In this column that recently appeared in my local paper, Bob Barr takes on the Michigan company that plans to begin testing employees for tobacco use. An excerpt:

"Federal laws strictly regulate the extent corporations may use polygraphs in hiring and firing decisions, for example. And there are strict legal limits on how companies may deal with employees found using mind-altering drugs. But companies apparently are free to arbitrarily test employees for tobacco use and terminate them summarily for so doing. Obviously, off-duty smoking by its employees is more important to Weyco corporate leaders than employee theft or cocaine use.

But if companies are allowed to do what this company is doing, it is easy to imagine other "undesirable" employee activities to which the corporate watchdogs will turn their attention in their never-ending search for the perfect, Stepford employee."

Barr seems to be suggesting that some sort of law against companies performing tobacco use tests would be desirable. (An alternative reading would be that he thinks workers shouldn't allow the firm to get away with testing; presumably this would involve workers changing to employers that do not test.) I disagree. Although the testing does strike me as overbearing, I think government should stay out of the matter. If firms want to have Stepford employees then they should be able to try to do so. I say try to do so because if the firm is too intrusive then workers will demand a pay premium to work there or they will choose to work for less overbearing firms.

Here's another example of an employer exercising its freedom of association: Drinking a Bud costs Miller employee his job.

Of course, I can't understand why anyone would drink either Miller or Bud. Evidently I'm not alone.