View Single Post
Old 05-14-2003, 05:28 PM   #36
Night Stalker
Lord Ao
 

Join Date: June 24, 2002
Location: Nevernever Land
Age: 51
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I answered Timber. There's no way that such a propsal would work in New York, and even if it did, it would be creating segregation of the workforce. If for example, those 20% were found to make more money in tips, nonsmoking waitstaff would be put in a terrible dillemma. One should not have to risk their health to make a decent wage.

Secondly, every worker has the right to a smoke free workplace. Every worker. No worker should be subjected to tobacco while they work. If those bars were self serve, then maybe that's an option.
I don't see the dillemma. They have a choice on the matter. If a non-smoking envronment is more important they look for jobs in the non-smoking establishments. I think you are making a bigger issue over this than needed.


Let's change metaphores slightly. Stress. Stress is just as dangerous if not more so to a person's health than cigarette smoke. There are numerous stress related disorders that can be fatal (if not directly, indirectly as a contributing factor). Let's take Timber's chosen profession - Law. He can choose to take a job at a huge multinational envrionmental lawfirm, where they push long, stressful hours - creating a lifestyle that is not only stressful on the job, but cuts into his stress relief time and activities (and possibly creating stress on the homefront). Or he can choose for a simpler quieter atmoshere in a smaller firm. He has debts to pay from law school. He has a choice to pick a position that could be detrimental to his health, or not, or not even stay in practice as a lawyer.

Now to address your concern - that the club that pays the highest under a hypothetical smokers zoning condition happens to be one that catters to smokers. Yes, you have the same choice that TL has, possibly put your health at risk (being around smoke does not make getting cancer a certainty) and earn more money, or play at the non-smoking venues. This zoning compromise ensures you have that choice, and ensures that smokers have an option to gather and also enjoy entertainment (or even the workers that want a smoking environment) without feeling like second class citizens.

I also don't think that managing from the cities point of view would be that difficult. While ensuring 20% of each side exists, the other 60% would be free to do as they choose. Market forces would bear in and you would most likely see a 50/50 slit or maybe a 60/40 (guessing but hey!). I doubt that the rails of 80/20 either way would be hit though, for if there is a huge cry for non-smoking venues, owners would see that there is an advantage to catering to them.
__________________
[url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky!
Night Stalker is offline