The owner of a company has just dismissed one of his executives on the grounds that he did not care for his health and, therefore, was a liability.
It requires no great genius to figure out that the sacked executive has taken the company to court for wrongful dismissal.
The company's contention is that a senior executive who deliberately neglects his health or goes out of his way to harm himself has already broken the contract to give his best to the company. In turn, the company is ipso facto relieved of its responsibility to uphold the contract. This includes those who smoke themselves with absolute dependency, alcoholics, those who are overweight and continue to shovel extra calories and even those who are sloppy and slovenly and slothful.
The owner's argument is that people who are not interested in their health cannot really be interested in the health of the company and therefore are shortchanging the company.
The brief can now be taken to a still logical conclusion that is not exactly medically founded but also indicates a similar shuffle in priorities.
What if he is a rash driver and collects an unusual amount of speeding tickets? Is he putting the company in jeopardy and increasing its medical insurance cover. Why go with a man who has a death wish? By that token, what if he is an incurable gambler and plays cards, is crazy about the races or anything to the point of distraction. Does the company have a right to see that conduct extreme enough to compromise his relationship and the character of the contract?
This owner is absolutely convinced he is justified. We are having this discussion in a club and I opt to play Devils' advocate in the sense that part of me agrees with him that a company deserves your best not your least, especially if the reduction in your delivery of the goods is through your own flaws. But, I also think it is very dangerous ground because you might well be imposing your set of values and what you think is acceptable social behavior on others purely because you are the boss. That then allows you to decided what the limits are which makes the parameters personal and not universal in their application.
You might hate smoking so prejudice would give your hostility impetus. You may be anti-gambling and loathe those who engage in it but that does not mean you can eliminate people from the work equation because you don't like a certain trait.
The protections necessary to both employer and employee are not yet in position. The least that would have to be done is to give several warnings, to levy penalties for refusal to adhere, to use back up systems like doctors, psychologists and counselors to address the problem and only when all avenues have been sufficiently explored and exhausted can the drastic end step be taken.
To jump to it without going through these steps is too much of a quantum leap and I would be surprised if any court allowed it to occur without due cautions.
The owner is not the least bit worried. He says he has statistics to show that companies carry deadwood that can make the difference between survival and collapse and it is time that those who pulled their weight and are conscientious are not protected ... what about their interests? Doesn't anyone care about that?
