And by the Way...

[Rachel]

employees in smoking environments

I just wanted to comment on this one.

I don\'t much care if people smoke, although as someone who has a pretty strong nausea reaction to the smell of cigarette smoke (even walking round on the street) I\'m not a fan of public smoking - but then I try not to wander round town in rush hour on a sunny day because the exhaust fumes have much the same effect. Still not enough trolley buses here... When smoking friends come back in the house after a quick ciggie on the deck my eyes water and I\'d better not be trying to eat something.

But the comment that if employees don\'t like a smoking environment, they should leave? Why should they have to? If that statement held true for every negative situation in a workplace, then there\'d be no need for any kind of employment law because, hey, if you don\'t like it, you can leave.

Paid a subsistence wage? leave. overworked? leave. sexually harrassed? leave. asked to handle hazardous chemicals without safety gear? (one of my high-school jobs) - leave.

Rather, to my knowledge, most countries have laws like that cover that, so:

paid a substistence wage? minimum wage laws. overworked? maximum hours, monetary compensation, days-in-lieu... sexually harrassed? laws that govern workplace behaviour (I think this one\'s gone over-the-top and needs a bit of work, but the theory is there). And gloves for when you\'re dunking your hands in yechy chemicals.

So why not have something to protect people in an evironment where the air is toxic? Why on earth should they have to just \'leave\'?

Or maybe bars could only hire smokers. But then, some smokers here are having a spasm because a few local companies have realised that it\'s not legally discriminatory to hire only non-smokers for productivity reasons. Because it\'s not like smoking is a basic human right, kinda like why it\'s not discriminatory (here at least) for a bar or workplace to have a dress code.

 

[Taer]

Originally posted by Rachel
I just wanted to comment on this one.

I don\'t much care if people smoke, although as someone who has a pretty strong nausea reaction to the smell of cigarette smoke (even walking round on the street) I\'m not a fan of public smoking - but then I try not to wander round town in rush hour on a sunny day because the exhaust fumes have much the same effect. Still not enough trolley buses here... When smoking friends come back in the house after a quick ciggie on the deck my eyes water and I\'d better not be trying to eat something.

But the comment that if employees don\'t like a smoking environment, they should leave? Why should they have to? If that statement held true for every negative situation in a workplace, then there\'d be no need for any kind of employment law because, hey, if you don\'t like it, you can leave.

Paid a subsistence wage? leave. overworked? leave. sexually harrassed? leave. asked to handle hazardous chemicals without safety gear? (one of my high-school jobs) - leave.

Rather, to my knowledge, most countries have laws like that cover that, so:

paid a substistence wage? minimum wage laws. overworked? maximum hours, monetary compensation, days-in-lieu... sexually harrassed? laws that govern workplace behaviour (I think this one\'s gone over-the-top and needs a bit of work, but the theory is there). And gloves for when you\'re dunking your hands in yechy chemicals.

So why not have something to protect people in an evironment where the air is toxic? Why on earth should they have to just \'leave\'?

Or maybe bars could only hire smokers. But then, some smokers here are having a spasm because a few local companies have realised that it\'s not legally discriminatory to hire only non-smokers for productivity reasons. Because it\'s not like smoking is a basic human right, kinda like why it\'s not discriminatory (here at least) for a bar or workplace to have a dress code.

I\'m going to assume that this is levelled at me; as far as I can tell I\'m the only one who said to simply leave, and I think that was right after someone else mentioned employees.

You seem to think that I\'m saying they (people in general, not specifically employees) have to leave. No. I\'m saying if they don\'t like it they have the choice to leave. They know someone is smoking there, or will know shortly, and if they don\'t want to deal with it then they should leave.

As for a law governing smoking, I am very hesitant that there should be one. Your analogies of minimum wage, sexual harassment, ect. aren\'t exactly 1:1 correlations, but even in those cases the simple choice to leave is still there. Also, merely because there is a law that governs what you consider to be a similar offence is a poor reason to enact a new one.

Lets say, and this is an extreme case, really fat people are genuinely offensive to you. And by genuine I don\'t mean they just disgust you, but they actually cause such an adverse reaction in you that there mere presence is intolerable, should there be a law against people being fat?

I know this seems like a leap, but destruction of freedom, and by that I mean freedom of choice, isn\'t going to happen in one fell swoop. It\'ll be the cause of A is similar to B, we stop A so lets stop B, and so on untill we are left with no choice (Kinda like the American political system...)

I will always support personal choice and responsibility over restrictive laws any day, even if it pisses the hell out of you.(And incidentally if that offends you too much, will you promote a law being passed to clap me in irons?):flip::bouncy:

 

[finn17]

A quick hijack...Soz!

Now this is the sort of off (mini) topic I really respect. Well-thought out arguments, deeply held opinions, firmly held diametrically oposed views that are discussed eloquently and without too much rancour.

I have just taken some (deserved) flack for criticising the WA thread. Most of the views have expressed the opinion that, \"other threads have nothing to do with minis as well as this one\". Or even more annoyingly, \"It gives you a real insight into how people think\". Bollocks!

I don\'t agree with Rachel, and I don\'t agree with Taer. But...I have enjoyed reading their eloquent posts and have found that they, along with many others, have offered \'food for thought\'.

Long may OT threads of this nature continue

 

[darthfoley]

Hear, hear!


Now somebody slide me a pint!


Oh, and BTW, Twelve...chewing gum...classic!

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by Taer

I\'m going to assume that this is levelled at me; as far as I can tell I\'m the only one who said to simply leave, and I think that was right after someone else mentioned employees.

possibly - the thread is so damn long I can\'t remember who said what . I thought it might have been Evil Dave, but I was pretty sure it had popped up a couple of times - so it wasn\'t directed at anyone in specific, just the subject.

and if they don\'t want to deal with it then they should leave.

sure, they can, but why should they have to? Someone is taking a specific action that is unhealthy for someone else, or obnoxious, or aggravating, etc. Why is it the other person who has the problem and should just go away?
Let\'s try another analogy (I know, it probably won\'t be 1:1 either, but I do love them so, it\'s how my brain works... my husband constantly gives me crap about them ...) - how about I\'m sitting in a cafe squirting people with a water gun. Or not even squirting people specifically, but randomly firing it about in such a manner that some people get hit every now and then. Now, this doesnt\' actually hurt anyone, no-one (so far as I know!) is allergic to water, it doesn\'t stain, causes no damage to anything. But it\'s pretty bloody aggravating .

Is it fair to ask everyone else to leave so that I can keep squirting my pistol thing, or is it perhaps a little more sensible to ask that I quit it while I\'m in the cafe?

Hell, some restaurants ask people not to bring kids because of the noise pollution, so they have to go to family friendly places.

Let\'s all stay off the roads in case someone else decides to drive drunk.

As for a law governing smoking, I am very hesitant that there should be one. <snip>

In general I agree, but in specific, I\'m in support of laws governing *workplace* smoking. I don\'t quite see why the right of the smoker to smoke (and yes, they do have them - not in any legal sense but in a general ethical sense) should outweigh the right of the other employee to have clean air.

Dedicated areas though, those would be good. Preferably with a bit of separation (to cut down drift), and some really good ventilation - then it wouldn\'t be a problem and presumably everyone would be happy. There are some bars round town that don\'t have a smoky problem because they have *serious* air conditioning - come to think of it, I\'d rather see that enforced than an outright ban. Most innercity bars have other stipulations like soundproofing etc, a bit more ventilation would be pretty cool.

you can tell I\'m doing this pretty much stream of consciousness, can\'t you?

they actually cause such an adverse reaction in you that there mere presence is intolerable, should there be a law against people being fat?

well, no, because that seems quite ridiculous. That indicates a psychological problem with the viewer, so it\'s a completely internal thing which has nothing to do with the other persons behaviour.

Just because someone doesn\'t really mind passive smoking doesnt\' mean it isn\'t going to cause them a raft of health problems, so I don\'t know if tolerance is a good indicator.

I will always support personal choice and responsibility over restrictive laws any day, even if it pisses the hell out of you.(And incidentally if that offends you too much, will you promote a law being passed to clap me in irons?):flip::bouncy:

well, maybe for using a flippy bouncy

The analogy was just that, an analogy - simply to say there are other behaviours in workplace situations that are not tolerated because they\'re unhealthy or counterproductive. They\'re not tolerated so that the employees can have a better workplace, rather than making people leave until you find someone who\'ll put up with anything.

I\'m quite a fan of personal choice, even with regard to things I don\'t support myself, just not trampling on other people\'s rights. Too damn much these days is about how it\'s all about one\'s own choices, all about me, why can\'t I have exactly what I want? How can you ask me to do something different just to make some other people feel better? But I *like* shooting my water pistol. And nothing about any kind of collective responsibility.

Yes, any individual has a right to do certain things. But it\'s just plain rude to let those things interfere with other peoples lives. Note that I\'ve never said \'don\'t smoke\' - just don\'t let your behaviour negatively affect other people to an unreasonable extent.

Please, no wind farms for efficient, clean energy - it\'ll spoil my view. Sure, we\'re currently ruining the South Island\'s rivers for hydropower so I can have my heated towel rail, and might have had powercuts last winter because the supply just wasn\'t there, but don\'t you dare put propellor things on my hills.

Hey, I have customary rights to fish here - I know that taking undersize shellfish will eventually wipe out the population, but why should I cut back if I don\'t have to?

I want to drive an SUV to take my kids to school along perfectly level roads, I know it\'s too wide for Wellington roads and two of us can\'t pass in opposite lanes, it won\'t fit in half the parking spaces, uses loads of the non-renewable resources that are fossil fuels, and steers like a pregnant whale, but it\'s nice and high and has cupholders. And I feel safer even though it\'s only passive safety.

Why on earth should I carpool when I like my space? But dammit, I\'ll complain about traffic jams.

Rant off - sorry, those are some local issues that are annoying the hell out of me. Totally off topic. But the idea of collective responsibility is one I quite like.

And I think reducing workplace smoke is a responsibility thing. God, does the non-smoking employee really have to suffer just because some people can\'t go more than a couple of hours without a fag?

 

[mule]

Off topic you say???

Actually I quite agree with Rachel (which is a little suprising as I have a sister name Rachel with whom I can agree on nothing)

What I\'d really like to say though, is what sort of weirdo likes this thread?
(the sort who\'d average over 6 posts a day for such a long time:innocent: )
And the WA thread is sooooo cool

Blasphemy?

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by mule
What I\'d really like to say though, is what sort of weirdo likes this thread?
And the WA thread is sooooo cool

Hmmm...intelligent, well thought out, adult discussion versus single word, meaningless cross cultural responses.

I\'ll stick with this one.

 

[supervike]

good cheap therapy

I am a former smoker. Lately, I have been enduring a lot of stress at work. Each little bit of stress that adds, my mind keeps telling me I need a cigarette.

BUT, I know what it was like to quit smoking. I know how hard it is. Faye hit it right on the head. You can only quit for yourself. Any other reason is doomed to failure.

My wife quit when I did (three years ago) but has since restarted. I don\'t complain to her to quit, but she does go outside to smoke.

My cravings have never completely gone away for cigarettes. A long while may pass before I notice I am having a craving, but they do keep coming back.

For those of you attempting to quit, you know all the cliche\'s...one day at a time, do it for yourself, do it for the kids, look at the money you\'ll save....etc. etc..

Maybe using this forum to express how you feel will help. Its good cheap therapy, and you would have nothing to lose.

Most of the folks here are intelligent, caring, understanding, and insightful.

Good luck with whatever you choose...

 

[finn17]

Hmmm...

Originally posted by mule
What I\'d really like to say though, is what sort of weirdo likes this thread?
(the sort who\'d average over 6 posts a day for such a long time:innocent: )
And the WA thread is sooooo cool

Or alternatively, the sort whose balls have dropped and have an IQ larger than their shoe size

You see, on this thread, although it\'s off topic, people are actually engaging their brains, articulating their thoughts, and presenting a explication of their value system. :moon:

 

[supervike]

they are supposed to do that?

Originally posted by finn17

Or alternatively, the sort whose balls have dropped and have an IQ larger than their shoe size

What about those whose balls just keep dropping?



You have heard of a horse that is \"long in the tooth\" what about being \"long in the sac?\"

 

[finn17]

No problemo

Originally posted by supervike
What about those whose balls just keep dropping?



You have heard of a horse that is \"long in the tooth\" what about being \"long in the sac?\"

I thought that was the purpose behind marriage? My wife keeps my balls in a jar beside the bed, so the only way they can drop any further is if she accidentally knocks them off.

I do keep a spare set at the office however

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by supervike
What about those whose balls just keep dropping?

You have heard of a horse that is \"long in the tooth\" what about being \"long in the sac?\"

AAAARRRRRRGGHHHH...Mental Picture....must...think...of...something...else.

 

[finn17]

Haha...

Dr Bollocks strikes again

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by TaerI will always support personal choice and responsibility over restrictive laws any day, even if it pisses the hell out of you

You can\'t really mean this. If it is someone\'s personal choice to ride around town in the trunk of a car with a hole for the gun barrel to come out and to randomly shoot people standing out in the open, including children on their way to school, you would always support that person\'s choice over a law prohibiting it?
Extreme example, clearly not 1:1, but drives the point home.

So, if you agree that a worthwhile society puts limits on personal freedom, where would you draw the line?

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by TaerI will always support personal choice and responsibility over restrictive laws any day, even if it pisses the hell out of you

You can\'t really mean this. If it is someone\'s personal choice to ride around town in the trunk of a car with a hole for the gun barrel to come out and to randomly shoot people standing out in the open, including children on their way to school, you would always support that person\'s choice over a law prohibiting it?
Extreme example, clearly not 1:1, but drives the point home.

\'Extreme\' isn\'t the word for that example. I think \'silly\' comes closer to the mark.

Nobody advocates allowing people to run around shooting at random strangers. That type of argument is a fallacy. Personal freedom doesn\'t include the harming of others; that\'s a basic understanding which even a five year old can grasp.

However, laws against such things as \'illicit\' drugs, smoking, genital piercings, oral sex (illegal in my state, btw), gay sex, adultery, etc etc (such as: in Alabama, it\'s illegal to own a vibrator)...are an affront to human intelligence and common sense.

What we\'re saying is that whether YOU like my choice to, say, get a blowjob from my girlfriend or not, it is MY choice and MY right and laws against it are perpetuated only by the small-minded.

/rant off

 

[finn17]

Sounds pretty easy to me...

Unless it hurts others...

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by darthfoley
Personal freedom doesn\'t include the harming of others; that\'s a basic understanding which even a five year old can grasp.

However, laws against such things as \'illicit\' drugs, smoking, genital piercings, oral sex (illegal in my state, btw), gay sex, adultery, etc etc (such as: in Alabama, it\'s illegal to own a vibrator)...are an affront to human intelligence and common sense.

/rant off

Sure. But most of the arguments here have been based on the concept that smoking around people (rather than smoking at all, which only harms the individual in theory, unless you\'re pregnant) *can* harm other people. No, not in an \'I shoot you\' sense, but in the \'over long term exposure I give you a much higher risk of a bunch of diseases\' sense.

And if you don\'t think that\'s a problem, then surely you wouldn\'t mind a plant venting toxic waste into your drinking water? Heck, that might not even show up problems until half your towns kids get born with some fairly nasty diseases.

btw, I do agree that banning anything you mentioned is utterly ridiculous, but that doesn\'t mean stuff can\'t be regulated at all (although that\'s mainly with respect to drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, heroin blah blah etc - I\'d like to see how police would regulate any kind of consensual sex ).

Banning things outright just doesn\'t work, but legalising and regulating can be really helpful. A bunch of restrictions on prostitution recently got lifted in NZ, so workers in that industry now have actual rights in an employee/employer client/service provider context. Things like pay rate, working conditions and age restrictions can be regulated too, with consequences for the employer if they aren\'t followed - just like any other job.

It was about time, really - conservatives had a spasm but sometimes I think people don\'t use their brains. It was in the papers recently that someone had hired a 16 year old (under the age limit for employment in the sex industry) to work in a brothel, and there was the predictable \'aha, this is all because it was legalised! the new legislation will lead to the moral decay of the country nasty sinners I left my brain and compassion in a jar by the bed last night and it\'s rotted away to nothing!\'. But of course, what it actually meant was that there could be some action taken against her employer. So new legislation=good thing.

Not that NZ is actually some great country with respect for peoples rights, or we\'d have legalised same-sex marriage already.

 

[Nailpainter2003]

Tread lightly....

....on topics such as, smoking, gay rights, politics and religion. You never know who you might offend with your personal opinion. I think we need to return to the whole point of CMON, as it is a much safer and happier subject matter.

Sincerely,
Faye

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Rachel
Sure. But most of the arguments here have been based on the concept that smoking around people (rather than smoking at all, which only harms the individual in theory, unless you\'re pregnant) *can* harm other people. No, not in an \'I shoot you\' sense, but in the \'over long term exposure I give you a much higher risk of a bunch of diseases\' sense.

Thing is, I don\'t buy that argument. I don\'t smoke, I don\'t *have* go where people smoke unless I *choose* to do so. I *will* regulate the air in my own house, even to the point of making my own mother sit outside on the porch in the cold to smoke when she comes to visit. Some yutz on the street who gets popped in the noggin by Sniperboy had no *choice* in catching that bullet - he was just sitting there.

Originally posted by Rachel
And if you don\'t think that\'s a problem, then surely you wouldn\'t mind a plant venting toxic waste into your drinking water? Heck, that might not even show up problems until half your towns kids get born with some fairly nasty diseases.

Yet again, this is a different topic. If some plant was dumping toxic waste into the drinking water, it would be something I had no *choice* about - except for my choice whether or not to sue them, or blow up the plant (j/k), or move. Since that would be a corporation infringing on the rights of MANY people, I find it to be a totally different argument.

Originally posted by Rachel
btw, I do agree that banning anything you mentioned is utterly ridiculous, but that doesn\'t mean stuff can\'t be regulated at all (although that\'s mainly with respect to drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, heroin blah blah etc - I\'d like to see how police would regulate any kind of consensual sex ).

Come live in the United States and you\'ll learn very quickly.

Originally posted by Rachel
Banning things outright just doesn\'t work, but legalising and regulating can be really helpful. A bunch of restrictions on prostitution recently got lifted in NZ, so workers in that industry now have actual rights in an employee/employer client/service provider context. Things like pay rate, working conditions and age restrictions can be regulated too, with consequences for the employer if they aren\'t followed - just like any other job.

These are the sorts of arguments the Libertarian party makes about this topic here in the States - unfortunately the environment politically/religiously (all too often the same thing here, unfortunately) here is entrenched to the point of making that sort of change nigh impossible.

Originally posted by Rachel
Not that NZ is actually some great country with respect for peoples rights, or we\'d have legalised same-sex marriage already.

Yeah, we\'re working on that one over here, too.

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by Rachel
- I\'d like to see how police would regulate any kind of consensual sex ).

Umm Rachel, I hate to tell you this, but until recently (Last Year as a matter of fact) it was illegal for many of my homosexual friends to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. In most states it is still illegal for most BDSM entusiasts to practice their kink - they can and do go to jail for what is to them a normal practice. Consensual ends where the government decides it ends, not us. Just like the Dumb Law thread says, there are those out there who would like to mother us through government - and interfere in our lives. I know that it has been said several times in this thread, but legislating health and morality in one area leads to doing the same in others. Course thats been the argument of the NRA here in the States for years, only to be pooh-poohed by the groups not getting gored at the time.

Rant off - everybody smile now :]