This is, too...

[a13antichrist]

There's a very basic issue that you, Gato, seem very eager to ignore. While I see your point about the owner's right to allow whatever legal activity he likes in his establishment, it's not only his workers' rights to a comfortable workplace, but it is his requirement to PROVIDE a healthy working environment. What is defined as a "healthy working environment" will depend on what country you live in, and it is PRECISELY the goverment's right to decide what constitutes a healthy working environment and what doens't - the entire purpose of a government, after all, is to protect the interests of its people. If they decide that smoking is an unhealthy activity, and more importantly that an establishment that allows smoking does not fall within the guidelines of a healthy working environment, then smoking becomes an illegal activity in that workplace. The owner still has EVERY right to allow ANY legal activity he pleases, but smoking is not one of them.

Let's go back to your pizzeria example. Let's say, for instance, that certain customers like their pizzas with a bit of melted plastic on top. Now, the customer has every right to eat that pizza with plastic fumes rising off it, and the pizzeria owner has every right to serve such a pizza if the customer requests it. BUT, the pizzeria owner does NOT have the right to subject his employees to the plastic fumes rising off the pizza that they will unavoidably be exposed to while preparing the pizza.

You can argue all you like about the rights of the owner, but in the end, his rights aren't being encroached upon in any shape or form. What's changed is one thing that is no longer a legal activity that he has the right to offer his patrons. You will note also that this also renders irrelevant whether or not second-hand smoke causes cancer; the government has made the decision that the potential risk is great enough to warrant such a decision. Now, you can petition the govt. as much as you like on that issue, and chances are there would likely be some good points to be made. What is NOT happening, however, is an encroachment on the rights of the owner to offer any legal activity he pleases, because, quite simply, he can still exercise that right to the fullest - but smoking is no longer one of those activities.

 

[rrfield]

I believe I stated that, if a person actually opened a no-smoking bar, or restaurant that was profitable, then you'd have no leg to stand on. Why hasn't this happened? Surely there must be a huge following for such a place. Why...they couldn't keep the waiters/waitresses from signing on.



Until then, it's just 3 words. Deal with it. BTW...I haven't been to a restaurant in 12 years that actually allowed smoking, and just about every bar-tender I know has a lit one hanging off his lip from time to time.

I know of a non-smoking bar that makes money - Upland Brewery and Tap Room, 350 W. 11th St, Bloomington, IN 47404. It has been non-smoking since it opened...I can't remember when it opened. It's been at least 5 years. Smokers and non-smokers love the place for their beer and food.

rrfield

 

[Gonz]

A13, you're saying that employment is a right and it overshadows the right of private property?

 

[Gonz]

I know of a non-smoking bar that makes money - Upland Brewery and Tap Room, 350 W. 11th St, Bloomington, IN 47404. It has been non-smoking since it opened...I can't remember when it opened. It's been at least 5 years. Smokers and non-smokers love the place for their beer and food.

rrfield

I think smokers ought to petition the government to force the owner to allow smoking.

 

[catocom]

Since this is OTC
You can find studies to support just about anything either way, but I thought
these studies on nicotine were interesting...
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article1832.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2994304.stm

http://www.health24.co.za/news/Alzheimers_and_dementia/1-890,25374.asp

 

[a13antichrist]

A13, you're saying that employment is a right and it overshadows the right of private property?

That's not what I get out of that, but in any case the right to be able to provide for yourself is more fundamental than the right to own stuff.

Should you choose to ask other people to work for you, to increase your own personal ability to provide for yourself, then you have an obligation to ensure that you're not endangering their health and that you're not encroaching on their right to good health by doing so.

 

[Gato_Solo]

That's not what I get out of that, but in any case the right to be able to provide for yourself is more fundamental than the right to own stuff.

Should you choose to ask other people to work for you, to increase your own personal ability to provide for yourself, then you have an obligation to ensure that you're not endangering their health and that you're not encroaching on their right to good health by doing so.

Once again, I'll have to explain this.

I, the owner may permit, or deny, any legal activity I desire upon my property. If I, the owner, wish to provide free lap dances with the purchase of a drink in my club, then I have every right to do so. If I, the owner decide that banning hats in my club is a good thing, then hats will be banned. It has nothing to do with a safe work environment, and most of you know it. You just refuse to admit that forcing a business owner to do what legal activity the government wills them not to permit is wrong. You can harp all day about workers rights and health benefits, but that is not the issue. As a worker, you have the option of leaving a job. Nobody is forced to work for anybody in the private sector. You don't like your boss, you can just walk. Simple. You don't like your job, you can always find another. The business owner, however, has a vested interest in maintaining his business in the most profitable manner.

 

[A.B.Normal]

has a vested interest in maintaining his business in the most profitable manner.

Profit above all else huh,so your saying the owners of a Coal mine have no obligation to ensure the mine is safe from cave in or gas explosion ,the owner of the Nuclear plant doesn't have to protect their employees from radioactivity ,pure rubbish .When I work in the tireshop they must supply eye and ear protection and safety training,under your reasoning an employer wouldn't have to give a shit,its their way or the highway

 

[Gato_Solo]

Profit above all else huh,so your saying the owners of a Coal mine have no obligation to ensure the mine is safe from cave in or gas explosion ,the owner of the Nuclear plant doesn't have to protect their employees from radioactivity ,pure rubbish .When I work in the tireshop they must supply eye and ear protection and safety training,under your reasoning an employer wouldn't have to give a shit,its their way or the highway

Nope. I never said that at all. You have made an assumption based on emotion, rather than fact.

We're talking about bars and restaurants, et al...NOT government regulated industries, or industrial areas. When you can figure out the difference, you can add to this discussion.

 

[Gato_Solo]

There's a very basic issue that you, Gato, seem very eager to ignore. While I see your point about the owner's right to allow whatever legal activity he likes in his establishment, it's not only his workers' rights to a comfortable workplace, but it is his requirement to PROVIDE a healthy working environment. What is defined as a "healthy working environment" will depend on what country you live in, and it is PRECISELY the goverment's right to decide what constitutes a healthy working environment and what doens't - the entire purpose of a government, after all, is to protect the interests of its people.

That is where you are wrong, a13. It's not the governments job to decide what is healthy at a private business and what is healthy at a private business. It's the owners responsibility. Before somebody gets apoplectic, I'll explain...

Since I drink, I'll use a bar as a reference again...

Drinking has been proven to be unhealthy in most, if not all, human beings, and most bar employess drink. SOME bar employees are furnished drinks from the patrons. According to your argument, a13, that bar should be shut down because it's an unhealthy work environment.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Nope. I never said that at all. You have made an assumption based on emotion, rather than fact.

We're talking about bars and restaurants, et al...NOT government regulated industries, or industrial areas. When you can figure out the difference, you can add to this discussion.

Well ,I wouldn't say the tireshop is exactly industrial and would hate to see anyone have to work without knowing safety ,hell even with the precautions in place someone lowered a car on another workers leg,guess what they never told the guy with the bad leg tough shit go find another job if you don't like it ,they instituted a safety protocol to ensure it doesn't happen again.The bakery also has safety procedures in place so nobody is hurt while operating the muffin depositor and mixing bowls.

 

[rrfield]

The business owner, however, has a vested interest in maintaining his business in the most profitable manner.

...while following the laws of the land. We live in a society. For a society to function, there need to be rules and regulations. How many rules and regulations a society enforces is obviously up for debate, but they do exist.

Some societies (or sub-societies, i.e. a specific city or county) want many rules and regulations, some want as few as possible while maintaining order.

Bloomington, Indiana is a left-winged city in the middle of Republican-land. The city has a smoking ban for any resturant that admits people under 18. Starting in 2005 (August I think?) this ban will take effect everywhere.

Upland Brewery decided to start out smoke-free from the begining, well before any ban was even mentioned at the City Council. It is a very successful bar, packed probably 5 nights a week. I go there from time to time. There is a large group of "regulars" I know. Probably 75% of them smoke. They could go to another bar where smoking is allowed if they wanted to, but they don't - they like Upland. They have the best beer around (house brew - I recomend the Pale Ale) at a price that is better then anywhere else in town. It's not like there's a lack of options either, Bloomington is a college town after all. There are probably 8 bars within walking distance of Upland. The solution for smokers is pretty simple - take it outside.

I know someone is going to counter back with something about property owners rights, since that's what started this thread. Prpoerty owners rights are all well and good, but what about property owners responsibilities? When you invite the public onto your property, don't you assume some level of responsibility for the well being of the guests while they visit?

rrfield

 

[rrfield]

...We're talking about bars and restaurants, et al...NOT government regulated industries...

All industries are government regulated industries.

rrfield

 

[A.B.Normal]

That is where you are wrong, a13. It's not the governments job to decide what is healthy at a private business and what is healthy at a private business. It's the owners responsibility. Before somebody gets apoplectic, I'll explain...

Since I drink, I'll use a bar as a reference again...

Drinking has been proven to be unhealthy in most, if not all, human beings, and most bar employess drink. SOME bar employees are furnished drinks from the patrons. According to your argument, a13, that bar should be shut down because it's an unhealthy work environment.

Wrong again ,the employer is obligated to ensure a safe environment ,if the employee wants to ignore the safety measures thats their decision.i.e. I'm given safety protection and training by my employer,Its my choice whether I decide to use them properly,if I don't then its my fault.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Wrong again ,the employer is obligated to ensure a safe environment ,if the employee wants to ignore the safety measures thats their decision.i.e. I'm given safety protection and training by my employer,Its my choice whether I decide to use them properly,if I don't then its my fault.

That's what I said...but you carry it further.

A risk at work is a risk at work. When you take a job, you also take on that jobs inherent risks. Anything else you complain about is just BS. If dangers come up that aren't part of the inherent risks of the job, then you have a right, and a duty, to bring this up as an employee. What you are saying is that any risk can be deemed unacceptable, and force the owner to change his business .

 

[Gonz]

It seems to me that there is an assumption being made about owners. They are not a collective group of inhuman or inhumane cash zealots. They usually actually get along reasonably well with their employees. They also realize an injured employee is not a productive employee.

 

[A.B.Normal]

It seems to me that there is an assumption being made about owners. They are not a collective group of inhuman or inhumane cash zealots. They usually actually get along reasonably well with their employees. They also realize an injured employee is not a productive employee.

Gato is inferring that the owner shouldn't have to give a shit about their employees ,iths the employers way or the highway.

"As a worker, you have the option of leaving a job. Nobody is forced to work for anybody in the private sector. You don't like your boss, you can just walk. Simple. You don't like your job, you can always find another. " .

A good caring employer wouldn't have a problem doing whats best for their employees and if all establishments are held to the same standards then there is no detriment to there business as all businesses are required to use the same standards. However if you as an employer want to work with your employees to make it a better environment ,your actually penalized in the marketplace because your costs may be higher(better wages ,health benefits etc).

 

[Gonz]

Gato is inferring that the owner shouldn't have to give a shit about their employees ,iths the employers way or the highway.

Gato is correct.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato is inferring that the owner shouldn't have to give a shit about their employees ,iths the employers way or the highway.

Maybe you should re-read this entire thread, and come up with something better than this. I, in no way, inferred that. Your interpretation is wanting, and your motives are shakey. I only stated that an employer has a right to allow, or disallow, any legal activity in his, or her, establishment that he, or she, deems appropriate. Since I started this thread, I know what I meant. You, and most of the others who responded to this, added what you pleased, and dragged this topic into a smoking vs non-smoking issue. Like it, or not, though, smoking is not illegal, and second-hand smoke has not been proven to be the cause of anything except offended noses. Anyone who can prove otherwise may do so, but if you show any of those sites that prof listed, I'll let you know, once again, that all their data came from one faulty study.

 

[a13antichrist]

Once again, I'll have to explain this.

I, the owner may permit, or deny, any legal activity I desire upon my property. If I, the owner, wish to provide free lap dances with the purchase of a drink in my club, then I have every right to do so. If I, the owner decide that banning hats in my club is a good thing, then hats will be banned. It has nothing to do with a safe work environment, and most of you know it. You just refuse to admit that forcing a business owner to do what legal activity the government wills them not to permit is wrong. You can harp all day about workers rights and health benefits, but that is not the issue. As a worker, you have the option of leaving a job. Nobody is forced to work for anybody in the private sector. You don't like your boss, you can just walk. Simple. You don't like your job, you can always find another. The business owner, however, has a vested interest in maintaining his business in the most profitable manner.

The owner can permit ANY legal activity within his premises.

If the government decides that a certain activity is not suitable for certain premises, it can make that activity illegal. Whether you like it or not, that's the government's right.

And it has EVERYTHING to do with a safe work environment.

Drinking has been proven to be unhealthy in most, if not all, human beings, and most bar employess drink. SOME bar employees are furnished drinks from the patrons. According to your argument, a13, that bar should be shut down because it's an unhealthy work environment.

Your analogy is faulty. Working in a bar does not REQUIRE the Bartenders, etc, to drink. By necessity, construction workers or miners are placed in dangerous environments where the danger of physical injury is very real, and employers have to eliminate this danger where necessary or otherwise mitigate it. Restaurant workers etc, by necessity due to smokers, simply by doing their jobs are placed in a hazardous environment.

Ever wonder why car makers use dummies & not real people? Because the potential danger is so high that the GOVERNMENT made that activity ILLEGAL in the workplace. Same goes for smoking. It has nothing to do with bar owners' rights, and everything to do with workplace safety. If you want to convince the govt. they're wrong, you have to show them that second-hand smoke is not hazardous to people's health. Go for it.