to engage in such practices, might, say, be called upon at some future time to explain why no smokers work for their company even though 15% of Americans smoke. Once one entertains that notion, I think it's far more reasonable to suggest that businesses might act in reaonsonably good faith and simply refrain from setting any policies that allowed all employees who smoked to be fired. I think both you and Pat have raised a VERY good point, which is that employers can find ways to get rid of or never hire undesirable employees if they really want to do so, using off the record methods and understanding. I agree. And I also agree that there are serious limits as to what might be done about such practices, if stealthily applied. This fact just makes me look even MORE askance at companies that would set such ugly policies explicitly, as Weyco has. I continue to be unconvinced that we as a nation cannot set reasonable bounds upon fairness in hiring and firing practices. And I remain unconsoled that in the view of you, Pat, and several other here, such practices are relatively uncommon. But as usual, it's a pleasure to disagree with you and Pat in a relatively civil manner. That we conclude by sticking to our guns, while not hoped for, is not at all unsurprising, no? Posted by: bk at July 24, 2006 02:31 PM"No. In fact, your statements are a very good example of conservative bias in favor of the status quo. Your assumption is that the current system is optimal, and that change would be bad. You haven't shown a single thing that demonstrates that the current system is optimal. You've simply stated what you like about the status quo, and stated that you perceive risk in change." No BK, ALL I've stated is that the current system is KNOWN. We don't have to lay out the exact details of how that system might work because it ALREADY exists and is there for us to examine. We don't have to speculate about what the ramifications MIGHT be because they ALREADY exist.... we already know what they are both good and bad. This is entirely beside the issue of whether the current system is "optimal" or not (I happen to think the current system is pretty decent YMMV). It is not an arguement for or against status quo, per say. It is merely an arguement which states - When you make a change to a complex system (ANY complex system.... and human society is among one of the most complex systems I can imagine) you had better be incredibly specific about exactly what that change will be, how you expect it to work and what factors you are taking into consideration if you want to have any hope in hell of predicting what that change will ACTUALY do to that system when it is enacted for real. That assumes that having some idea about what effects a change might have before it is enacted is a good thing (tm)......but your a pretty logical guy so I think it safe for me to assume that you agree with that axiom. ----- "This is a very clever and often useful distinction to make. However, it doesn't address my constantly repeated point that we live in a democracy, so it's the PEOPLE who get to decide." It doesn't address it because that point ISN'T at issue. We agree that the people CAN decide this. They CAN decide that we all have to watch episodes of "The Simple Life" from 9-5 every day if they really want to. This isn't an arguement about what the People CAN do.... it is an arguement about what they SHOULD do. Of course our rights and privileges are enshrined into law by the results of democratic representation. Property Rights are no exception to that....neither is the right not to be murdered in ones sleep.... or freedom of expression and religion. The fact is that People recognize those rights as a powerfull good.. which is why they've been afforded the status they have. I am simply making the arguement that the change you want to see enacted erodes one of those goods for something of lessor value. Now, that is a subjective judgement certainly....but I think it is one alot of people will share... if they take the time to fully examine the implications of that change.... rather then just making a knee jerk reactions about the boss from Weyco being a jerk...and some-one aughta pass a law to stop him.
BK, I don't think that anyone here is taking the position that what Weyco did was at all reasonable or justified. I just don't want to address the issue through legislation. Frankly I think that is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. There are (IMO) far more appropriate and effective venues for addressing such a situation. In many situations legislation is the most appropriate (somtimes ONLY) venue for addressing an ill. I am not allergic to the use of legislation as a tool where appropriate. I am just allergic to it's use as the DEFAULT, one size fits all, tool to be applied to every ill in existance. In this case, I happen to think the proposed cure (legislation) will do far more harm then the origional ill did. We will have to conclude to disagree on the issue. I am also heartened by the relatively civil tone this discussion has taken. It is one of the reasons, I started posting on Centerfield in the first place.... it is a place where people can disagree on very important subjects and discuss those disagreements in a polite and rationale manner. That's actualy somewhat rare on the blogsphere. Posted by: cengel at July 24, 2006 04:46 PMIt is not an arguement for or against status quo, per say. It is merely an arguement which states - When you make a change to a complex system (ANY complex system.... and human society is among one of the most complex systems I can imagine) you had better be incredibly specific about exactly what that change will be, how you expect it to work and what factors you are taking into consideration if you want to have any hope in hell of predicting what that change will ACTUALY do to that system when it is enacted for real. I don't know about the "per se" part. But this argument absolutely is an argument against any change to any system that's complex, so it absolutely is an argument that serves to preserve the status quo, regardless of the intent. But you Cengel, are also a clever guy, so you know that the status quo itself is something of an illusion. One constant of our "status quo" system is constant change. Is the current system "known" as you claim? To some extent, yes. But not to the extent that we can reliably predict all or even most outcomes. Since you concede that the system is not optimal, only "known, " and since you acknowedge that the employer behavior I question is indeed undesirable, I remain at a loss to see that you have any reason for opposing the attempt to remedy the injustice you acknowedge other than fear. You're afraid to try. It doesn't address it because that point ISN'T at issue. We agree that the people CAN decide this. They CAN decide that we all have to watch episodes of "The Simple Life" from 9-5 every day if they really want to. This isn't an arguement about what the People CAN do.... it is an arguement about what they SHOULD do. A naked dodge? That's the best you can do? Why shouldn't people do what they can to try to remedy injustice? Unless they are afraid like you, yes they should try, again and again. And that's the point. Since our system is a democracy, what the people SHOULD do, as per democracy, is make their feelings and their views known and try to make things better. You believe that people shouldn't try to make things better in this case because you are sure such efforts would lead to more negatives than positives. People who fear change love to say things like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Sadly, such people also tend to ignore that the road to hell is not the only one paved with good intentions. Is not the road to heaven also paved with good intentions? And is the road to heaven ever paved with bad intentions like the express lane to hell? I am simply making the arguement that the change you want to see enacted erodes one of those goods for something of lessor value. Now, that is a subjective judgement certainly....but I think it is one alot of people will share... if they take the time to fully examine the implications of that change.... rather then just making a knee jerk reactions about the boss from Weyco being a jerk...and some-one aughta pass a law to stop him.possible that any infringement on "business property rights" (to quickly and loosely describe what you are defending) in favor of protecting everyday people from unjust and arbitrary decisions of their employers might gum up the economy. I'd try it anyway.
See, I don't get that analogy. what's the baby, and what's the bathwater? It sound to me like you are claiming that in this case it is in fact impossible to throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby at the same time. My point is that i think we should keep trying until we find the best way to drain the tub without hurting the baby, and you're virtually certain it can't be done, or too afraid to try. I'd be interested to hear what these non-legislative remedies you imagine might be. Do they consist of anything other than patiently waiting for free market magic to happen? "I don't know about the "per se" part. But this argument absolutely is an argument against any change to any system that's complex, so it absolutely is an argument that serves to preserve the status quo, regardless of the intent." I don't know how to say it any plainer. It's not an arguement for or against change- It's an arguement that says when you want to make a change you have to be SPECIFIC about what you are changing and how you expect to achieve that change. To use an analogy. We are both flying in an airplane and you want the plane to fly at a lower attitude. You say that you are going "fiddle with some control" to make that happen. I'm telling you that you need to tell me WHAT control you are going to use and HOW you are going to use. Because if you don't do that, I can't have any chance of predicting whether what you are doing is going to simply decrease the planes altitude or crash us into the ground. Get it? That isn't an arguement for not trying to fly lower.... it's an arguement for trying to figure out what you are doing BEFORE you do it. ----------------------------- What's the dodge? You claimed that because I rejected the specific solution you proposed that I am somehow uncomfortable with the concept of democracy and that I believe that power to make those kind of changes doesn't reside with the people. I'm saying that I'm not uncomfortable with the concept of democracy....I'm uncomfortable with your proposed course of action. I'm saying very specificly that the remedy you propose is going to create a far greater injustice then the one you are trying to fix. The thing you seem to be avoiding is that such attempts have costs and consequences in and of themselves. People are wise to consider those before deciding to embark on a course of action. Fear is only bad when it paralyzes you from pursuing actions which are beneficial. When it prevents you from pursuing actions which are harmfull it's actualy a good thing(tm)! Perfection only exists in peoples imagination. It's not achievable here in the real world. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve something if we can reason out a feasable method for doing so. But it means that we have to recognize the difference between a problem we have a good method for fixing and one which we don't...and be able to live with a certain level of imperfection. ----------------------------------- The baby is our basic liberty, freedom of choice, personal responsibility, a healthy economy and being able to work at companies with relaxed and productive work atmosphere. I'm not saying it's "impossible" to throw out the bathwater without the baby.... I'm saying that so far you haven't shown me a solution which does it. Frankly, I don't know whether it's possible or not.... I make no claims of omnipotence. I'm only saying that certain courses of action have somewhat predictable results.... and the results I see from the particular course of action you postulate aren't good. By all means, if you've got something else that you think will work...I'm all ears. I aleardy mentioned those remedies. The consist of the free market, unions, publicizing such incidents and using public pressure, scorn, shame and boycotts.
Cengel, your plane analogy proves your point only IF it's absolutely appropriate. I fully understand the point it makes. I just don't believe it's entirely appropriate. It's cooked. Your ongoing presumption is the current state of affairs represents a stable stasis and presumes that any change represents unacceptable risk unless there's a comprehensive review of all possible outcomes. Quite ironically, this is the favored view of bureaucrats and @ss-coverers everywhere. Why not simply concede that your view is that you are AFRAID of what the outcome might be in the absence of this thorough review, while again stressing that you feel that you have ample good reason to be afraid. I don't buy your argument that your point of view is not intrinsically protective of the status quo. The POV whihc states "no change allowed without detailed and comprehensive review" absolutely and undeniably serves to protect the status quo. Anyone who complains about big government and red tape has made such an argument many times. A further irony here is that this argument is the very one which causes you to be afraid of any new job protections, that the red tape will kill business. Yet your view is that it's Ok to throw up the red tape to halt any change I'm calling for without a lengthy and comprehensive vetting process. So then the question becomes this: You've suggested that businesses must have unfettered freedom to make quick decisions and correct course. But when the people wish to make changes to how their country works, all of a sudden this freedom becomes unacceptable risk, and lengthy bureaucratic review suddenly becomes essential. By what magic does red tape get transformed from a bureaucratic obstacle to a vital safeguard?
This is a pretty big and awfully vague baby encompassing several disparate AND overlapping ideas. It's hard to carry the discussion forward when your "baby" is a laundry list of all the things you sort of think you hold dear about the country. The only reason I asked is because I don't think you chose an apt analogy. When I called you on it, you retreated to vague truism. I already mentioned those remedies. They consist of the free market, unions, publicizing such incidents and using public pressure, scorn, shame and boycotts. Before we try any of these remedies, shouldn't they all be subjected to a lengthy and detailed vetting process? Couldn't they have unintended negative side affects that you are failing to anticipate? isn't it too risky to try these things unless we can be very sure of what all the outcomes might be? Or is only potential legislation something that might have unintended side affects? Just curious. :-) Posted by: bk at July 25, 2006 12:19 PMBK, Wow, I hadn't expected this discussion would take on a life of it's own. There is a world of difference between asking some-one to be clear and specific about what changes they would make and how the expect to go about achieving them and burying a process in "red tape". To paraphrase what led us to this point.... You stated that you wanted to see legislation enacted to stop the sort of workplace behavior described in the Weyco scenerio that was discussed in this thread. Pat responded asking you to be specific about exactly what legislation you want enacted, how it would work...and how it would avoid some of the rather obvious pitfalls he could forsee with using a legislative solution. You responded with a specific example of a rule you would propose but also questioned why you were being asked to be specific when Pat didn't feel compelled to do the same. I have responded that Pat didn't need to provide any specifics because he wasn't actualy proposing to do anything.... you were.... so we needed to know WHAT exactly you envisioned doing. That's not the equivalent of burying you in bearucracy.... it's asking you to be clear and specific about what exactly you would change so we could have some chance of evaluating what it's possible ramifications might be. Furthermore, I DO believe that the enacting of laws requires a greater degree of scrutiny then private action. Simply because the Law is so much more powerfull a tool. It's the difference between using a butter knife to cut something then a chainsaw. You gotta be more cautious with the chainsaw because you can do alot more damage with it if you screw up. It's not neccesarly the propensity to screw up that's different, it's the consequences of screwing up that are. The Law is a 500lb gorilla. Private organizations aren't invested with the power to seize your assets, garnish your income or send armed men to take you out of your home and lock you up in a 5 x 10ft cell for the rest of your natural life - the Law is. When you invoke the law as a solution THAT is the kind of power you are calling upon. THAT is why we need to excersize great caution when seeking to wield it. Ask Pat the difference between what he can do to you in his proffesional capacity as an officer of the court....and what he can do to you in his private life without access to the court system. That's only exascerbated by the fact that laws have a nasty habit of being very difficult to get rid of once they get on the books. Not the case with private solutions. If they aren't effective or if they have unintended consequences they tend to self-select out very quickly..... the law doesn't. How long did it take to do anything about the Blue Laws in Mass, BK? Just like a chainsaw, sometimes the Law is the appropriate tool for the job..... but I happen to believe that if you can do the job sufficiently with a butter-knife you are far better off eschewing the chain-saw..... and for some things, frankly it's better just to leave them uncutt then risking the damage a chainsaw can do.
Yup. A life of it's own. I stand by the points I made, especially about red tape. It's a cogent and obvious point undented by your recasting. Just like a chainsaw, sometimes the Law is the appropriate tool for the job..... but I happen to believe that if you can do the job sufficiently with a butter-knife you are far better off eschewing the chain-saw..... and for some things, frankly it's better just to leave them uncut then risking the damage a chainsaw can do. For the most part I was with you the whole way until this part. It has a certain persuasiveness on a vague level, but it weasels around the words "sufficient" and a" ppropriate."Who decides which tool is sufficient? And when legal action is appropriate? Who decides whether the risk of damage is too great? My answer has been that in a democracy, the people should decide. Your answer has been that only the market otta be trusted unless the nature of the circumstances is so extreme that YOU are worried. :-) The Law is a 500lb gorilla. Private organizations aren't invested with the power to seize your assets, garnish your income or send armed men to take you out of your home and lock you up in a 5 x 10ft cell for the rest of your natural life - the Law is. When you invoke the law as a solution THAT is the kind of power you are calling upon. THAT is why we need to excersize great caution when seeking to wield it. Ask Pat the difference between what he can do to you in his proffesional capacity as an officer of the court....and what he can do to you in his private life without access to the court system. OK that whole paragraph is PURE rhetoric. If the law is a 500 pound gorilla, then what does the free market weigh in at? In how many other conversations elsewhere have you gone on and on about the vast and magical powers of the free market? 1? 10? 100? [my money is on "between 10 and 100"] But now, today, private enterprise is a weakling at the mercy of the law? Give me a fricken break. Private organizations can't kick down your door? Ok. But can a company cripple your life with an inopportune firing for arbitrary reasons? Yup. Can companies collect data tracing virtually every electronic step you take? You betcha. I'm sure I could go on in this vein at length if I were inclined. So forgive me if I'm not feeling as sorry as you for poor set-upon private enterprise. I'm not letting you get away with having it both ways. Which is it? Is private enterprise a raw and magical power for good, or a weakling before the awesome powers of a government, even though you consistently claim that the tgovernment is feeble and incompetent. Or is the truth somewhere in between? Does business do extraordinary good at the same time as it harbors a tendency to ruthless unfeeling action which makes the people feel that regulation is sometimes necessary? here's the thing. The most pro-business among us believe that business is the goose that lays all the golden eggs, and that this goos must not be harmed by any regulation. The most anti-business among us believe that business is fundamentally rapacious, a wolf with claws that must be caged. Isn't it past time to re-center our thinking around a notion that, if anything, business is a golden-egg laying wolf with sharp claws? Posted by: bk at July 26, 2006 02:51 PMFWIW, bk, I'm with you all the way. It sure has been entertaining watching these guys squirm. Posted by: Adam at July 27, 2006 12:23 AM |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
