John Stossel's 'Give Me a Break' on "20/20" - 4/08/05
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
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:
Since we have discussed this and other anti-smoking measures often on the Forum I thought people might be interested in seeing this.
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.
#3
DVD Talk Legend
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.
My opinion - what you do at your own house should be your own business, as long as no lawa are being broken.
#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.
In other words, Stossel's right, as usual.
#6
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by runner001
Is this the only thing he talks about?
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?"
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?"
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
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.
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.
#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.'
#10
DVD Talk Legend
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.
#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.
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by rfduncan
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.
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.
#13
DVD Talk Hero
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.
#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.
#15
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
#17
DVD Talk Hero
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.'
#18
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
Libertarianism suggests Capitalism with *insufficient* limits, hence modern feudalism.
#19
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
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.
...
And that's what makes you a Libertarian, rather than a reasonable person who understands the social contract.
...
#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.
#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.
#22
DVD Talk Legend
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.
Originally Posted by movielib
classicman hacked adamblast's account!
#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.?
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.?
#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.
#25
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
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.