iwire, welcome to the Straight Dope!
And thanks for saying the exact truth. Wait staff have to smoke a bit of every cigarette their patrons smoke for forty hours a week. It constitutes a health risk, and as a civilized society, we try to minimize health risks on the job. It’s not a conspiracy by non-smokers (although they benefit, too). It’s an attempt to give some of our lowest paid workers the same benefits that most of us enjoy on our job- protection from dangerous chemicles.
Exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. Should we not permit waitresses to work at outside cafes? Or should we permit adults to make their own decisions regarding what is acceptable risk?
If there is a reasonable way to mitigate a risk, by all means, do so. If the means of mitigating a risk is to simply eliminate a particular option, we should be very careful about stepping on that slippery slope. Waiters who don’t want to subject themselves to second-hand smoke limit their options, but that limitation is their choice.
If I don’t want to risk falling off of a tall building, I shouldn’t seek work building them. I don’t get to demand that all buildings be only one story. If I choose to work in an establishment where the patrons are permitted to smoke, I’m accepting the risk.
Iwire is closer to the mark here, I believe.
In California, we went thru all this about 6 years ago. The justification was to protect EMPLOYEES. There really was no noticeable change in bar patronage, and most restaraunts were already all non-somoking before the ban went into effect. It’s got to be more deleterious, though, when done on a city-by-city basis since bars could lose a lot of patrons who just drive to the next town. When it was done in CA, that wasn’t much of an option (except maybe places like Tahoe, close the the NV border).
There are bars that get around the smoking ban by remaining owner operated. No employees-- no need to “protect them”.
Frankly this is a great test case for libertarian minded non-smokers. It sure has made my life much more pleasant, but rankles me that gov’t is so intrusive. I almost feel guilty being a beneficiary…
BTW, a question for Cowgirl. I feel sympathy for the waitress with lung cancer, but I don’t believe you can prove a specific case of lung cancer to be caused by second hand smoke. It is possible to get lung cancer w/o any exposure to smoke. People forget that it’s a statistical and not a causal relationship.
I would respond to Bob Cos that the “slippery slope” could be letting employers tell workers that “The workplace is dangerous, I will do nothing to change that and if you don’t like it work somewhere else.”
But that’s an overstatement. Employers should not be permitted to subject their employees to undue risk. Workplace safety is not a trivial matter.
But if by installing “safety” I have effectively altered the nature of the product the worker is trying to provide, then I’ve crossed a line. For people who want to have a Budweiser and a Marlboro, that’s what I’d be doing. Why can’t I target this clientele and hire people who are willing to work in this environment? Why does that preclude someone else from opening a voluntary “no smoking” establishment?
If you don’t want to be in a place that permits this, then you can go elsewhere. You don’t have the right to demand a workplace that exactly fits your specifications. Neither do I.
The expense of a good ventilation system is probably on a par with making handicapped acessible toilets, yet requiring such a venitlation system is an option never even considered . Every municipality jumps immediately to “ban smoking”. Granted, choosing to smoke is a far different issue than being handicapped, but the restaurant/bar owners are never even offered the opportunity. What if the restaurants in question have the option of installing smoke abating vent/filter systems? The smoke can very effectively be removed from the air, even down to individual tables. Combine that with separating smoking from nonsmoking areas, and the problem can effectively be solved. Compliance is easy to measure because health inspectors are already checking restaurants, setting up sampling devices and confirming that the systems are working becomes part of the inspection process already in place. I would suspect there’d be no more non-compliance than you’d get under any other circumstance. And Iwire, ever been in a meat packing plant? workers are told “The workplace is dangerous, I will do nothing to change that and if you don’t like it work somewhere else” I’ve been in meat processing plants and you can’t imagine the conditions. (granted YMMV- some are well run and efficient, but still dangerous) Why is banning better than good ventilation? If the ventilation doesn’t work in the kitchen, why are employees allowed there? some of the gasses given off by cooking are pretty dangerous too, under certain circumstances (otherwise, why have ventilation at all?)
Personally, I think someone OTHER than the American Cancer Society should be allowed to judge whether secondhand smoke is as hazardous as it’s made out to be. As it stands, IIRC, secondhand smoke is listed as a higher carcinogen than asbestos, which I have problems with. Certainly, if the tobacco industries said “Second hand smoke is as safe as houses” we’d all be a bit suspicious, but when the ACS says “it’s a carcinogen” nobody calls them on it? WTF?
b. (who hates secondhand smoke and wishes it would all go away)
So I can run a Hazardous waste removal company and not protect my employees because “the nature of the product the worker is trying to provide” is known to be dangerous and they can get a different job if they do not like it.
My only point from the start has been that the law is already there.
**You should take reasonable precautions. You cannot, however, be forced to protect your hazardous waste removers by keeping them far, far away from any hazardous waste.
Doesn’t make it right.
Billy Rubin
“Personally, I think someone OTHER than the American Cancer Society should be allowed to judge whether secondhand smoke is as hazardous as it’s made out to be. As it stands, IIRC, secondhand smoke is listed as a higher carcinogen than asbestos, which I have problems with”
I agree, but that’s how it is right now.
“The expense of a good ventilation system is probably on a par with making handicapped acessible toilets, yet requiring such a venitlation system is an option never even considered .”
Again I agree, but I have not been to any place that has put that investment into it and many small bars may not be able to afford it.
Billy Rubin
“You should take reasonable precautions. You cannot, however, be forced to protect your hazardous waste removers by keeping them far, far away from any hazardous waste.”
Very true, so we are back to a server that has to where an air pack like a firefighter.
“Doesn’t make it right.”
Iwire, you’d be surprised to find out how often this is actually the case. In the real world, a lot of people work at brutally hard, horribly dangerous jobs. A lot of them are underpaid and overworked. that’s the way of the world.
And I still question the veracity of the “secondhand smoke as carcinogen” issue.
I am a designer of automation systems for industry. On a day by day basis I design systems which use robots to do the dirty work now done by humans. We put systems in where the work is too repetitive, dangerous, or physically stressful for a human to do daily. We maybe have 2% of that market.m Every time I go into a plant I find someone doing something horribly hazardous, and we try to sell automated systems to prevent people from having to work in those conditions. Believe me, when you compare being killed at work to having to breathe a little secondhand smoke, most people will choose the smoke. Which, of course, they wouldn’t have to, given a decent ventilation system. Which a worker would not have to wear on his back.
b.
Nope, we’re not. You’re back to having a server decide whether or not working in a facility that allows smoking is an acceptable working condition. Just like the hazardous waster remover who has to decide if he wants to continue working with hazardous waste, since you seem to have some affection for this analogy.
So let’s add more bad legislation, That’ll fix everything, right? Basing a law on questionable evidence. Good.
but it was OK to legislate that handicapped access was available, force small establisments to do that. How about letting the owners choose? they can choose to install venitilation systems, or go non smoking? How is a total ban on smoking better than freedom of choice?
b.
And be a little more careful who you attribute your responses to, please.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Billy Rubin *
**Iwire, you’d be surprised to find out how often this is actually the case. In the real world, a lot of people work at brutally hard, horribly dangerous jobs. A lot of them are underpaid and overworked. that’s the way of the world.
I have worked in heavy constrution for 20 years, I think know the real world. And to me
“a lot of people work at brutally hard, horribly dangerous jobs.”
Proves the point workers need protection other then just knowing about the danger.
“And I still question the veracity of the “secondhand smoke as carcinogen” issue.”
Well so do I.
But you think it’s a good idea to let legislation slide based on potentially bogus evidence? Please explain that.
b.
I’ve worked in construction, too.
When I did almost anything, I had to use goggles. When I did anything loud, I had to use earplugs. When I welded, I had to protect myself from getting a sunburn.
And when I did stuff that was likely to throw nasty particles in the air (like when I used certain saws) I was required by law to wear a dust mask, which my employer was required to provide.
The world is full of nasty dangerous work, and the world is full of ways of preventing nasty dangerous work from killing you. I’d be all for the option of running a smoking restraunt provided that the waitstaff wear some sort of gas mask.
But I’m not for “We want to expose our workers to harmful substances, and we want them to forgo saftey so that they can look pretty”. You do not have the choice to run an unsafe work environment.
Absolutely not, but right now that is how it is, so I think until this changes it is inevitable that smoking will be band in public places.
I have no idea how to change this, and I never said I agree with it.
Sven, nobody is for a safe work environment more than me. Yet, nobody will make any effort to answer the question: What if individual businesses were given the option of making their business smoke free, or installing ventilation systems adequate to remove the smoke? Why is that not better than banning altogether? the vent system protects customers and employees alike. You can’t run a grill without a hood, you can’t run a restaurant over a certain size without handicapped facilities, why not smoke exhausters? And if you believe that it’s not common practice to run unsafe work environments, I’d like to take you on a tour of a few places I know. That’s why I do what I do, it makes work environments safer for humans, the only way that companiues will willingly do it, which is to offer them more production with the same manpower for lower cost.
iwire, the reason stupid laws exist is because people say “I have no idea how to change this, and I never said I agree with it.” and “right now that is how it is”
b.
I am new to posting and I am sorry if I did something wrong.
iwire-No biggie- you just quoted Bob Cos and attributed it to me. (several posts up)Read the info about attributing quotes to other members. It’s much easier if you just learn the coding, there is a forum to test that, and it’s pretty easy to get the hang of of it.
And welcome to the boards! We may be argumentative at times but it’s all in good fun!!
b.