Re: an ownership society

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/19/26 2:36:35am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 ]

Subject: Re: an ownership society_v1.2

Author:
krz

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02/ 7/05 6:38:56pm
In reply to: krz 's message, "an ownership society" on 02/ 4/05 8:47:43pm

>been following W's language regarding the ownership
>society and find it interesting. Can't say I agree
>with all - can't say I disagree either.

Pjk - I did hear the NPR piece on ownership - but that wasn't where I was headed with my reference actually.

I heard a story about a MI company (I want to say Wyco - but don't quote me on that one), who decided a year ago that they were not going to allow their employees to smoke - period. Not just not smoke at work, not smoke period. Employees had one year to quit smoking with any smoking cessation program paid by the company. At the end of a year, the employee would either be tobacco free, or would be given the opportunity to resign or be terminated.

Turns out something like 5 employees were offered the latter. The company's argument was that it was a burden on the health insurance of the company to support the costs of smoking. Since this is an employment at will country (by and large) as long as an employer is not discriminating against a federally protected class, then it's perfectly legal to institute any requirements of employment that some might find objectionable (don't like em? don't work here!).

Had a wonderful discussion with my students (now engaged in the pro bono clinic - a great mix of around 20 patients who are all disabled, and also by the way generally quite overweight and not physically active). The ownership I've heard of is not just as a 'right to' - as in right to soc sec benefits, right to keep your own money, right to own a home, but right to own one's health, one's health care, one's retirement. I have to admit finding some interest/comfort with pairing the rights with the responsibilities. Having said that, I also think the ownership right to drive a huge gas sucking SUV 5 miles to the grocery store from one's McMansion in the burbs ought to come with the responsibility of paying real not artificially low gas prices. Not sure our country is quite there yet.

Other quick news - knee recovering. MRI today, hopefully IV out next week. Been a stress to all.....

.... my lawsuit settled today with no monetary payment or unearned grade change (thank heavens) - plus voluntary withdrawl of the student from the school and no opportunity to return. Opening champagne with Geo later...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies: