Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

John Stossel's 'Give Me a Break' on "20/20" - 4/08/05

Community
Search
TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

John Stossel's 'Give Me a Break' on "20/20" - 4/08/05

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-07-05, 06:24 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
John Stossel's 'Give Me a Break' on "20/20" - 4/08/05

On 20/20 Friday April 8 at 9:00pm CDT:

John Stossel's Give me Break segment:

From John Stossel's weekly email:
This Friday on "20/20," I say "Give Me a Break" to the people complaining about the "evil" company, WEYCO, which fired employees for smoking -- smoking not at work, but at home. Some politicians angrily and righteously claim that the Bill of Rights protects workers from such intrusive bosses. I say bunk -- the Bill of Rights protects us from over-reaching government power, not from bossy bosses. Government is a fearsome master because we have only one government, and government can use force. But we have many employers, and none may use force. An employee who doesn't like a boss's rules can quit, and find another job. Yet some employees act as if they own their jobs.
Since we have discussed this and other anti-smoking measures often on the Forum I thought people might be interested in seeing this.
Old 04-07-05, 06:41 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this the only thing he talks about?
Old 04-07-05, 07:41 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 14,020
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Despite being on TV, it is a topic probably better suited for the Other Forum.

My opinion - what you do at your own house should be your own business, as long as no lawa are being broken.
Old 04-07-05, 07:57 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by movieking
My opinion - what you do at your own house should be your own business, as long as no lawa are being broken.
While I agree in the general sense (when it comes to the government), employment is "at will," and if the boss makes rules that are too intrusive, there are other jobs out there. A school teacher who participates in porn might be doing it on her own time in her own house, but if the school finds out, they should have the right to fire her, even though she's not breaking any lawa.

In other words, Stossel's right, as usual.
Old 04-07-05, 08:56 PM
  #5  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,768
Received 99 Likes on 82 Posts
Always look forward to these...
Old 04-07-05, 10:17 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by runner001
Is this the only thing he talks about?
It's just one segment of the show.

Here are the others:
The show begins with the dramatic story of a woman who cheated death three times at the hands of her estranged husband. He hit her with a flashlight, tried to smother and drown her, and attacked her in a hotel room. Because there was no prior history of domestic violence he was released on bond. Several weeks he later hid in the back of her van and shot her. When she didn't die, he tried to finish the job from jail by hiring a hit man to not only kill Amy, but her brother and mother as well. The husband had no idea the "hit man" was actually an undercover officer. Then we follow four weight-conscious people who try a brand new crash diet, the detox diet, that promises results practically overnight.

And Barbara Walters visits with the Rosie and Kelli O'Donnell family. Now the gay couple's kids are asking questions like, "Mommy, will I be gay too?"
Old 04-08-05, 08:54 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
I think it is a pretty stupid reason to fire someone, but gov't shouldn't be stopping employers from being stupid.

Looking forward to this segment.
Old 04-08-05, 09:18 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 9,866
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The show begins with the dramatic story of a woman who cheated death three times at the hands of her estranged husband. He hit her with a flashlight, tried to smother and drown her, and attacked her in a hotel room. Because there was no prior history of domestic violence he was released on bond. Several weeks he later hid in the back of her van and shot her. When she didn't die, he tried to finish the job from jail by hiring a hit man to not only kill Amy, but her brother and mother as well. The husband had no idea the "hit man" was actually an undercover officer. Then we follow four weight-conscious people who try a brand new crash diet, the detox diet, that promises results practically overnight.
Is this "Amy" somehow related to Rasputin?

This Stossel story is being presented simply to agitate the public. Does anyone REALLY believe that the company justifiably fired these people? Easy enough to SAY just find another job if you don't like the company's policies, but the economy pretty much sucks right now and getting new work isn't always easy. Smoking? Come on. The easiest solution would be for the tobacco companies to fund these people's lawsuits. End of story.
Old 04-08-05, 09:25 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by rfduncan
Does anyone REALLY believe that the company justifiably fired these people?

That question is irrelavent IMO. A company should be able to fire someone for no reason whatsoever. It is called at-will employment for a reason. That doesn't mean that only the employee holds the power to terminate the relationship. As Stossel says, they don't 'own their job.'
Old 04-08-05, 09:30 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Charlie Goose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sesame Street (the apt. next to Bob's)
Posts: 20,195
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
That question is irrelavent IMO. A company should be able to fire someone for no reason whatsoever. It is called at-will employment for a reason.
Does that include race, IYHO?
Old 04-08-05, 09:46 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by Charlie Goose
Does that include race, IYHO?

Absolutely. The EP clause of the 14th amendment only applies to the actions of federal and state governments, not those of private individuals and companies, IMO.
Old 04-08-05, 11:13 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by rfduncan
This Stossel story is being presented simply to agitate the public.
No, Stossel is doing this because he is one of the very few people in journalism who understands and believes in the concept of individual rights - including the rights of business owners. You seem to be implying he doesn't really believe what he says. I assure you that is wrong. Is it illegitimate for him to express his opinion because it is unpopular?

Does anyone REALLY believe that the company justifiably fired these people? Easy enough to SAY just find another job if you don't like the company's policies, but the economy pretty much sucks right now and getting new work isn't always easy. Smoking? Come on. The easiest solution would be for the tobacco companies to fund these people's lawsuits. End of story.
It depends on what you mean by justifiably. I do not like what they did and I think it's stupid. I don't like a lot of what people do and I think a lot of things they do are stupid. But that's all irrelevant, as is how hard it may be to find another job.

The question is do they have a right to do what they did. The answer to that question is yes. And you have a right to criticize what they did and to boycott them.
Old 04-08-05, 11:31 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 44,226
Received 1,938 Likes on 1,499 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
That question is irrelavent IMO. A company should be able to fire someone for no reason whatsoever. It is called at-will employment for a reason. That doesn't mean that only the employee holds the power to terminate the relationship. As Stossel says, they don't 'own their job.'

Then why do companies have to have a documentable reason to fire someone, otherwise fear being sued by the employee? I thought that's why a lot of companies now hire temp-to-hire, instead of hiring people outright, because it's such a big mess to fire someone.
Old 04-08-05, 11:36 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by fujishig
Then why do companies have to have a documentable reason to fire someone, otherwise fear being sued by the employee? I thought that's why a lot of companies now hire temp-to-hire, instead of hiring people outright, because it's such a big mess to fire someone.

Because that is what is essentially required by law now. A company can fire someone for good cause. They cannot fire someone for bad cause.

I'm saying that the law is wrong.
Old 04-08-05, 12:26 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,536
Received 10 Likes on 10 Posts
RE: Firing employees because they're black?

Originally Posted by Red Dog
Absolutely. The EP clause of the 14th amendment only applies to the actions of federal and state governments, not those of private individuals and companies, IMO.
And that's what makes you a Libertarian, rather than a reasonable person who understands the social contract.

People must work to live, and the notion that someone can *always* find another job is a simplification to the point of lying. Capitalism with no limits or legal recourse is just modern feudalism.
Old 04-08-05, 12:52 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by adamblast
RE: Firing employees because they're black?

I love how that is what is always assumed. Why can't it be a black owned business that fires a white?

People must work to live? Could have fooled me given how many unemployed people are living.

And who suggested capitalism with no limits? You can still have private rights of action against true corporate misconduct.

Last edited by Red Dog; 04-08-05 at 12:54 PM.
Old 04-08-05, 01:06 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Red Dog
That question is irrelavent IMO. A company should be able to fire someone for no reason whatsoever. It is called at-will employment for a reason. That doesn't mean that only the employee holds the power to terminate the relationship. As Stossel says, they don't 'own their job.'
True, but shouldn't such a relationship include some sort of assumption of parity? A corporation isn't a person, and they have vastly superior resources than your average worker. A corporation can fire someone with little to no damage to their financial well-being, but this is usually not the case with the worker.
Old 04-08-05, 01:08 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,536
Received 10 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
I love how that is what is always assumed. Why can't it be a black owned business that fires a white?

People must work to live? Could have fooled me given how many unemployed people are living.

And who suggested capitalism with no limits? You can still have private rights of action against true corporate misconduct.
And who said that employer firings could only happen with one racial model? And who said there were no unemployed? You're being silly and argumentative.

Libertarianism suggests Capitalism with *insufficient* limits, hence modern feudalism.
Old 04-08-05, 01:13 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by adamblast
RE: Firing employees because they're black?

And that's what makes you a Libertarian, rather than a reasonable person who understands the social contract.
...
classicman hacked adamblast's account!
Old 04-08-05, 01:13 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by adamblast

Who said there were no unemployed? Not me.

You said 'people must work to live.' That is a falsehood, hence my comment on unemployed people being able to live.

What constitutes a sufficient limit is purely subjective. You happen to think heavy government involvement is necessary to sufficiently limit capitalism. I think the private rights of action via tort, property and contract law are sufficient to keep capitalism from becoming the monster that you fear it will become.

Last edited by Red Dog; 04-08-05 at 01:16 PM.
Old 04-08-05, 01:14 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by movielib
classicman hacked adamblast's account!

No kidding. Stand up for the guy on gay marriage, based on libertarian beliefs no less, and this is what I get. That's liberals for you.
Old 04-08-05, 01:20 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,536
Received 10 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
You said 'people must work to live.' That is a falsehood, hence my comment on unemployed people being able to live.
Naahh, it's a fairly accurate generalization on the nature of human beings and human life. Your welfare exceptions notwithstanding.
Originally Posted by movielib
classicman hacked adamblast's account!
I knew I stole it from somebody, I just forgot who.
Old 04-08-05, 01:35 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SO the government should be given far reaching powers to determine who I give my money to?

Lets try this...I hire a plumber to fix my sink, and he arrives stinking like cigarettes, making my kitchen unlivable...should I be legally prevented from firing him?

Why does everyone assume that ALL workers in this country are employed my SUPERMEGACO.?
Old 04-08-05, 01:38 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,284
Received 616 Likes on 495 Posts
Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez
Lets try this...I hire a plumber to fix my sink, and he arrives stinking like cigarettes, making my kitchen unlivable...should I be legally prevented from firing him?

Not only that but you should be legally required to stand there and stare at his butt crack the whole time.
Old 04-08-05, 01:40 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Not only that but you should be legally required to stand there and stare at his butt crack the whole time.


Please, not when I'm drinking water. I almost spit all over the keyboard.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.