Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEden
They aren't being "forced" to work in a unsafe environment, they chose this job for the extra cash flow. If they are worried about the exposure to extra risks, then go right down the street the chain of restaurants that DON'T allow smoking and get a job.
|
Arguably, very few people are being forced to work anywhere. Whether a job is "at will" or not doesn't seem to generally hold much sway over whether the people who work in that job can be legally exposed to toxic chemicals on a regular basis. I like it this way.
Quote:
|
Outright banning smoking is different from regulating the areas that smoking is allowed. By saying "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state" is not giving rights to smokers. If you changed that to "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state unless a state issued permit allows that establishment to have smoking", then I am all for it. That way, out of the 30+ restaurants in my town alone, I will have at least ONE that I can smoke in. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to the other 29 restaurants out there. I'm not forcing you to go the one WITH smoking, then don't force my favorite restaurants to go NON-smoking.
|
But that restaurant would essentially be getting a permit to slowly poison its employees. I mean, I appreciate how nice it is to smoke inside, but I don't think doing so is necessarily consistent with the way the issue of employee exposure to toxic chemicals is generally handled. Maybe if employees were issued gas masks?