Smoking

[Famine]

An employer - or two - local to me actually makes the air quality in my own house lower than the UK average. Not on their premises - in MY house.

Surely if I had any right to inhale clean air, they wouldn't be permitted to operate?

*They are currently called Corus and ICI. This may change by the minute

 

[Nicknamealguem]

Why can't non-smokers go outside for a breath of fresh air? Why should someone be punished for doing something completely legal?

Smoking is a habit and furthermore, it affects the people surrounding it, being smokers or non-smokers. Habits are accepted, has long as they don’t interfere with people in that given moment.

Why does no one get that point? Your wants and desires do not trump the property rights of a property owner. By what right do you have to do that? You desire to avoid smoke on private property is just that, a desire. Not a right. If someone told you what legal activities you could do or not do within your own home you would be upset and spitting mad. So, why do you think you can do it to people just because they have a business?

Private property OPEN to public (restaurants, pubs, etc., where they are given a license to operate and to serve the general public) vs. private property (like your own home), are completely different. I agree with some government acts into assuring the minimal health goes into does places, places open to general public.

 

[Touring Mars]

Surely if I had any right to inhale clean air, they wouldn't be permitted to operate

They are still subject to pollution laws - they wouldn't be permitted to operate if they were pumping out excessive quantities of pollutants that were known to cause illness.

Akin to some of the arguments expressed above, if you chose to live there, it makes it your problem, not theirs. But at the same time (and similarly to the point I am making about changing conditions in the workplace), you would have a case if they started churning out toxic chemicals in quantities that were harmful to health, and shouldn't be forced out of your home simply because these companies failed to adhere to the minimum standards required of them by law.

 

[Famine]

They are still subject to pollution laws - they wouldn't be permitted to operate if they were pumping out excessive quantities of pollutants that were known to cause illness.

Indeed - but who defines what "excessive" is?

For that matter, who defines what "excessive" would be when it comes to cigarette smoke? I'm not aware of any borderline number of cigarettes or density of cigarette smoke that demarcates "clean" air from "unclean" air...


The fact is that their activities do lower air quality and contribute to lower life expectancy in this area and it isn't limited to their own premises, but stretches to other public and private land. That alone tells me that "the right to clean air" is a nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be permitted to emit a thing.

Akin to some of the arguments expressed above, if you chose to live there, it makes it your problem, not theirs.

Indeed. I knew the risks when I put pen to mortgage paper.

But at the same time (and similarly to the point I am making about changing conditions in the workplace), you would have a case if they started churning out toxic chemicals in quantities that were harmful to health, and shouldn't be forced out of your home simply because these companies failed to adhere to the minimum standards required of them by law.

Would it be fine for them to be forced out of business because the minimum standards required of them by law changed?

 

[Joey D]

Smoking is a habit and furthermore, it affects the people surrounding it, being smokers or non-smokers. Habits are accepted, has long as they don’t interfere with people in that given moment.

A lot of things that are legal affect me and others who don't particularly enjoy the same thing. If we banned everything people found annoying, we'd all have to sit at home nice and quietly and never do anything at all. Really how much fun would that be?

Private property OPEN to public (restaurants, pubs, etc., where they are given a license to operate and to serve the general public) vs. private property (like your own home), are completely different. I agree with some government acts into assuring the minimal health goes into does places, places open to general public.

It's open to the public, but that doesn't mean everyone in public has to go into that given establishment. Let me ask you this, consuming alcohol is a public health hazard as well and kills many people every year...should we ban people from drinking too? If affects those surrounding it, especially if they drinker is intoxicated.

 

[Touring Mars]

Indeed - but who defines what "excessive" is?

For that matter, who defines what "excessive" would be when it comes to cigarette smoke? I'm not aware of any borderline number of cigarettes or density of cigarette smoke that demarcates "clean" air from "unclean" air...

The fact is that their activities do lower air quality and contribute to lower life expectancy in this area and it isn't limited to their own premises, but stretches to other public and private land. That alone tells me that "the right to clean air" is a nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be permitted to emit a thing.

Perhaps "a right to clean air" is not the correct way of looking at it, but the right to be protected from the enforcement of unsafe or unhealthy conditions. A blanket ban on smoking in the workplace is a crude but effective way of ensuring that exposure of employees to unnecessary health risks are minimised.

Would it be fine for them to be forced out of business because the minimum standards required of them by law changed?

Yes, with some provisos. Any business or business owner is subject to the laws of the land just as much as any other individual. If the law changes, businesses have to adapt to the new laws. Granted, I reckon any new law that jeopardised jobs or whole businesses would have a very hard time passing unless some leeway was provided in terms of allowing businesses to adapt to the new laws... but that's another debate.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps "a right to clean air" is not the correct way of looking at it, but the right to be protected from the enforcement of unsafe or unhealthy conditions. A blanket ban on smoking in the workplace is a crude but effective way of ensuring that exposure of employees to unnecessary health risks are minimised.

Indeed it is - but it doesn't get around the issue that pollution in question is on private property and only inhaled by people who choose to be there. Compare to the pollution from my local industries which is indiscriminate and affects people who don't even visit the town - just pass by it...

Granted, I reckon any new law that jeopardised jobs or whole businesses would have a very hard time passing unless some leeway was provided in terms of allowing businesses to adapt to the new laws... but that's another debate.

The thing is, that's just what happened to many publicans. They had absolutely nothing to adapt to either - no expensive changes to enact or legislation to comply to. Just people couldn't smoke in there any more. And still they lost enough money to go under...

Yes, with some provisos. Any business or business owner is subject to the laws of the land just as much as any other individual. If the law changes, businesses have to adapt to the new laws.

That's not true though, is it? They're subject to different laws - the laws of the land don't prohibit smoking, for instance...

 

[Touring Mars]

It's questionable that many people 'choose' to be at work - most people have to work, and there are only so many public sector jobs, therefore a huge swathe of people are effectively forced to occupy "private property" whether they want to or not - that's possibly why employers have a greater burden of responsibility than private citizens when it comes to exposing people to possible health risks.

The smoking ban certainly did affect many publicans, but there is little evidence that the industry as a whole was affected specifically by the ban, and despite the numerous losers, there were undoubtedly many winners too. Smokers didn't suddenly stop going to the pub (atleast not a single smoker/drinker I know anyway) - they just moved to pubs where they could still smoke (i.e. pubs with beer gardens, or adequate facilities enabling them to smoke outside). The fact that you can still smoke in beer gardens is an indication of what the law is intended to do - prevent the staff stuck behind the bar (indoors) from constant/long-term exposure to a potentially harmful atmosphere.

Perhaps nowhere in the UK was more afraid of the effects of the smoking ban than Glasgow - but it has to be said, I can't name a single bar that went under solely as a result of the ban. Some of the 'dingier' bars I could mention now have beer gardens, or at the very least, delightful B&Q white plastic tables and chairs out front (so classy!) - one thing is for sure, Glaswegian pubs are hardly deserted today, even in the middle of a deep recession. My guess is that they never will be...

 

[FoolKiller]

What about the rights of employees to clean air?

Perhaps some people can afford the luxury of turning their noses up at a job because the business allows smoking on the premises, but alot of people simply cannot. Similarly, what should an employee with respiratory problems do if their employer suddenly reversed a voluntarily imposed smoking ban? Quit their job? Employees have rights too, and the rights of business owners do not "trump" them.

Wait, you are going to tell me that there are people who only have the skill set required to tend bar (something which does require skill to be half-decent at) and/or wait on tables, but have zero ability to go to a local supermarket like Wal*Mart where they need ~700 employees to run at full capacity and have turnover rates near 80%? Or that they absolutely can't hope to find a job at one of the restaurant chains that do not allow smoking?

Similarly, could people who grew up in Alaskan fishing towns demand that the crab boats, the only real employment available to them, only go out when it is 100% guaranteed that the weather will be clear and there is zero risk of injury? Or if they want a safe career opportunity should they look elsewhere and possibly look in other communities?

As for employers changing the company policy, that happens all the time. They are not forced to continue working there. They are not chained to that job. I took a 5% pay cut for the last four months. That was not in the agreement I made when I received my last promotion. My choice was to deal with it or quit. My health insurance plan took a major change last year. I could accept the changes and make the financial adjustment to maintain similar care or I could look for another job.

The employee ALWAYS has choices. With regulations employers do not, unless they choose to face enforcement at the end of a legal gun.

Why force employers? Why violate their rights when it is only at their will that employees have a choice? Those jobs only exist because of the people we are now taking rights from.

Of course, it is a no-brainer that someone with respiratory problems wouldn't choose to work in a smoky bar - obviously - but I wasn't suggesting that. I was talking more about the general case... a person with respiratory problems takes a job in an office because a) it's available, b) they are qualified and c) the employers enforce a no-smoking policy. Now what happens when the employer just changes their mind on the smoking ban, or demands that the employee move to another role or area that will expose them to smoking?

I guess that you are also assuming the ridiculous notion that they do not have the ability to ever work anywhere else or even have the choice to leave? If they are an employee that is worth hiring the employer would be willing to work with them or they will easily find another job. If they choose to work for an employer who has zero respect for them despite how well they excel at their job then it isn't an employer worth working for.

Currently, the law now prevents this from happening, but if it wasn't for there being a law on smoking in places of business generally, then employees who didn't like it ('whiners' as they are refered to in this thread) or employees who couldn't stay for health reasons would be in trouble. Employees have a right not to be forced out of their jobs because of their employers inability or lack of desire to safeguard their well-being.

What right is that?

I guess my point is not whether people should "choose their jobs more carefully", but that employees ought to be protected from unfair demands made by their employers when they are already there - including being expected to tolerate drastic changes in conditions from those they originally signed up to.

I don't see a thing you said that would be considered unfair, unless there was some form of restraint used. Nothing prevents an employee from leaving or not taking a job. They are not slaves. Their employment is voluntary and, as in any transaction, requires the consent of both parties.

Private property OPEN to public (restaurants, pubs, etc., where they are given a license to operate and to serve the general public) vs. private property (like your own home), are completely different. I agree with some government acts into assuring the minimal health goes into does places, places open to general public.

I agree that minimum safety standards should be present. You should make sure that things a patron or potential employee can't see, such as structural integrity and fire hazards, are taken care of. But by the amount of complaining about the smell of smoke and how it makes people feel you cannot tell me that a customer or potential employee can't tell that smoking is a practiced activity.

A building collapsing and killing people without warning and cigarette smoke that can be seen and smelled possibly causing cancer are completely different.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wait, you are going to tell me that there are people who only have the skill set required to tend bar (something which does require skill to be half-decent at) and/or wait on tables, but have zero ability to go to a local supermarket like Wal*Mart where they need ~700 employees to run at full capacity and have turnover rates near 80%? Or that they absolutely can't hope to find a job at one of the restaurant chains that do not allow smoking?

Of course not, but you're taking my point too literally. I mean that many people are limited - for any number of reasons - to the jobs that are available to them, not to mention that there is only a finite number of available jobs at any particular time. You could argue that anyone can do anything, anywhere - but in the real world, people have responsibilities (mortgages, family etc.) and limitations (qualifications, health issues etc.) that impose real limits on where they can work and what they can do. My point is that no-one ought to be forced to work in an environment that unnecessarily puts their health at risk, and shouldn't be forced out of an otherwise perfectly suitable job simply because their employer makes demands on them that are unreasonable. My argument is that an employee's right to minimum standards of care is atleast if not more important than an employer's right to unnecessarily increase the health risks posed to their staff.

Similarly, could people who grew up in Alaskan fishing towns demand that the crab boats, the only real employment available to them, only go out when it is 100% guaranteed that the weather will be clear and there is zero risk of injury?

I don't really see the relevance here - you're comparing taking a risky job (for which training and adequate safety procedures could easily be applied) with adding a totally unnecessary additional risk to an otherwise 'safe' work environment. Some jobs have unavoidable risks associated with them, and potential employees should be informed of those before they are employed. But allowing conditions whereby any employer can arbitrarily decide to enforce a policy that unnecessarily puts their staff at increased exposure to health risks totally unrelated to the job the staff are there to do, is a different matter.

The employee ALWAYS has choices.

Yes, but when those choices are forced upon them, they aren't really 'choices', are they?. Employees have rights designed to protect them from abuse or exploitation, and to safeguard them against unreasonable demands. Of course employers have rights too, but employers rights do not automatically trump the rights of employees, just because they are the ones who provide the job opportunity.

I guess that you are also assuming the ridiculous notion that they do not have the ability to ever work anywhere else or even have the choice to leave?

Again, sounds great in principle, but is alot harder in practice. Why should an employee be forced out of a job because of the petty or unreasonable demands of their employer, when quitting could cost them dearly? In reality, most people don't just switch effortlessly from one job to another - people typically only switch jobs when they are able to financially. If employers had carte blanche to demand anything from their employees, and employees could either 'take it or leave it', then what would happen when demand for jobs with employers who didn't make unreasonable demands outstrips supply?

 

[TrievelA7X]

I would say, as far as American laws are, it is completely acceptable for them to force workers to go outside to smoke. This is because in America, we have the right to work at any job, with the employer taking every possible step to ensure our health, and I agree with that. There is no reason that I can't go smoke outside. In accordance with PA state labor laws, I must get 2 10 minute breaks, and 1 30 minute break on every 8 hour shift, and that's enough for a smoker, whether they like it or not. (I am a smoker).
As TM said, some jobs have certain risks, but if somebody doesn't want to breath in smoke at work, they should not have to.

For clarity, I will also say this does not apply to workplaces where customers smoke, including but not limited to bars, clubs, & restaurants

As for restaurants, well, they are governed for public health, by the health department, to ensure that they don't give people diseases, but to me, a smoking section however large or small, provided with proper ventilation, should not be governed. A large sign, posted in clear view that states smoking is permitted in this business should be plenty. After that, there's nothing to complain about. It's their business, their property, and nobody has to go there if they don't want to. End of story.
Potentially, they could even enforce ventiallation standards if they so desire, so that there may only be X amount of carbon monoxide in the air, but lord knows the government wont do that, they'll say screw the smokers, and screw themselves and their smoking based tax programs with it.

 

[Famine]

My point is that no-one ought to be forced to work in an environment that unnecessarily puts their health at risk, and shouldn't be forced out of an otherwise perfectly suitable job simply because their employer makes demands on them that are unreasonable. My argument is that an employee's right to minimum standards of care is atleast if not more important than an employer's right to unnecessarily increase the health risks posed to their staff.

But allowing conditions whereby any employer can arbitrarily decide to enforce a policy that unnecessarily puts their staff at increased exposure to health risks totally unrelated to the job the staff are there to do, is a different matter.


Yes, but when those choices are forced upon them, they aren't really 'choices', are they?. Employees have rights designed to protect them from abuse or exploitation, and to safeguard them against unreasonable demands. Of course employers have rights too, but employers rights do not automatically trump the rights of employees, just because they are the ones who provide the job opportunity.

Again, sounds great in principle, but is alot harder in practice. Why should an employee be forced out of a job because of the petty or unreasonable demands of their employer, when quitting could cost them dearly? In reality, most people don't just switch effortlessly from one job to another - people typically only switch jobs when they are able to financially. If employers had carte blanche to demand anything from their employees, and employees could either 'take it or leave it', then what would happen when demand for jobs with employers who didn't make unreasonable demands outstrips supply?

Thing is, it's not unreasonable to permit something that is otherwise legal on your own premises... If the employers were getting up to some kind of practice which is wholly illegal then you have a point, but smoking isn't illegal!


The default position ought to be what is legal - smoking. Employers can then, if they consider it a risk to the health of their patrons, employees and indeed self, choose to protect them by opting not to permit it.

Of course, if patrons and potential employees think this is a good thing, they'll be oversubscribed with customers and applicants - and the message will get round. If patrons and potential employees don't mind, it will not affect the status quo.

 

[Sureboss]

Quite interesting at our work (a sports ground) in that the ground itself has designated smoking areas. Anywhere inside is banned, the law demands as such. Fire regulations stipulate you can't smoke by the pavilion (wooden structure). So, the only places in the ground where you can smoke are open, two by loo's, one by the scoreboard. But you can't smoke anywhere (there's probably about about a kilometre of road around the pitch and grandstands, but only 4 specific areas where you can smoke.

As far as I'm concerned, I think the British way works. Gives people a choice, as a smoker I'm not fussed by going outside (I didn't smoke before the ban, played a lot of snooker in smoky clubs so got used to it, really).

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't think that the default position ought to be simply what is legal, since there are lots of things that are not illegal but that employees have justifiable reasons (or indeed a right) to expect not to be subjected to or expected to tolerate at work. Having hardcore porn wallpaper on your PC is not acceptable; drinking gin and tonics at your desk is not acceptable; being made to work in an office that is 4 degrees Celsius is not acceptable; using abusive or racist language is not acceptable; bullying or sexual harassment is not acceptable etc. etc. Many of these are not 'illegal', but all have good reasons why they are not acceptable in the workplace, and employees should be able to do their jobs without fear of such behaviour that causes them distress or unnecessary discomfort... the issue is whether employers should have the final say as to 'what goes' and demand that their employees can simply "take it or leave it", or whether employees are entitled to a minimum set of standards by which they can expect to be treated at work. I'd argue that the latter ought to be the default position...

As far as I'm concerned, I think the British way works. Gives people a choice

So do I... 👍 Smokers face a small extra inconvenience to carry on with their habits, whereas non-smokers are no longer forced to breathe their smoke. I reckon the default position in the workplace ought to be smoke-free air, and smokers may chose to use designated smoking areas during their breaks if they want.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think that the default position ought to be simply what is legal, since there are lots of things that are not illegal that employees have justifiable reasons (or indeed a right) to expect not to be subjected to or expected to tolerate at work. Having hardcore porn wallpaper on your PC is not acceptable; drinking gin and tonics at your desk is not acceptable; being made to work in an office that is 4 degrees Celsius is not acceptable; using abusive or racist language is not acceptable; bullying or sexual harassment is not acceptable etc. etc. Many of these are not 'illegal', but all have good reasons why they are not acceptable in the workplace, and employees should be able to do their jobs without fear of such behaviour that causes them distress or unnecessary discomfort... the issue is whether employers should have the final say as to 'what goes' and demand that their employees can simply "take it or leave it", or whether employees are entitled to a minimum set of standards by which they can expect to be treated at work. I'd argue that the latter ought to be the default position...

- Having hardcore porn on your desktop computer is considered sexual harassment and is very much illegal.
- Drinking gin and tonic at your desk will inhibit the way you do work, therefore those are grounds for firing.
- I have a buddy who works at Eastern Market down in Detroit, his office is right around 4 degrees C....it's a butcher.
- Abusive or racist language is illegal as it is typically classified as sexual harassment or a hate crime.
- Bullying is assault and sexual harassment is illegal.

None of those really go along with people choosing to work in an environment where they know people are going to be smoking. Smoking is legal, for the most part what you described is not legal. There is a difference. I don't think someone should have to be subjected to sexual harassment, racism, or assault.

I would like to ask you the same question I asked another forum member earlier. Drunk patrons themselves can be just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than the second hand smoke from smoking patrons. Should we ban alcohol as well since it makes for unsafe working conditions?

 

[Famine]

I don't think that the default position ought to be simply what is legal, since there are lots of things that are not illegal that employees have justifiable reasons (or indeed a right) to expect not to be subjected to or expected to tolerate at work. Having hardcore porn wallpaper on your PC is not acceptable; drinking gin and tonics at your desk is not acceptable; being made to work in an office that is 4 degrees Celsius is not acceptable; using abusive or racist language is not acceptable; bullying or sexual harassment is not acceptable etc. etc. Many of these are not 'illegal', but all have good reasons why they are not acceptable in the workplace, and employees should be able to do their jobs without fear of such behaviour that causes them distress or unnecessary discomfort... the issue is whether employers should have the final say as to 'what goes' and demand that their employees can simply "take it or leave it", or whether employees are entitled to a minimum set of standards by which they can expect to be treated at work.

And this is why we have employment tribunals - to ensure that employers not only adhere to what is legal but what is acceptable and what they are contracted to do.

I'd argue that the latter ought to be the default position...

But again, there are specific cases where all of the above are required by a job - they are occupational hazards (or, depending on your wiring, perks). Such as working for a hardcore porn magazine, What Alcohol?, working in the cold room at a butchers (or a molecular biology lab ) or being a police officer.

Most jobs will contain something that isn't necessarily acceptable in most other jobs - simply because it's an expected job-related incident.

 

[Sureboss]

You want hard working conditions? I pulled about 70 pints of sweet, sweet Harvey's and couldn't have one. Now that's tough! (Well, I "tested" the first one, have to make sure it's settled and all that malarky).

 

[Touring Mars]

But again, there are specific cases where all of the above are required by a job - they are occupational hazards (or, depending on your wiring, perks). Such as working for a hardcore porn magazine, What Alcohol?, working in the cold room at a butchers (or a molecular biology lab ) or being a police officer.

Most jobs will contain something that isn't necessarily acceptable in most other jobs - simply because it's an expected job-related incident.

Well indeed, and I have applied for jobs at some of these places* but without much luck But by that logic, correct as it may be, the only place where smoking ought to be tolerated as the default option would be in somewhere that demanded smoking to occur, perhaps in the QA section of a cigar factory. But breathing smoke ought not be considered an occupational hazard or the default for a waiter, an insurance clerk, a cashier in a supermarket or anyone else whose job doesn't specifically demand it.

- Having hardcore porn on your desktop computer is considered sexual harassment and is very much illegal.

My point is that owning hardcore porn is not illegal and neither is smoking - but it's a different matter when you are talking about using it at work because of its effects on others, who have a right to not be subjected to it. It shouldn't be up to the employer to decide what is acceptable at work. Obviously, exceptions necessarily apply, but as a general rule, I don't see why smoking ought to be allowed at work simply because it isn't illegal.

- I have a buddy who works at Eastern Market down in Detroit, his office is right around 4 degrees C....it's a butcher.

Again, the point is that having a room full of 4 degree C air is not illegal, but forcing an employee in a regular workplace (like an office) to endure those temperatures without adequate reason or protection is. Indeed, employees in the UK have the right stop work if their office is significantly colder than normal (usually about 16 deg C). I know that there are obvious exceptions, but the point is that just because butchers can deal with it, it shouldn't be OK for all and every employer to demand that their employees should tolerate it.

* not actually true

 

[Famine]

Well indeed, and I have applied for jobs at some of these places but without much luck

Some of?

I had you down for one, but no more

But breathing smoke ought not be considered an occupational hazard or the default for a waiter, an insurance clerk, a cashier in a supermarket or anyone else whose job doesn't specifically demand it.

Oddly, I've never been aware of smoking being permitted in a supermarket... I wonder why that is...

*wonders*

I don't see why smoking ought to be allowed at work simply because it isn't illegal.

I don't see why smoking should be banned from buildings without regard for the owners' wishes simply because... err... oooh.

Again, the point is that having a room full of 4 degree C air is not illegal, but forcing an employee in a regular workplace (like an office) to endure those temperatures without adequate reason or protection is. Indeed, employees in the UK have the right stop work if their office is significantly colder than normal (usually about 16 deg C). I know that there are obvious exceptions, but the point is that just because butchers can deal with it, it shouldn't be OK for all and every employer to demand that their employees should tolerate it.

I'm sure you do know, but did you know... there's no UPPER temperature limit for offices in the UK...

I'm again wondering why that is... *wonders*

 

[Touring Mars]

For the record, I opposed my previous employer's decision to ban smoking anywhere on campus - the only place smokers were allowed to smoke was on the pavement on Mile End Road (no kidding). Another previous employer - The Scottish Widows (life assurance/pensions), banned smoking indoors and anywhere where the smoker could be seen by the public (again, no kidding). I worked in a pub where the owners were personal friends, and they all smoked - but staff were banned from smoking in the bar, although we were allowed to smoke outside, while customers were allowed to smoke while sitting at the bar (even I can't figure that one out).

 

[TrievelA7X]

The difference here, it that Famine is arguing that sometimes uncontrollable conditions exist. He is also arguing that things which would have an extremely high cost (like air conditioning a warehouse of 1,000,000 square feet) aren't demanded.
TM is arguing that something that has been concluded to be a health risk (smoking), and costs nothing to prevent, should be removed.

There is no need for smoking in a workplace. None whatsoever. And people do have to work. Places where the customers want smoking allowed are the only exception.

If it affects a business, such as a bar, pub, etc, it should be up to the owner. But if there are no customers present, there's no reason people can't go outside.

 

[Famine]

The difference here, it that Famine is arguing that sometimes uncontrollable conditions exist. He is also arguing that things which would have an extremely high cost (like air conditioning a warehouse of 1,000,000 square feet) aren't demanded.

Err, no. I'm arguing that:

it should be up to the owner.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Err, no. I'm arguing that:

Well TM is saying, (and I agree), that if it is unnecessary, and a health risk, why should they be? When you open up a business in America, you are subject to the government employment laws, period.
Would you argue that employers should be allowed to pay 1$ an hour too? It's their business, right?

 

[Famine]

Well TM is saying, (and I agree), that if it is unnecessary, and a health risk, why should they be?

Because it's private property and the specific act is not illegal on public property.

You wouldn't accept me coming into your house and telling you what completely legal acts you weren't to do any more. Would you?

When you open up a business in America, you are subject to the government employment laws, period.

And the Constitution.

Would you argue that employers should be allowed to pay 1$ an hour too? It's their business, right?

Yes.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Because it's private property and the specific act is not illegal on public property.

Neither is all the things like drinking, etc. Do you believe a forklift operator should be allowed to get a bottle of whiskey and drink it while he works?

wouldn't accept me coming into your house and telling you what completely legal acts you weren't to do any more. Would you?

my house, nobody gets paid to be there, and as such is not under labor laws.

And the Constitution.

constitution does not say employers can do whatever they want that I know of, but here's the fun part.

YOU made those claims, so it's up to YOU to back those claims

Yes.

Well, in America, poverty is frowned upon, so we don't allow that. Hey I thought you were a teacher? Don't you guys gripe about being underpaid more than anybody on the planet?

You see, in America, (can't speak for UK), we have the right to a workplace free of unnecessary health risks/hazards. We have the right to a fair wage.

 

[Famine]

Neither is all the things like drinking, etc. Do you believe a forklift operator should be allowed to get a bottle of whiskey and drink it while he works?

Actually DUI is illegal. Look it up. You'd be surprised.

my house, nobody gets paid to be there, and as such is not under labor laws.

Fun fact - if a guy runs his own pub, which is also his house, he can't smoke there. He doesn't pay anyone to be there and no-one has to go in. But he can still be fined. Good, isn't it?

Government has no place legislating against legal acts on private property.

constitution does not say employers can do whatever they want that I know of, but here's the fun part.

You might want to think a little before you make up things I haven't said.

Well, in America, poverty is frowned upon, so we don't allow that.

Here in the UK we don't either. That doesn't mean that it's right to. A minimum wage is fundamentally a foolish idea.

Hey I thought you were a teacher? Don't you guys gripe about being underpaid more than anybody on the planet?

You thought wrong.

You see, in America, (can't speak for UK), we have the right to a workplace free of unnecessary health risks/hazards. We have the right to a fair wage.

Are they in the Bill of Rights now? I missed that one.

I note that you claim to have a right to a fair wage, but ignore the possibility that "fair" could indeed mean $1/hr.

 

[Touring Mars]

Fun fact - if a guy runs his own pub, which is also his house, he can't smoke there. He doesn't pay anyone to be there and no-one has to go in. But he can still be fined. Good, isn't it?

There are many absurdities brought up by laws, but it doesn't mean that the laws are entirely absurd. The example you mention here is rare, and the law is intended to cover the vast majority of bars that do require employed staff.

Government has no place legislating against legal acts on private property.

I agree, but when a private property is turned into a place of work for someone else, then different rules apply, since you are effectively turning a private place into a public one. Smoking in your own bar or shop is the most relevant example, but what about masturbation? Smoking and masturbating are both legal, and government certainly has no place legislating against masturbation on private property. But obviously, if that private property becomes a workplace i.e. a hotel, you hire domestic staff, open a bar etc., then the act of masturbation becomes illegal in areas where there are employees and/or customers. The defense of "it's my property, I can do whatever I please" is not true. As a property/business owner, you are still subject to the law and should observe the rights of your employees.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Actually DUI is illegal. Look it up. You'd be surprised.

Guess what? Operating a forklift while drunk is not driving under the influence.
Forklift, a warehouse term, includes (not limited to) Pallet Jack, Reach truck, order picker, order stocker, battery changer, etc.
powered equipment in warehouse, that run on electric, and require no lisence to operate, other than a simple "certification"
Brings up a cool point for me though, so thanks.
Should the government be allowed to require that forklift operators be certified? or should we just go willy nilly here? Should they allow employers to just throw employees into dangerous and deadly situations without training?

Fun fact - if a guy runs his own pub, which is also his house, he can't smoke there. He doesn't pay anyone to be there and no-one has to go in. But he can still be fined. Good, isn't it?

He is allowed to smoke in his house, because his house is above the pub, or beside it.
As far as I've seen, No pub owners sleep/dine/live in the pub section itself, but maybe things are different where you live.

Government has no place legislating against legal acts on private property.

It's not private, the very second you employ 1 person. That's the whole point you're missing.

You might want to think a little before you make up things I haven't said.

You're right, you did not say that. But you did imply it, very strongly, because you reapeat like a broken record that it's "private property", and they have all these rights because of that.
And it's still not private once you employ.
It's also not private once you allow a customer inside, without a membership.

Here in the UK we don't either. That doesn't mean that it's right to. A minimum wage is fundamentally a foolish idea.

No, it is not. The only way it is fundamentally foolish is if you like watching big company's rake in more and more money, while people are driven into poverty.

You thought wrong.

Oh well.

Are they in the Bill of Rights now? I missed that one.

They very well might be, don't have a copy off hand. But the courts have decided it was a right.
How about the "right to know" act? is that real?

I note that you claim to have a right to a fair wage, but ignore the possibility that "fair" could indeed mean $1/hr.

Not in America, no. If by that you mean some people don't do squat, then that's employer's decision to fire them in most states.

Once again, I do agree that if it's customers who want to smoke, then the government should have no say. If it's employees, maybe they should.

Edit: Fun Fact: I believe in America, or at least some states, it is illegal to live "in the Pub" as you say. (unless you meant above the pub, where an owner could burn 5000 smoke a day if he wanted)
But I could be wrong, so...

 

[TrievelA7X]

.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Guess what? Operating a forklift while drunk is not driving under the influence.
Forklift, a warehouse term, includes (not limited to) Pallet Jack, Reach truck, order picker, order stocker, battery changer, etc.
powered equipment in warehouse, that run on electric, and require no lisence to operate, other than a simple "certification"
Brings up a cool point for me though, so thanks.

Eh? I work in a supermarket and with pallet jacks. No-one would ever call it a Fork Lift. My dad is Manager of a warehouse for Nickel refinery, and they have pallet jacks there aswell. But they also call a Fork Lift, a Fork lift. You know, big thing you drive with forks at the front that lift. I spent a several hours of work experience in that warehouse and never heard anything of the contrary.