Buh.

[rowyn]

There are many ways to respond to the high cost of health care. But I can't say that I care for this one. O_o

I'm glad I don't work there. And bully for the four people who refused to take the test; I hope they find a better company to work for soon.

I won't say "there oughta be a law" or "Weyco shouldn't be able to do this", because I don't believe in laws to control who a company hires and fires, or why. But I will say: I sure hope market forces clobber them hard.

Comments

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the government is indirectly abetting the cause of "independent private companies" by the hostile environment they have created, by propagandizing against smoking and suing tobacco companies for gigabucks. There's also the fact that the health care (and therefore medical insurance) industry is pretty heavily socialized in the US, despite that we don't (yet?) have a nationalized single-payer system.

A problem for libertarian theory: what if every company in your town got together and refused to hire, buy from, sell to, or even admit on their premises, black people? Or Jews? Or Republicans? You can't count on the market to correct the inequity (for the sake of argument, assume the town is an economically closed system), because the market has been hijacked. You probably also can't count on the government, because the town business leaders will be (de facto if not de jure) the government. Pretty much all the oppressed people can do is to leave (if they can, and if there's anywhere to go), to stage an armed revolt (which may succeed, or may result in their extermination), or to suffer in silence.

I doubt this scenario will result in anything so extreme as regards smokers or the obese, but it's not unthinkable.

Good point

[rowyn]

A problem for libertarian theory: what if every company in your town got together and refused to hire, buy from, sell to, or even admit on their premises, black people? Or Jews? Or Republicans?

In theory, the market fixes problems eventually ... but to be perfectly fair, "eventually" is measured in centuries or millenia, and that's way too long to wait. I am not opposed to checks and balances via government, when necessary.

But because the government is so heavy-handed and powerful, I would much prefer that market forces be given the opportunity to redress wrongs, first.

And then there's the matter of "At what point does this become so wrong that it needs government redress?" The actual example of Weyco's policy is clearly wrong. What they are doing is invasive, cruel, and inappropriate. But that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. The people who left should be able to find work elsewhere, and given the environment Weyco is promoting, they'll probably be happier overall working somewhere else than they would if Weyco were forced to find a sneakier way to promote their agenda.

On the other hand, your more extreme counter-example does require the force of law to correct, especially if the group of people so stigmatized cannot compete. (Eg, they are so disadvantaged they cannot set up their own business.)

At what point does the problem of Weyco become severe enough that it requires government intervention? I'm not sure. But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease. If the market's own immune system can shake off the virus of Weyco, that would be easier all around.

Re: Good point

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Well, don't forget something else I said: when the environment is bad enough that the whole market is unfair to the stigmatized group, you are not likely to get any help from the government either, because the same people are going to be running both business and government in a given community. When such extreme cases have cropped up in American history -- such as Jim Crow laws -- it required what was essentially intervention by an OUTSIDE government (e.g., the Feds) to solve it. If the prejudicial environment gets wide enough then there simply is no redress at all except rebellion.

But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease.

I will agree with that. And I also agree that Weyco will probably be a self-correcting problem.

Re: Good point

[rowyn]

I sort of conflated "government" and "rebellion" into the same thing, since -- in some sense -- forcing a new policy to be instilled through rebellion is and act of government. A new government, maybe, but a government nonetheless. :/

But it's rather more accurate to distinguish between the two. I'm pretty sure we're only clarifying points, here, and not really disagreeing about anything. :)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

First off, I agree with Lady Rowyn -- the company's actions are ill-advised. But it seems to me that your concerns -- black people, Jews, Republicans -- are based on old predjudices. Well, and one new one, the anti-Republican hatred, which so far remains politically correct. Weyco's situation is not leading to the problems you describe, I think.

But rather than "traditional prejudice", there is a different issue underlying this. The company is saying: "Government, you are forcing us to undertake medical risks for our employees -- we want to select those employees in order to minimize those risks."

It seems to be a very bad idea to fire based on this -- prior employees should have been grandfathered in at minimum, and the whole concept is problematic.

In this case, it's a voluntary risk; smoking. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I am not in favor of the anti-smoking paranoia in the US today; much of it is based on utterly discredited second-hand smoke concerns, and my issues with it are Libertarian-inclined.

But here we have employment contingent on a medical risk. Already we have the ability to genetically screen for a number of risks; this number will continually increase.

We do not require insurance companies to insure people who smoke, or have medical conditions. Many do, and this is often automatic in group insurance because that's what the previous market required. This is changing, though, and the insurance companies (who are the world's experts on statistical probability) are now being given tools to improve the odds.

What can we do about that? And what should we do?

In Gattaca, a person's job prospects depended on their genetic heritage, which was manipulatable at the parents' discretion and with government involvement. Much of the movie was farcical, but that concept is close to reality.

A blood test will be able to, five years from now, make much better predictions about employee future health probabilities than we ever could before. It will be fast and painless. And it will completely change how we go about the social conventions of employment. And to an extent, it will be forced into being by the social welfare programs now under way.

===|==============/ Level Head

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

This speaks to my first paragraph: it is government mandate that has created this whole problem, in this case, the expectation that universal health care coverage be provided through employers. But dare to suggest that that's a problem, and the proposed "solution" will be HillaryCare.

[dajagr.livejournal.com]

I am not in favor of the anti-smoking paranoia in the US today; much of it is based on utterly discredited second-hand smoke concerns...

I have to admit that I have my own anti-smoking views (whether or not they fall into the "paranoia" category is subjective, of course), but for more personal reasons than whatever studies are out there. I have never smoked, but when I was around 16, I worked in a fast-food restaurant where nearly everyone did. The back room was, effectively, a smoking lounge and was constantly filled with tobacco smoke. After somewhat less than a year of working there, I found myself, while at home (and thus away from the smoke; my parents did not smoke, either), having cigarette cravings. That was a rather frightening experience. Since then, I have never been able to give any credence to any study claiming that cigarettes are not addictive, or that second-hand smoke is not harmful (if I can develop an addiction to the substance when I'm not even the primary user, something is wrong).

In the case in question, I do think that firing employees for engaging in a legal activity on their own time is taking things rather too far. On the other hand, though, I do believe in making smoking in public as difficult, inconvenient, and uncomfortable as possible. If you insist on destroying your own body, I can't stop you...but you'd darned well better not insist on taking out mine in the process.

[jim-lane.livejournal.com]

Since you were here in Florida, we passed a law (now in effect) that absolutely BANS smoking in businesses (the only exceptions being tobacco shops). Even our Elks Lodge, a *private* organization *not* dealing with the public, must adhere to the law, since we employ bartenders in our lounge, and sometimes in our catering-banquet-size kitchen. Were *all* the workers volunteers, we could have smoking in the lodge; have *one* paid employee, NOBODY can smoke in the building.

This also affected the dealership where I work. If you remember, when you stepped into the office area you were hit by "essence of cigar" (grin!); the owner lived in his office upstairs (near mine) and chain-smoked Cubans (hard to keep 'em lit, and they wiggle, scream and curse in Spanish a lot...). Nowadays, he smokes OUTSIDE, often sitting in his vehicle right near the patio ramp. Even though the smoke nearly killed me, I still think it's WRONG to ban the business owner from indulging in a LEGAL activity in his own business.

ALL the public bars, private clubs and organizations (with paid employees), even the hotels/motels were required to totally ban smoking inside the buildings. It hurt business at first, but the employees -- even the smokers -- mostly agree it's for the best. The bar patrons griped, but since there was nowhere they could go to smoke and drink -- other than their homes -- they've pretty much returned. The restaurant patrons LOVE it, since there's no longer an issue with "smoking or non-smoking" sections.

It's just sad that it had to come down to passing a law to see it happen...

As for insurance companies denying coverage to "risky" groups--- They already do this for people who engage in "risky" sports. I, too, see it expanding to ANY alcohol use, "lifestyle" choices, ALL active sports and activities; in effect, ANYTHING the insurance companies deem to be contrary to their maximum profits.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

ALL the public bars, private clubs and organizations (with paid employees), even the hotels/motels were required to totally ban smoking inside the buildings.

This isn't entirely accurate. Smoking is permitted in bars that don't sell food (as a certain small percentage of their take). However, it is not permitted in restaurants with full bars.

In case you couldn't have guessed, I voted against the ban. Fat lot of good it did though.

Oops!

[jim-lane.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Good catch! You're right about the bars; I'd forgotten the that detail of the law. It was even a "sticking point" issue with our Elks Lodge bar, as well as several local public ones. One local bar tried to slide under the enforcement radar by letting bar patrons order food from a take-out joint next door---that the bar owners just happened to own---and the food would be delivered by employees to the bar patrons, who never had to leave their bar stools. Worked for a few weeks, then the bar owners got slapped down by the State enforcement folks.

We simply set up a nice area outside our Lodge for the smokers, who, after grumbling for a while, decided the Lodge bar benefits outweighed the inconvenience of smoking outside. Nowadays, people (like me) who avoided the bar due to dislike/allergy to smoke can now enjoy an "adult beverage" with friends in comfort, especially when we have live musical entertainment.