Printable View
That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Btw, you were right earlier, I was wrong to say that it is the government that's at fault, I'll lay the fault firmly at the feet of the Labour Party. They are well versed in bully boy tactics as exercised by the bigger unions.
Which analagous situations are we talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxThat's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.
Hell yeah man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Mmk I never said they were.:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccBars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.
My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.
If one can't deal with a nudie bar, they shouldn't work there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip MonkWhich analagous situations are we talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.
A woman cannot walk in pubic in the nude but they can even in a bar open to the public.
I doubt the restaurant, Hooters, would hire a huge fat woman to work there. Oh and she's required to wear some scant shorts and shirt.
Passive nakedness, that's a new and intriguing concept.
What's the difference between a restrictive employment policy that prevents smoking and one that specifically allows (or basically requires) it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Monk
I think it all depends on what the restriction is. I don't think companies should be allowed to discriminate but the employee has to decide if his own "rules" will allow him to work at certain places.
If the members only club specifically permits smoking then I don't think a non smoker should be prevented from working there, but they then have to accept the risks before they decide to work there.
The reverse applies to smokers working in non smoking environments, they should not be prevented from working in those places, but they shouldn't expect the company to make allowances for them to smoke.
If vegetarians wish to work at a burger joint they must be prepared to handle meat (and not lecture others on the sins of eating meat).
I agree with the smoking ban in public places, this includes privately owned places that allow general entry. I do also think that a private club that restricts entry to members only (which limits their patronage and potential profit) should be able to get an exemption.
The difference is that it's proven that passive smoking causes all sorts of diseases and kills people.
These arguments people use about strip clubs, burger shops etc are specious. The things are not analogous.
Let's think your plan thro'.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
My pub is no longer a pub. It's a private club. Anyone can join, on the night and it costs 1p for life membership.
So basically the ban doesn't count for me. Or anyone else.
Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing you agree with.
The point being that the employee has a choice if his rules allow him to take the risk. He has to actively decide to work there.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them
I don't see that it does. It doesn't matter if membership can be gained on the night or even if life membership costs one penny or even free. The member has to actively decide to join the private members only club. By restricting entry to members IMO it no longer counts as a general public area.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If your pub deiced it wants to restrict access by becoming a private club and lose your custom that's their right (or at least should be).
If every pub and restaurant becomes a private club, with minimal membership qualifications i.e. anyone can join. Then the ban is negated and you support the ban.
They don't want to lose people's custom, it's just a really simple way of getting round the ban. If private clubs are allowed an exemption.
"There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them"
Uhuh and we have health and safety laws to protect people.
So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential. They should have the right to make that choice.
I support the ban in general public access areas, not private areas closed to the general public.
The point raised about inspectors earlier.......... should smoking be banned in private homes? After all certain people have to enter those homes on business matters such as meter reading. The company they work for should provide safety equipment to protect against hazards. So if the people doing those jobs that require going into smoke areas wish they can wear respirators.
People have the right to do things that are bad for their health. The ban was designed to protect those that do not wish to take that risk. If they decide they wish to take the risk then they should have the right to do so in private areas.
There should always be reasonable compromise, without it then the ban is unreasonable
HOW. If they are a "private club", open to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If they all become "private clubs" then the ban becomes meaningless.
Read my first post again. If membership is so lax, but it is still a membership system, then it makes the whole thing meaningless.
You go to a restaurant. Sorry we are a private club, would you like to join. Yes please. OK that's 1p and you are now a life member. Please bring this cloakroom ticket which I have written your name on the next time you visit.
The system fails, you must see that. They aren't really "private" as such. They just claim to be but let anyone in. I've been to "private clubs" like that before. You simply put 10p in the box and sign the book, that makes you a "member" for the day.
My meters are on outside walls. They are locked but can be accessed by the reader. Do you have to let them into your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc