The Smoker Ban

The situation that has cropped up due to the recent increase in smoker bans by large corporations is very perplexing. While on one hand, banning smokers from applying to large corporations would be better for society health wise, I think that the ban could lead to a slippery slope of health bans on employees from large corporations. Corporations are unlike the government in that they are created by citizens that wish to further their own self interests, while possibly helping others in society. That being said, I definitely agree that health oriented corporations, such as hospitals, have the right to deny employment to a person that is a smoker. Such corporations strive for the betterment of our society through solving people’s health issues and it would almost be counterproductive if their employees were to smoke. But, at the same time, these corporations would be limiting the liberty of its employee’s ability to use a legal substance. I think that corporations that have nothing to do with the health field should not be able to limit the liberties of their employees this way. Ellen Vargyas said, “We want to be very supportive of smokers, and the best thing we can do is help them quit, not condition employment on whether they quit”. I agree with this, if an employee is facing an addiction to cigarettes they should be helped, not immediately fired. So, to answer the question asked, I do not think that corporations should be allowed to limit liberties in the same ways that governments do. As I stated at the beginning of this blog, most corporations are created by citizens that are acting in their self interest, and even though many corporations do in turn help society, they should not be able to limit liberties like the government does. Our government was established to help the citizens of our country relish in our liberties and it has the ability to limit liberties in order to protect the citizens and society. I think that corporations should be able to do their business without limiting the liberties of their employees and should leave the allotment and limitation of liberties up to the government.

An Corporation's Power to Limit Liberties

This is a very controversial issue. Corporations should not be able to be as intrusive as a government entity on an individual’s liberties. I do believe that a corporation may be able to enact some limitations on liberties, if they have to do with its sector of business. For example, I feel that health organizations have some merit to ban smoking. Their employees are working towards a common goal to maintain and improve the health of its patrons. Smoking is a known major cause of preventable death, which blatantly goes against this common goal.

In the case of an establishment such as a sports venue, I feel that this business should not be allowed to restrict smoking. The addiction has nothing to do with the common goal of the establishment, which would be to provide entertainment through hosting sports events.

In the case of the other examples presented in the article, such as banning potential employees who are obese, or consume fast food, I believe that a corporation would be going to far. Obesity can be caused by various factors, which may include genetics, poor diet, lack of physical activity, etc. It can be hard to pinpoint what exactly causes it, therefore, making it an unfair basis for termination, or lack of hiring.

Law & Order

Should corporations be allowed to impose limitations on liberties?

Yes, but only on those that are already illegal. It is ridiculous to turn away a person applying for a job, that they are qualified for, and turning him/her away because he/she is using a legal substance. This is not something that is "a good idea", it is a clear violation of people's liberties. If these corporations are so "anti-smoking" they should campaign to have it made illegal. In the article one man even went so far as to say he would discriminate against obese applicants if it were not illegal. This is absurd. I understand that these habits are unhealthy and that we should promote a healthy lifestyle whenever possible, but we should not do so at the expense of people's rights.

I think if this were suggested even fifteen years ago it would have been scoffed at and turned down immediately. The only reason that this rule is allowed to remain in place is the way the world's attitude towards smoking has shifted, but I think this is all the more reason that this should not be allowed. Everyone knows what smoking does to their bodies, yet some choose to do it anyway and this is perfectly within their rights as United States citizens. Tobacco is still legal, despite its negative image and despite the obvious health risks and until this changes this rule must not be allowed to exist.

As Lewis Maltby, president of the Workrights Institute, said "There is nothing unique about smoking. The number of things that we all do privately that have negative impact on our health is endless. If it’s not smoking, it’s beer. If it’s not beer, it’s cheeseburgers. And what about your sex life?” This is discrimination, and it should not be allowed.

To look at the bigger picture, this is an example of why corporations need to be held to the same standards as government, in that they cannot take away people's basic liberties. There may be a few exceptions where a corporation may be able to do things a bit differently than the government (e.g. a company focused on a certain religion), but in general companies should not be allowed to take liberties from their employees.

Law and Order: February 21

Should corporations be allowed to impose limitations on liberties?

I think that corporations should be limited on the amount of limitations they can impose on the liberties of their workers. Corporations are institutions that look out solely for their own good. It is in their best interest to make as much money as they possibly can. One of the ways that this is accomplished is by limiting how much they help their workers.

While the issue of discrimination of smoking is quite sticky, consider a person looking for a job who previously had an illness such as cancer. For the purpose of my argument, this person fought and beat their cancer, is currently in good health, is without a job, and is attempting to work to pay off their medical bills. Unfortunately, there is a chance that the cancer could come back. Many companies look into this person's medical background and refuse to hire them because of the potential of having to cover their medical insurance. Sadly, this happened to a family friend. She was unable to find work based off of her previous battle with cancer. Luckily, her husband was employed and the family was able to cover the bills. The point of the story is that the businesses used her medical background as discrimination to not hire her. I think that this is a perfect example of why corporations should be limited on the amount of limitations they can impose.

Since corporations are such a large part of America and the economy, they have a responsibility to help society. Part of helping society is looking out for the interests of their workers. Discriminating against workers and imposing limitations on liberties on everyday life should be limited. If these limitations aren't restricted, then the corporations can't be held accountable for helping society. I'm not saying that the corporations should have to put the rest of society and their workers above all interests of the corporation, but they should be held responsible for not taking advantage of those they employ and not discriminating against those looking for work.

Law & Order 2/21/11

Should corporation be allowed to impose limitations on liberties?

Although it seems unfair that the smokers are being discriminated against in the job market, I think that corporations have the right to impose liberties on potential employees. While it is true that the individual has their own liberties, and that smoking is one of them, if they are choosing to become associated with a particular business, they should be willing to abide by that corporation’s laws. After all, they are not being forced to work for that corporation, and if they do not like the policies, they can find employment elsewhere. For a corporation to thrive, they need to be able to hire the most efficient workers to build the most efficient system of operations. This ultimately will benefit society as a whole, as business will thrive and money will be saved.

What are the limitations of corporations?

I think the limitations of government should be even greater than the limitations of government on liberties. The biggest argument against governments limiting liberties is the snowball effect, wherein we will turn into some Orwellian society with Big Brother always watching. I can see the worries that are brought up with this smoking ban put forth by corporations banning smokers from working there. This is a scary idea where the companies we work for can tell us what we can or cannot do. What if your employer said he wanted to save on health insurance so he said no one is allowed to eat candy, if they are caught eating candy they will be fired. That scenario is obviously extreme but it can show the injustices put forth by the corporations putting this ban in place. While everyone knows smoking is bad for them, company who believe this is a problem should put in place courses or councilors who can help them get better for their own benefit, not to help the bottom line of the company. This should not be a constitutional issue, but an issue of these massive global corporations to squeeze every last penny out of a worker and making sure they will not cost the company an extra dime.

What are the limitations of corporations?

I think the limitations of government should be even greater than the limitations of government on liberties. The biggest argument against governments limiting liberties is the snowball effect, wherein we will turn into some Orwellian society with Big Brother always watching. I can see the worries that are brought up with this smoking ban put forth by corporations banning smokers from working there. This is a scary idea where the companies we work for can tell us what we can or cannot do. What if your employer said he wanted to save on health insurance so he said no one is allowed to eat candy, if they are caught eating candy they will be fired. That scenario is obviously extreme but it can show the injustices put forth by the corporations putting this ban in place. While everyone knows smoking is bad for them, company who believe this is a problem should put in place courses or councilors who can help them get better for their own benefit, not to help the bottom line of the company. This should not be a constitutional issue, but an issue of these massive global corporations to squeeze every last penny out of a worker and making sure they will not cost the company an extra dime.

Corporations allowed to limit liberties?

I think that it is ok for corporations to refuse a job applicant because of smoking if they want. While I do have sympathy for smokers because I know it is an addiction and I know that it would be very difficult to quit, it does not benefit the company to have employees that smoke. While you may call it discrimination, smoking is a choice, and although often the choice to smoke has usually been made long before the smoker applied for the job, it is still a decision, not a disability. If I were the head of a large corporation, my goals would be to make the largest profit while maintaining integrity by treating my workers well and by trying to not harm the environment. I would not want to hire workers that smoke if I had the choice because it has been shown time and time again that smoking increases the risk of cancer and heart disease. Since my company would be providing health insurance to the employees, I would want to hire employees that do not participate in activities that would harm their health. I do not think it is alright to discriminate based on a disability that someone is born with, or race, or family history, because these are not things that people are able to choose. Smoking, however, is a choice. Smoking is terrible for your health and by choosing against it in the workforce, it will provide an incentive to quit. While you may argue that it is your right to smoke, it is also the duty of our government to promote the general welfare. The preamble to our constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." By choosing against smoking in the workforce, corporations would not be imposing limitations on liberties, but rather promoting the general welfare, not only for the non-smokers, but also for the smokers by empowering them to quit a habit that is harming their health.

On Liberty

1.In the second chapter of On Liberty, Mill brings up four distinct grounds on the freedom of opinion and the freedom of the expression of opinion. In your opinion, which is the most important for a society to have? Which is the least important?

2. If we asked Mill today for his definition of liberty, what would it be?

On Liberty Questions/Comments

1. Why do you think Mill’s states that tyranny of the majority (social tyranny) causes a greater impact on individual opinion than tyranny of a single ruler (political tyranny)?
2. Should society or members of the government be permitted to violate an individual’s liberty of opinion?

On Liberty

1. Mill's position is that if one's actions affect society, it is now society's domain and his rights may be taken away, it is my opinion that this does not extend to the phone taps spoken of in other posts unless the individual concerned has done something to society, but what would be Mill's stance on this modern issue?

2. Mill says that as long as a person is not harming others with his actions he should be left alone, would he disagree with a law against attempted suicide?


Niko Allende

On Liberty

1. Does Mill think there is any situation when it is acceptable to limit freedoms, such as wiretapping to prevent terrorism?

Is 2. Is there a time when it is acceptable or necessary for someone to express anger or negative emotion?

On Liberty by Mill

1. Mill stated that individuals and society as a whole should be able to interfere with others’ personal liberty if it endangers their own. Could this ultimately be taken advantage of by individuals?

2. Mill argues that society should not restrict self-destructive things in which people have been previously been warned. I don’t really agree with this. Are we not somewhat responsible if we allow others to take part in self-destructive activities?

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

1) If John Stuart Mill says that society can limit a person's liberties in a certain situation in order to protect society as a whole, then is he basically in agreement with the US Government's decision to phone-tap certain people and conversations, based on profiling?

2) What types of different ways of living does John Stuart Mill mean should be allowed? Do families qualify as individuals, or does he mean each individual person?