[PLUG-TALK] Do NOT extend the workplace smoking law

Paul Johnson baloo at ursine.ca
Wed Mar 9 18:48:16 UTC 2005


On Tuesday 08 March 2005 03:30 pm, Russ Johnson wrote:
> Yes, some of my friends smoke too. However, in restaurants, bars and 
> the other few establishments that allow smoking, you are condemning 
> the workers to second hand smoke. 

So?  They knew that it was an occupation hazard when they took the job, 
and they accepted it.  This is Oregon, it's an at-will state.  If you 
don't like working in smoke, excersize your will, quit, and find a job 
someplace that doesn't allow smoking.
 
> Made me long for Eugene, where smoke IS banned from all workplaces.

You wouldn't know it from the hint of potsmoke in the air almost 
entirely throughout the city.  I'm sure the State Policeman I saw with 
a car full of smoke last time I was down there probably cared about the 
ban a whole lot, too.

> Nope, but they shouldn't pollute OUR air either.

Do you drive?  If so, just starting your car and letting it idle for a 
couple minutes pumps out *FAR* more toxic fumes than a carton of 200 
cigarettes burning at once.

> Telling workers to get a different job in this economy is just rude. 

In food service, there is high turnover and always a need.  We're 
talking minimum wage and maybe plus tips here.

> There are still more workers than jobs in this state, and most of the 
> workers that WILL work these jobs would just move to another job that 
> allows smoking... Unless they move to a place (like Eugene) that does 
> ban smoking everywhere.

Maybe it's time some of the Californians that moved up here go home, 
then.
 
> Did you realize that revenue in bars and restaurants went UP when New 
> York City enacted this ban? Smoking is bad for business, as well as 
> bad for the smoker. 

That's for the manager of the business in question to decide.

> It's not the unemployment that hurts. It's the fact that most of the 
> servers are young people, and they have little choice in the matter. 

That excuse works for getting a bad job, like Stream or something where 
the occupational hell isn't obvious.  You *know* a bar is smokey.

> If they quit, they aren't eligible for benefits in the first place. If 
> they change jobs, most likely they will work in a different place that 
> allows smoking.  

Well, that's their choice, then.  The vast majority of workplaces, even 
in foodservice are non-smoking.  They can find another minimum-wage 
shit job at another restaurant if they don't want to assert themselves 
and find something real.

> Hell, we have people with PhDs applying to be motel desk clerks. How 
can 
> you expect a server at a bar to get a job that doesn't involve serving 
> at a bar?

Ever look in the want ads?  Plenty of no-experience-required jobs that 
pay next to nothing like restaurants do, in a non-smoking environment.

> Oh, and for the record... People smoke because they are addicted to 
> nicotine. It gives them a buzz. It feels good. Study over.

No, that's why people *keep* smoking.  It's not why they smoke.  Call us 
back when you're not going to be a twit.

-- 
Paul Johnson
baloo at ursine.ca
http://ursine.ca/~baloo/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20050309/baa184a4/attachment.asc>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list