Firing at will - the employer as despot... Your money or your lifestyle, part two In the last Daily Dose, I regaled you with the lamentable, but all-too-true tale of the 2 employees of a Michigan company who were summarily fired for smoking. Not for smoking on the job or sneaking cigarettes on the premises, but simply for being smokers in their private lives... But this isn't the only instance of an employer arbitrarily stepping over accepted privacy boundaries to lower the boom on some hapless employee simply for being himself (or herself) off the job. According to the CBSNews.com article that outlined the case of the 2 Michigan smokers, the following frivolous firings have also happened in the good ol' Land of the Free - apparently perfectly legally: - A West Virginia man was fired because he asked a pointed question to a candidate for office at a political rally
- An Alabama woman was terminated for displaying a "Kerry for President" bumper sticker on her car
- A Colorado man was fired from his job at Anheuser-Busch for drinking a beer made by rival brewer Coors at a public bar!
But these aren't even the worst examples! Recently, I learned of what I consider the most egregious lifestyle-related firing of all. In 2002, a major timber and paper company whose name we all know fired 12 employees - a few of them veterans with over 20 years' service - from one of their Oklahoma pulp mills... Their crime: The perfectly LEGAL possession of firearms in their locked vehicles. The way they did this was beyond slimy, too. They announced a surprise vehicle inspection in the company parking lot under the auspices of a random search for illegal drugs. In the process, they "discovered" the guns, possession of which became a fire-able offense only after an unannounced rule change reversed 37 years of a written policy of firearms tolerance within the company. Clearly, it was guns and not drugs they sought - the search took place on that date when gun owners were most likely to have their firearms with them: Opening day of deer season! Keep reading... **************************************************** Like I said in part one of this essay, I'm all for private companies being able to hire and fire whom they wish. It's part and parcel of the free enterprise system, and for the most part, it works... Think about it: If the Hooters restaurant chain were made to hire ANY women (or God forbid, any men) as servers instead of just the comely ones, they wouldn't have much of a business, would they? If the Dallas Cowboys were forced to diversify their cheerleading squad beyond those who are coordinated, have a good sense of rhythm, and are easy on the eyes, how good do you think they'd be at their job? Examples abound ad infinitum. And I could even see the point of firing - for bottom line reasons alone - employees with extremely unhealthy lifestyles, major substances abuse problems, or other factors that render them liabilities instead of assets... But on the other hand, companies shouldn't be allowed to "fire at will" simply because of a smoking habit, a political statement, a bumper sticker, a beverage choice, or a legally conducted recreational activity. This puts the employer in a position of governor (more like despot), granting it undeserved, unelected, and unsanctioned-by-law power. This is unacceptable, and if it means some new laws to make it so as a matter of record, then I'll hold my nose and grant my endorsement to them. Because after all, it's bad enough that the government and our insurance companies stick their noses into our private lives - our employers shouldn't be doing it, too. Firing squarely at those who fire unfairly, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
