No Guiness for Lazs :)

[Tarmac]

Of course they're different, but the spirit is the same.   Both know the risks before they start, and take the job anyway because the compensation is sufficient.  

If an employer does not take sufficient (by his prospective employees' definition) safety steps, there are ways to remedy it besides legislation.  The employer can pay more, to get people working in the hazardous environment.  These people, with their extra money, could buy safety devices themselves.  Or they could pocket it.  Or they could bargain with the employer for a pay cut in exchange for the employer's investment in safety equipment.  Or they could all chip in and buy the safety equipment as a staff.  

With legislation, you're forcing the employer to put in the safety equipment, and through scarce resources, pay less.  This is removing all previously mentioned options from both the employer and the employees.  

If I don't feel that smoking is a hazard to my health, while most people do, then I have a leg up on them in a competitive job market.  They can refuse the job until they feel it is reasonably safe, while in the meantime I can demand increased compensation.  Legislation removes my competitive advantage, and thereby my chance at setting myself apart from and above the rest of the workforce.

[2stony]

Ah, this will probably strike a nerve with everyone. Pierce County in Washington state just enacted, repealed and re-enacted a "no smoking" law in taverns, resturants, etc. More than likely it is going on a state wide ballot next session. IMO, I shouldn't have to inhale someone else's smoke when I'm in a public place. Smoking sections are a joke because the smoke is going to drift into my "non-smoking" area anyway. If this comes up on the ballot, I will definately be voting for "no smoking in ANY public place". If you want to smoke, go outside. Let me guess, someone will probably say "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" and "I should have to right to smoke if I want to". Well, that's really selfish when you're talking about someone else's health. Since smokers don't care about their own health, why should they care about someone else's health.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Airhead
Nobody forces anyone to work in a sawmill either. Or on a fishing boat. Or on a high rise building. However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.

Oh, and if a high rise worker refused to wear a harness he'd be fired quick, because OSHA inspects worksites and would write up the contractor for non-compliance in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I know he would be fired. You don't have to tell me about safety regulations, 20 years in AF, you wanna talk about nanny laws.

Government protection is really all a matter of degree. Most of those bemoaning "nanny" laws probably have no argument with speed limits or most traffic laws. We just need to find a balance that most can live with.

[Frogm4n]

The only logical arguement for makeing those places non smokeing is the employee health reason. And it does make sence.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by 2stony
"if you don't like it, go somewhere else" and "I should have to right to smoke if I want to". Well, that's really selfish when you're talking about someone else's health. Since smokers don't care about their own health, why should they care about someone else's health.

and you have exposed them for what they are. sellfish.
I think the issue is more about a safe work enviroment then anything.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Airhead
However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.  

There's our fundamental difference.  I don't believe that's correct.  I believe people should have the right to work wherever they see fit, and employers should have the right to run his business as he sees fit.  

"As safe an environment as possible" -- wtf does that mean, anyhow?  All jobs have some risk, and all could be made safer.  Why aren't they?  The only way to make a job "as safe as possible" is to not do the job, or failing that, to put everyone into big marshmallow suits in armored boxes to protect them from everything in the world.  

Why don't we do that?  Because it's impractical.  That's my fundamental problem -- the government shouldn't decide what's practical for the millions of different businesses in this country, because each business (and workforce) knows what is practical for them better than any government ever can.  They will find the ideal compromise between productivity and safety without the government telling them where it is.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by AKIron
Most of those bemoaning "nanny" laws probably have no argument with speed limits or most traffic laws. We just need to find a balance that most can live with.

No, I don't, becaue the roads are built with public funds and patrolled by public police officers.  If they were privately built roads, then I'd have a problem with the government telling the private road operator how high the speed limit should be.

[lazs2]

airhead... I believe that the workers should be able to decide if they want to work in a smoke free bar or not... There should be a sign outside stating if the establishment is or not.    If it is a smoking bar then you should probly not apply.

as for guards on saws and lifejackets.... They should be available just like seatbelts in cars.   If your boss requires you to use em then fine if not... you should be on your own.

osha can bite me.  If they were disbanned today I would not care.  

I don't really think that safety equipment is in the same category as the smoking in private establishments tho.   Everyone is or, thinks they are, aware of the dangers of smoking... if they apply for a job in a smoking establishment then they take their chances... or, more likely... they smoke themselves.

lazs

lazs

[Tarmac]

Crikey, do I have to argue this in two threads now?

See the other one.

BTW, I don't smoke.  How selfish of me.  But I am intelligent enough to avoid places that I find too smoky.

[Nilsen]

what if you cant get another job for some reason?

[Dago]

I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and also understand the dangers for employees of restuarants and bars who must be exposed to it nonstop while on the job.

Sometimes I wonder what is really more objectionable, the stink, or the fact that smokers use the earth as their ashtray?  Look on any street, and especially around intersections and you will find the ground littered with butts.   Who hasn't seen where someone dumped their car ashtray in a parking lot?

It would be okay with me if the whole world outlawed smoking.  It is a vice that does intrude on the non-participants.


dago

[Frogm4n]

If i was a cop and saw someone flicking a butt i would fine them the maximum everytime. The smell and the polution are more offensive then their breath.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by lazs2
airhead... I believe that the workers should be able to decide if they want to work in a smoke free bar or not... There should be a sign outside stating if the establishment is or not.    If it is a smoking bar then you should probly not apply.

as for guards on saws and lifejackets.... They should be available just like seatbelts in cars.   If your boss requires you to use em then fine if not... you should be on your own.

osha can bite me.  If they were disbanned today I would not care.  

I don't really think that safety equipment is in the same category as the smoking in private establishments tho.   Everyone is or, thinks they are, aware of the dangers of smoking... if they apply for a job in a smoking establishment then they take their chances... or, more likely... they smoke themselves.

lazs

lazs

If they allowed child labor in coal mines, but as long as the kids agree to it you would be fine with that lazs?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Tarmac
No, I don't, becaue the roads are built with public funds and patrolled by public police officers.  If they were privately built roads, then I'd have a problem with the government telling the private road operator how high the speed limit should be.

Public funds=my money

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by AKIron
Public funds=my money

Exactly.  Your money.  And mine.  As such, a consensus on the safe limits of use is fine by me.  

But if I were free to not use the highways, and also not pay for them, then I would have no say in how they should be run.  You are free to stay out of private smoking establishents, so by the same logic you should have only as much say in their operation as the private owner allows.