Hysteria is Job One

A German publisher has banned all its employees from smoking -- at home or anywhere. Eitmann-Verlag -- home of titles that translate, more or less, as "Actively against passive smoke - models for the execution of non-smoker rights on a medical and juristic base" and "Non-smoker rights - passive smoke victims in Germany" -- says the voluntary anti-smoking contracts merely reflect the company's values.

"All we want is employees who support what we do," the business manager/author explains.

Here's hoping the company never branches out into alcoholism or sexually transmitted disease.

(via Fark.)

Comments

[Anonymous]

I enjoy Reason Magazine but Hit & Run is continuously posting items that quite old in "blog-time" - just hope it doesn't turn people away from the magazine.

[Is-that-a-menthol-in-your-pock]

Methinks cigarette bars will start to open in Amsterdam to house the German smoking refugees.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy the comments on Hit and Run, but some of the posters forget their verbs. Just hope it doesnt turn people away from the rest of the posters

[Anonymous]

With unemployment in Germany being 10.7% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,970939,00.html), simply gettting a new job would take a while. The causes of this are well-analyzed else-where. In this case, the company does have a right to forbid smoking in its premises. To whom does the building belong? Now, in the employee's homes, that's a different story. Unless the company owns the home, they have no right to dictate what goes on inside (as long the company's property isn't being copy-violated blah blah blah).

[jacob]

"from a libertarian point of view, there's nothing in the world wrong with this." of course, you're absolutely right. but this doesn't invalidate the libertarian approach, becuase this kind of stuff has a built in deterrent in a free market system: taking such an option causes the pool of well-qualified potential workers to become smaller, hence giving the company less leeway to get the best workers, hence making it less competitve, hence punishing stupidity.

just wanted to point that out to any non-libertarians who might be moseying through.

[slapmaxwell]

Since I don't know much about German law, I can't speak intelligently about the legality of this situation--but I'm sure that his employees have the right to tell the company to blow off, as it were, and find other, less vile, employers.

[David McElroy]

Actually, from a libertarian point of view, there's nothing in the world wrong with this. We say that people should have the ability to enter into whatever agreements they want without government dictating either side of the agreement. If a company wants to hire only non-smokers, what's wrong with that in a free society? And if a company wants to hire only green-eyed, left-handed Jewish men with full-blooded Indian grandmothers, what's wrong with that? We're supposed to support the rights of people (or businesses) to make their own decisions, not just make the decisions we would agree with.

I realize that this item doesn't say that the company should NOT have the right to do this, but I feel that a lot of the items I've been seeing here lately are lampooning choices that the submitter feels is silly or prudish, rather than commenting on the REAL problem -- the state preventing people from making their own choices.

[Billy Oblivion]

CNN had this policy for years, at least while Turner was boinking that traitor tramp.

It's your life, you decide how much control you let other people have over it.

[Jim]

Given that it's a company that campaigns against smoking, it's doubtful many smokers would want to work there anyway. It's mostly symbolic, and, as others have pointed out, their right to do it.

[Skwag]

I've gotta ask--how can anyone, much less a business, have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do on my own time on my own property in my own home? If the government should not, neither should a business. I have no problems with an employer setting conditions on my employment *while* on company time/property...or is slavery actually alive and well and disguised as a company?

[Steven Crane]

I've mentioned it in another blog comment, but what exactly is wrong with pointing out something that is silly and/or prudish? Not every entry must be about some irrational government action.. there's plenty of irrational private actions going on to comment on, too. While somebody may have the soverign right to have a stupid opinion/enforce stupid policy on their own property, etc, that does not change the fact that it is stupid, and somebody, somewhere, will laugh at it.

[Lefty]

It's certainly nice to have a Libertarian bible scholar to whip the wayward Steves into shape.

[Lefty]

Business = always good
Government = always bad

Class dismissed.

[speedwell]

How is it that the market will work if it doesn't know what people are ethical, unethical, or just plain out there?

Informing the consumers is a good thing, people.

[smoky bob simpson]

Personally, I think smokers should be shot.

[Frenk]

Steve: I agree with you. People so silly should be made fun of. It's called social pressure, and it is a much better way of keeping a society functioning than the insane plethora of laws the US has now.

Warren: Everyone has the right to think what they want of others' ideas and to express that opinion. This basic freedom (which is not as self-evident as it seems) comes long before the freedom to run a business as one sees fit. The first step toward "PC" language codes is mandated sensitivity that requires us to pretend that we don't think what we think. So, disagree all you want with Steve, but don't try to control his freedom of expression--especially not based on such flimsy and silly pseudo-arguments as "as libertarians we should..."

AND as someone who actually lives in Germany, I can tell you that most Germans would definitely find the contract stupid, just as Steve (and I) do.

[Skwag]

Sorry, Warren, I wasn't...I was responding to a previous post. But thanks for the inquiry into my general health. 🙂