Timber's smoking thread, Part III

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you still have not responded to my 20% request. Apparently, you want it all. Your way or the highway. I now resort to acting like you: Will you please quit ducking and answer the dang question. 1. Are you willing to give me a measley 1 in 5 bars? Or, must you insist on having ALL my liberty to smoke? 2. What about my proposed compromise. God, this is frustrating. If you were not so guilty of doing that which you accuse others of doing, I would not be so concerned. I DEMAND AN ANSWER.

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by pritchke: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Because out in the open it's not harming anyone but the smoker.

I actually disagree.

Bus stops can usually be fairly bad, then there is the littering problem. I don't know very many people who carry their butts with them. Sometimes there are garbage bins or ashtrays nearby and butts are still tossed on the ground. City Aesthetics! [/QUOTE]I made mention of this earlier on. Littering is a seperate offense though.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: The magical 20% number would keep changing as new places opened up. What if they closed down? A smoking place suddnely lost it's right to be a smoking place because a couple of places closed down that month. It'd be chaos in an already chaotic city Timber.

Separate issue. Assume that's not on the table.

Besides, you are wrong again. Once a place is permitted as S or N/S, its permit would remain unless it applied for a new one. If a place applied for an S permit and no slots were available, it would have to get a N/S permit or simply not open. Since the owner choses what permit to apply for, it's his/her business how to run his/her business. Sure, it may change a bit, but how many times has a shop you liked shut down, been bought out, changed its menu, or lost/gained a liquor license? To argue such "chaos" would be too chaotic for NYC is silly, don't you think?

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you still have not responded to my 20% request. Apparently, you want it all. Your way or the highway. I now resort to acting like you: Will you please quit ducking and answer the dang question. 1. Are you willing to give me a measley 1 in 5 bars? Or, must you insist on having ALL my liberty to smoke? 2. What about my proposed compromise. God, this is frustrating. If you were not so guilty of doing that which you accuse others of doing, I would not be so concerned. I DEMAND AN ANSWER.

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.[/QUOTE]But this has a frightful natural conclusion. Say that on average, conventionally pretty waitresses with large breasts make more in tips than their less aesthetically-gifted sisters. Say also that breast implants have a (questionable) history of health problems, like second-hand smoking. We could then infer that waitresses who do *not* have large breasts or pretty faces must get plastic surgery and implants to compete for a decent wage. What we therefore do is outlaw plastic surgery and breast enhancement. Or we ban all bars from employing people who have had plastic surgery, or who score higher than 9/10 on the 'growwwwwl' scale of male appreciation, or ban waitresses who have breasts above a certain size from receiving tips, or being employed in a bar, or force bar patrons to wear anti-waitress-breast blinkers, or whatever other ludicrous suggestion we can think up.

Life is full of compromises. Nobody in this world can live a life empty of risk and full of reward. If a person earns a smaller wage due to getting smaller tips in a workplace, then they get the counter-balance that they live longer to spend the money they *do* earn. Those that earn more at smoking places have less time to enjoy their wealth. This is what is called 'free will', and is something that western governments and major religions tend to be keen on.

And I don't mean that comment in a tacky way. It's actually a genuine point - I don't accept that the tips in a non-smoking bar vs. a smoking bar would be a matter of living wage vs abject poverty. That's what minimum wage is all about.

Everywhere in life we have people risking their personal safety, of their own free will, for greater reward/personal satisfaction/whatever. As long as people who do not want to risk their personal safety can work and earn a decent/living wage (again, that's what the minimum wage is there for), then it is a matter of their free choice whether they think the tradeoff of second-hand smoke is worth the slight increase in tips.

It's all about choice. Provide a solid base for each choice, and let people make up their minds. As long as the protections are there to stop unfair exploitation of those people willing to take suicidal risks, and also to stop those unwilling to take risks from being denied a living wage, then I don't see the problem. If anything, the problem is deciding where to draw the lines about what is socially acceptable risk of life in the persuit of a job. The problem should not be finding a place or situation for people to carry out legal activities if all such involving any element of risk are banned virtually everywhere.

**************

Jeez, you want the world to run a path to your door? Just try and make a half-decent post. Why is it that the level of interruption is always directly proportional to the seriousness of the topic I'm replying to? GAH!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you still have not responded to my 20% request. Apparently, you want it all. Your way or the highway. I now resort to acting like you: Will you please quit ducking and answer the dang question. 1. Are you willing to give me a measley 1 in 5 bars? Or, must you insist on having ALL my liberty to smoke? 2. What about my proposed compromise. God, this is frustrating. If you were not so guilty of doing that which you accuse others of doing, I would not be so concerned. I DEMAND AN ANSWER.

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. [/QUOTE]1. I answered the "untennable" nature of this in my last post. It's untrue, businesses change around ALL THE TIME. In Chicago this is true. It's true in New YOrk as well. Heck, the Soup Nazi was a major hit in New York -- but only for one mere episode of Seinfeld. This very "alive" nature of the businesses is quite common.
2. If only 20% of the bars (not other places -- ONLY BARS) were smoking, the wait staff would face no dilemma. Those wanting to work in N/S enviro would have fully 80% of bars, 100% of restaurants, and 100% of hotels, museums, and amusement venues to work in. To argue that those 20% on aggregate pay more in tips is just a silly stretch -- especially since I happen to know the smoking section ALWAYS tips worse in the aggregate. Been there, done that -- in no less than 5 restaurants and 2 bars where I've worked.
3. It's not segregation of the workforce anymore than other special building permits are -- such as the trendy loft levels, spiral stairwells, open elevators, and mosh pits in clubs. There are a number of ways to customize your venue, and this should be one of them.

It is becoming blatantly obvious that you will have the world 100% your way no matter what. Your unwillingness to compromise is amazing. You are now taking tangential, meaningless concerns and putting them above my liberty. You are not acting in favor of your health at this point, you are actin 100% on your 100% abhorence of smoking, and you are forcing your will on me. It is getting sad.

[Night Stalker]

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.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: Because out in the open it's not harming anyone but the smoker.

The same can easily be said of sound - though I disagree that either polution harms only those at the source.

Before, you mentioned that you can wear ear protection but you cannot wear "smoke" protection. That's not true. You could wear filters that protect you from air pollutants. OK - yes, I'll grant it is not as sexy as without, but it is available it that is a big concern. Yes hearing protection of semi-decent quallity (20-30 dB) is less obtrusive than a gas mask or an O₂ tube, but the protection is available.


PS - Hope you don't feel like it's "fire for effect on Yorick's postition" cheers mate!