Originally posted by kmax87I have heard this argument a lot but it doesn't make sense to me.
The thing with pubs and clubs and having been involved with many a smoke filled room as a muso, while it seems logical to staff these premises with people who already smoke, it then raises the spectre of allowing the employer to discriminate,in terms of the staff that could not work there
I am allowed to work in an animal slaughter house but wouldn't. It would be my choice. Presumably any bar staff that didn't want to work in a smoking bar wouldn't apply for the job. There is no reason that a bar that allowed smoking would need to stop employing non-smokers if they were happy with the situation.
It's not a big thing with me to be honest, it just seems that the smoking regulations around Europe are a little too heavy handed.
Originally posted by shavixmirYeah, they pressuring here to get Finland in NATO and to screw the very well designed socialdemocratic system focused on spending on people.
Oh. I don't know much about Finland. I do know the IMF is trying to get them to adjust the tax / public spending system.
And anything the IMF wants is evil (and American).
Originally posted by SeitseHolland is a NATO member and has a very similar socio-economic policy. I don't see how NATO membership is relevant to the welfare system, other than perhaps some increased defense spending.
Yeah, they pressuring here to get Finland in NATO and to screw the very well designed socialdemocratic system focused on spending on people.
Originally posted by WheelyJust do a little research on the web. Second hand smoking has been estimated to cause as much as 3,500 cancer related deaths per year and close to 70,000 heart related deaths. In addition, children are especially vulnerable leading to a wide variety of problems such as infections and asthma related issues.
I am not convinced of the seriousness of the effects of second hand smoking, particularly for those that live in cities like London where the crap spewed out of industrial towers and vehicles is at least as bad.[/b]
As for the "bad air" in London, I guess you would have to do a little research on that to see how bad it is for ya, but regarding second hand smoking, the data is already out there.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo if I work at a restaurant and someone decides to light up then I must quit in order to get away from them? What if everywhere I went to work someone decided to light up? Should I just go on unemployment and forget about working?
On the smoking ban: I oppose it, because a) no one is forced to work at bars and restaurants and b) no one is forced to visit them. Let the owners decide if they want to allow smoking or not.
I approve of smoking bans in public places like city halls and airports.
Originally posted by shavixmirYes, the people of Findland are known for bombing the endangered Saimaa ringed seal via tax payer money.
Oh. I don't know much about Finland. I do know the IMF is trying to get them to adjust the tax / public spending system.
And anything the IMF wants is evil (and American).
Originally posted by whodeyThis is part of the logic that led to the banning of smoking in pubs and clubs in Australia. Some people absolutely love working in service industries and like the fact that they can be there to pour your first drink after a hard day with all the other rats in the maze. Considering that even if that person were a smoker its the secondary smoke that they are exposed to in the club/pub environment that increases their level of risk way off the chart even when compared to other smokers.
So if I work at a restaurant and someone decides to light up then I must quit in order to get away from them? What if everywhere I went to work someone decided to light up? Should I just go on unemployment and forget about working?
Just because people are willing to place themselves in an unsafe or unhealthy environment does not diminish the responsibility of the owner to show due diligence in providing a workplace that meets all the appropriate health and safety codes.
In the same way that we would not condone the use of child labor in the west to be chimney sweeps or work in cramped conditions that would damage their health and even stunt their growth (the way society did back in Dickens' time) the fact that an enclosed space like a bar could never be ventilated well enough to avoid an increased risk of debilitating disease due to passive smoking, the issue becomes one of culpability. If you were a landlord and your tenants were exposed to leaky gas pipes in their dwellings that could be proved was the root cause of a chronic health outcome/permanent brain function impairment I dont know if anyone would argue in favor of the landlord, even if he had pointred out the fact that the premises had leaky pipes. The average younger person willing to serve in a smoky environment may not fully consider the consequences of ill health simply because youth hardly ever feels their mortality or ever seriously considers how their actions might devastate their future.
Now while this sounds like protecting people from themselves and there are many on this forum that find that sort of legislative oversight to be part of the problem rather than in any way being part of the solution I would challenge anyone to find an activity that increases the participants risk of injury that does not attract some form of interventionist legislation requiring the provisioning of safety equipment or shielding/screening of potentially dangerous tools or fabrication processes
Originally posted by whodeyI think most people these days agree with what you are saying here. However, is there a real issue if the restaurant had a sign on the door saying "Smoking allowed" giving the employee a chance of deciding they didn´t want to work there.
So if I work at a restaurant and someone decides to light up then I must quit in order to get away from them? What if everywhere I went to work someone decided to light up? Should I just go on unemployment and forget about working?
If the law said that you are either be a smoking bar or a completely non-smoking bar and not half and half then people can make a choice.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, if you have accepted a job at a restaurant when there was no smoking ban, realistically you could've expected people to smoke. I don't know much about the US labour market, but around here everyone who wants to work can get a suitable job.
So if I work at a restaurant and someone decides to light up then I must quit in order to get away from them? What if everywhere I went to work someone decided to light up? Should I just go on unemployment and forget about working?
Originally posted by WheelyI guess that would be acceptable in my view. 🙂
I think most people these days agree with what you are saying here. However, is there a real issue if the restaurant had a sign on the door saying "Smoking allowed" giving the employee a chance of deciding they didn´t want to work there.
If the law said that you are either be a smoking bar or a completely non-smoking bar and not half and half then people can make a choice.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy understanding is that given the overwhelming evidence in support of tobacco smoke being a health hazard, insurers are less interested in providing cover for those workplaces who still insist on lighting up. I don't know how it works oversees but over here in Australia, compensation lawyers are pretty good at getting decisions in favour of clients who feel hard done by employers. The usual defense of, "The Management takes no responsibility for ..." or the "Enter at own risk" type of signage were in place, is not accorded any protection under the eyes of the law.
Well, if you have accepted a job at a restaurant when there was no smoking ban, realistically you could've expected people to smoke. I don't know much about the US labour market, but around here everyone who wants to work can get a suitable job.
For this reason the decision to place a total ban on smoking in public places seems more to to with the cost of public liability insurance than any interest by hoteliers in upholding the health interests of the workforce.
Originally posted by whodeycome on, the gas mask has been around for generations, your employer should supply one and cylinder to go on your back
So if I work at a restaurant and someone decides to light up then I must quit in order to get away from them? What if everywhere I went to work someone decided to light up? Should I just go on unemployment and forget about working?
Originally posted by kmax87look, life is dangerous, in fact its fatal, maybe it should be banned too?
My understanding is that given the overwhelming evidence in support of tobacco smoke being a health hazard, insurers are less interested in providing cover for those workplaces who still insist on lighting up. I don't know how it works oversees but over here in Australia, compensation lawyers are pretty good at getting decisions in favour of clients who feel ...[text shortened]... nsurance than any interest by hoteliers in upholding the health interests of the workforce.