I am talking about the individual risk of a person standing in a bar with pyrotechnics going off where they shouldn’t be, vs. the individual risk of a person standing in a bar for a few hours a week. I would take the latter in a heartbeat…how about you?
25-30% is based on what amount of exposure, and what amount of risk in the first place? That statistic by itself means nothing. If my risk of lung cancer is .0025% to begin with (making this up), then raising that risk by 25% really doesn’t concern me too much. Life is risky. I am probably more at risk crossing the busy street where I live to get to a bar, than I am standing in the bar itself, breathing in smoke.
If secondhand smoke was an evil that was impossible to avoid, such as discrimination or smallpox, then I might feel differently. As it is now, it is the easiest thing in the world not to be exposed to it. Make the choice.
So, you are for the employer being required to provide breathing equipment for his employees and the employees being required to wear them unless the bar goes nonsmoking? This is what we’re talking about, and it’s not what you were saying earlier.
Nah, too easy. Obviously, we have powers of compromise beyond mortal ken. We need a challenge.
What I said is that if there is some minor threat to health in a workplace, I think it is an ethical thing for an employer to do to fully inform employees as to the risk, and offer protection if possible. I believe then it is utimately the employee’s decision as to 1) whether or not he wants to take the job, and 2) whether or not he wants to take the precautions. This being said, I believe it is also well within the business owners’ rights to require the protection, if he feels that setting this policy will be a good business decision (such as, in the cases you cite where he could get sued or have to pay worker’s comp). None of this has anything to do with legislation.
Dang…you can’t compromise in the Pit! Where’s the fun in that?
