The New Age of Employer Discrimination and Harassment

phoenixx · #1 07-19-2006, 01:02 AM

Are you a little overweight or significantly obese? You are lucky - due to provisions in Federal law protecting you, you can't be fired for that.

If you smoke the occasional cigar, or cigarettes, on your own time, have that much-anticipated glass of wine or beer after a tough day slaving away for "the man" or indulge in any number of perfectly legal activities, your job could be at risk. That's right, even after years of loyalty and hard work, activities that are not only legal, but none of your boss's business, could get you fired.

Just ask these two ladies how this affected them

Quote:

Maltby says it is perfectly legal in 20 states and in most of America a worker has virtually no rights at all. "Under the law in all but five states in America, your boss can fire you for any reason under the sun. Including who you associate with after work. Whether you're smoking or drinking in your own home. Or a bumper sticker on your car. And you have no legal recourse."

**slick4591**[$] · #2 07-19-2006, 08:45 AM

This is not new news. It's called "work at the leisure" or something like that. There are rules regarding disabilities, race, religion and so forth, but mostly an employer can just decide that the employee is no longer needed and can legally let them go.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #3 07-19-2006, 08:56 AM

I gotta say, if an employer is going to fire me over a bumper sticker, it's not the kind of place I'd generally want to be working at anyway. And you get to collect unemployment.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #4 07-19-2006, 09:15 AM

"at-will employment." It means that either employer or employee can end their relationship without having to provide notice or cause. Whatever is outside EEOC domain (race, gender, etc.) is fair game for dismissal at any time.

frazzledspice · #5 07-19-2006, 10:39 AM

But if your boss really wants to fire you because of a reason that is federally protected--such as disability, or weight, or race--he will usually build a case against you for other reasons and fire you anyway...it might take a few months.

One lateness....an extra sick day.....finishing a project late...he'll find a reason to disguise his real reason.

**theworm**[$] · #6 07-19-2006, 10:40 AM

I"ve had to sign employment at will statements which basically means that they can fire me for any reason and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Having a bad hair day can be a legitimate reason to be fired.

CurtisEdmonds · #7 07-19-2006, 09:01 PM

Weight is NOT a protected class. I don't know where y'all are getting this from.

**Joubert**[$] · #8 07-20-2006, 02:12 AM

Any good leader can get rid of someone they don't want without worrying about any of this nonsense. You just have to be sneaky and not have scruples.

I was surprised about the weight thing too. Glad Curtis cleared that up.

As for the other stuff, good luck proving it. Few employees are disciplined enough to have their work and work time withstand a full audit. Heck, just giving the employee assignments you know will make them unhappy will lead to them spiraling down, not liking work, doing poor work, getting written up, leading to even more spirals.

Sorry to sound cold, but if a good manager wants you gone, you're gone, even if you're not in an at-will state. Here in the Gunrack State, we just go in the room, close the door and say, "Joey, it's not working out. Here's your check, here's your COBRA information. Bob, here, will walk you out. Best of luck in the future. Goodbye."

**AuntieEmma**[$] · #9 07-20-2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

CurtisEdmonds said

Weight is NOT a protected class. I don't know where y'all are getting this from.

It is in San Francisco. (Now you know, in case the question ever comes up in Trivial Pursuit.) Height is, also.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #10 07-20-2006, 07:44 AM

Most of the employers I've worked for try to find cause to avoid the time and expense of a discrimination claim AND to avoid having to pay unemployment.

**lynnzop**[$] · #11 07-20-2006, 09:36 AM

Bingo on finding cause and documenting it. When I've been a people manager, that's been an unwritten but carefully followed rule, and I've always worked in at-will states.

Someone can always hire a hungry attny and find reason for "discrimination". They may not win the case, but it gives the company (and manager) bad press and cost a lot of money.

**amykhar** · #12 07-20-2006, 09:42 AM

Playing devil's advocate here. Would you want to own a company and be forced to continue the employment of somebody who did not fit in with the other workers or who did enough work to meet the technical requirements of a job but did nothing more or with any true interest in doing it well?

An employer should have the right to terminate anybody for any reason because they should have the right to build the company of their dreams. Businesses are not social welfare projects. Your continued employment is not an obligation of society. It is your task as an adult to bring yourself up to employable standards and to stay there. Personal responsibility and individual choice and all that.

Life is about choices. If your boss doesn't want smokers working for him, it's YOUR choice. Continue to smoke and go work for somebody else or don't smoke and stay in your current job.

Protection for workers is for things that workers have no control over. They can't control being deaf or not being able to walk or having a disease. They can control and hence can set their own priorities on things like eating pork in a lunchroom, having a bumper sticker on their car, smoking or drinking.

**theworm**[$] · #13 07-20-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Joubert said

Here in the Gunrack State, we just go in the room, close the door and say, "Joey, it's not working out. Here's your check, here's your COBRA information. Bob, here, will walk you out. Best of luck in the future. Goodbye."

They say "best of luck". Wow. How polite! That's lovely.

**Prepoia**[$] · #14 07-20-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

amykhar said

Playing devil's advocate here. Would you want to own a company and be forced to continue the employment of somebody who did not fit in with the other workers or who did enough work to meet the technical requirements of a job but did nothing more or with any true interest in doing it well?

An employer should have the right to terminate anybody for any reason because they should have the right to build the company of their dreams. Businesses are not social welfare projects. Your continued employment is not an obligation of society. It is your task as an adult to bring yourself up to employable standards and to stay there. Personal responsibility and individual choice and all that.

Life is about choices. If your boss doesn't want smokers working for him, it's YOUR choice. Continue to smoke and go work for somebody else or don't smoke and stay in your current job.

Protection for workers is for things that workers have no control over. They can't control being deaf or not being able to walk or having a disease. They can control and hence can set their own priorities on things like eating pork in a lunchroom, having a bumper sticker on their car, smoking or drinking.

My husband has owned a business for years and I agree. My only problem is telling your employees what they can and can't do when they are off the job and at home. Those choices then should be their own.

**amykhar** · #15 07-20-2006, 10:42 AM

Not necessarily. Actions by employees on their own time can reflect upon the employer. A city emploee who was caught driving drunk on his own time ended up drawing negative attention for the city.

A coca-cola employee who says in public that he only drinks pepsi because coke tastes like crap would also be another example of how actions at home affect the employer.

Things which drive up health costs are a consideration, but also things that don't jive with corporate culture or create personality conflicts can be issues as well.

An employer is free to make any stupid ass rule he wants. And, we are free to not work for that employer if we so choose. If my boss decides to make a rule saying I can't use Tivo at home, I can decide to myself that the rule blows. I then can choose to a)quit immediately b) follow the rule until I find a new job and then quit c) ignore the rule and hope I don't get caught. Stupid rule. Doesn't affect my job performance at all. But, it's my employer's right to make that rule.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #16 07-20-2006, 11:02 AM

I disagree. There are already logical rules about what one can or cannot do off the job, such as discuss trade secrets; some of the things that drive up an employer's costs (like the smoking/health insurance example) have at least a logical reason even if our knee-jerk reactions to living in a free country are against a rule like that; being convicted of a crime or misdemeanor are often used as automatic firing conditions. But when you start to get into things that are on an employee's own time and none of an employer's business or concern and do not affect the employer's costs or the employee's ability to perform the job, or clash with essential freedomes (things like TiVo, Church attended on Sunday, Candidates supported?), that's beyond what I think should be legally acceptable. Perhaps it's not a big issue in an area with a good economy and many equivalent jobs available, but it's an issue in smaller towns, smaller fields of specialization, worse economies. Yes, an employer can and should keep a payroll made up of people who work well with the boss and each other, and yes, an employer can set rules for employees affecting the operation of his business, but once you go into an employee's personal time, that's a slippery slope and reminds me too much of the days of the company towns, where the boss almost literally OWNED employees.

**amykhar** · #17 07-20-2006, 11:59 AM

My point is this. Nobody HAS to work for a jackass employer. And, if you read the original article, you see cases of employers backing down on stupid rules because they couldn't get decent employees. The City of Reading just backed down on a rule that all city employees had to live in the city.

If you live in a small town with limited employers and the one you are suitable for is a jerk with obnoxious rules, you are free to move or change careers. It may suck to do that, but you can do it.

The second we start letting governments say what employement rules employers can and can't make is the second we end up with a group of 'entitled' workers who don't work. Look at any field where it's hard to fire somebody and you see crap workers. Not all of them. But enough of them to draw attention.

As a society, too many people believe their personal rights trump all. They don't want to accept the fact that even though they have the right to do something, doing that something may not always result in the best outcome for them. That's where choices and priorities come in. Personal liberties don't mean that other people have to go along with your choices. They just mean that you can make those decisions for yourself and then deal with the consequences of your choices.

The choices aren't always easy. Sometimes, the choices require real sacrifice or personal unhappiness. But it's those choices that shape us and make us the people we are. And, I don't think government needs to step in and control this matter because we don't need a paternalistic government protecting us. We need to develop personal responsibility to go with all those personal freedoms we have.

**Prepoia**[$] · #18 07-20-2006, 12:26 PM

I think that if we allow someone who is paying us for a job well done for 8 hours or more a day can impose any rule they deem helpful to the business and workers either abide by the rule (stupid or not) or choose to change their place of employment. If they don't like my version of well done....fire my ass with my blessing. The business belongs to them. But, I don't belong to them when I'm not at work. I'm not getting paid 24/7 to be owned by them and their rules (stupid or not).

If they don't like my husband....if they don't like the sexual positions we use in the bedroom....if they don't like who I vote for....those and any other thing I choose to do when away from the job is not their business or the time they're paying me for.

I teach and can't have any felonies or convictions regarding children on my record. We now have to report any time that it occured or occurs in the future. That's their rules so I either work for them or I don't. Those kinds of issues does affect my work or at least maybe could affect the children I teach. Many teachers are crying about it...many teachers have been fired because of the new law....but, it may affect my work.

If I drink or get drunk but am always sober for and at work, then get out of my face about what I do when I'm not working. Drinking is legal and it's my personal choice how to live my life away from the job.

The only exceptions that I can see are health related. If you drink, smoke, do dope, are extremely overweight, etc. then I guess it could go back to work with you in health costs. So...as is being done around the nation...employers would have the right to ask for employees to pay the health care. This is being done a lot anymore anyway.

I believe in personal rights during my personal times. I don't want the government regulating everything. I think it's possible to believe in both concepts.

realtraveller · #19 07-20-2006, 01:29 PM

It's market forces. Smokers cost employers more in health care.

The Marriott hotel chain just made all its properties smoke-free. It's the profits. They had fewer and fewer guests requesting smoking rooms and more and more complaints about the smell of smoke. It's expensive to have the drapes cleaned, the bedspreads and carpets replaced. And it's not paying off in getting more guests. Westin hotels has done the same thing.

**Prepoia**[$] · #20 07-20-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

realtraveller said

It's market forces. Smokers cost employers more in health care.

The Marriott hotel chain just made all its properties smoke-free. It's the profits. They had fewer and fewer guests requesting smoking rooms and more and more complaints about the smell of smoke. It's expensive to have the drapes cleaned, the bedspreads and carpets replaced. And it's not paying off in getting more guests. Westin hotels has done the same thing.

Quite true, I am sure. But that's job related and therefore the right of the business to set personal rules for people working and staying on the premises. Well within their rights and people have choices. The company is not telling employees not to smoke at home. And, again. If one chooses to smoke they could be requested to pay then, for their own health insurance.