# wow....just wow....



## Blade96 (Nov 4, 2010)

That people are still allowed to get away with this stuff in this day and age.

"I saw this article in the Press of Atlantic City, and it provoked strong  feelings with me. As a woman who works in a stereotypical "male  industry", I believe people should be hired and promoted based on their  performance, not looks. I also think being healthy is important (not too  thin, and not too heavy)...." this woman said.

Really? Some still think different.

http://new-jersey-small-state-big-a...y-Borgata-Babes-settle-supersize-suit-1832538


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 4, 2010)

I would guess that it all depends on whether the employees were under any illusions as to the job qualifications when they went in?

I know it's a hot button isssue but if they are hired to fit a profile and then cannot continue to meet it why is that, logically, any different from my getting fired because I prove incapable of learning a new SCADA protocol?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2010)

Well, I see both sides.

From the side of the women who sued, I agree that no one should have to starve themselves to keep their job, especially when their weight has nothing to do with how well they can do their jobs. I get it.

On the other hand, where does it end?

Shall I sue because I can't get a job as a male model?  After all, what have looks to do with it?

And if some babe-bar decides to go with the fair policy and hire all qualified servers regardless of how they look, then what happens when the guys stay away and the place goes broke?  Hello, where are the jobs then?

We live in a sexist and sizist world.  I'm a short fat bald guy, I know what it means.  I also know what the world is.  Guys like scantily-clad women with big boobs, a thin waist, and a smile, it makes 'em spend their money.  That's the way it goes.  Unfair?  Sure.  Don't know how to change it.  And until guys quit liking what they like, employers who cater to them are going to want to hire women who will wear few clothes, have big boobs, thin waists, and a nice smile.  You can maybe force the employer to change, but how do you force the customers to keep showing up?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 5, 2010)

Yes I see both sides, but honestly, if you work in a place where your looks are responsible for the income, then those looks are a job requirement.

I work in software development. My looks have nothing to do with my job performance. If I were to be a male model and started putting on weight, losing my hair, had a busted face because of martial arts training, etc... then it would affect my job performance.

Take hooters for an example. Guys spend time at hooters buying (possibly overpriced) beer just to be around nice looking big breasted women who smile at them, like Bill mentioned. If they stop smiling or gain 40 pounds, then noone is going to pay for that, and that would be grounds for termination, regardless of the circumstances.

I'll be the first to argue against any form of discrimination, but if your looks are a legit job requirement, then they are the employers business as well.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 5, 2010)

Bah! You can`t have sexy and politically correct in the same sentence.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 5, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Bah! You can`t have sexy and politically correct in the same sentence.



You just did.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 5, 2010)

I really have to side as above, but with a heavier lean to the Casino.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity people show when they go into a job, knowing full well what the job requires of them, get fired for not meeting those requirements later, then suing because the requiresment were unfair.

It's kind of like before they banned smoking in restaurants/bars here in Michigan, there was all this cry about bartenders/server who had to put in smokey environments. I thought that was utter rubbish. If your life long dream is to become a bartender, then one must understand that (at the time) most bars have smoking. A hazard of the job. It'd be like a soldier suing the military because s/he got shot at while out on patrol. Erm...dur?

However, if the company's regulations were put into effect after the woman had been working there awhile, that'd be a different matter all together. Still, it'd be no different to having a tech job later add that you need to be certified in some new something-or-other. Do it, or go elsewhere.

(apologies for an uncharacteristically bitter post, just tired of false senses of entitlement, stupidity, and those who ignore caveat emptor)


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 5, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You just did.


 
No I didn`t. The words are there but the sentence itself is neither sexy (unless you have a weird fetish) or politically correct.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> No I didn`t. The words are there but the sentence itself is neither sexy (unless you have a weird fetish) or politically correct.


 
You just did it again.  *fap*


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2010)

I'm with the casino on this one, obviously.  If you don't want your job security to be based on your looks, go be a programmer or something.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 5, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Bah! You can`t have *sexy* and *politically correct* in the same sentence.



Yep, you just did


----------



## girlbug2 (Nov 5, 2010)

The one legal glitch I can sense in casino's position is with the people who develop medical conditions some time after they are hired, which caused the weight gain. The article mentioned a server who developed a thyroid problem after she was hired. Because this is a medical problem, if the server is seeking treatment for her problem then does that legally prohibit the employer from firing her? I know in at least one state it would.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 5, 2010)

A very interesting legal and moral connundrum there, *bug*, aye.  

My guess would be that the best solution for the company that still leaves them with some sense of 'decency' in the public eye is to arrange for the woman in question to perform other duties for the same pay.  Mind you, I see from the article that they do provide access to appropriate 'training' for their workers i.e. slimming programmes, so maybe that is their 'get out' clause?

Anyhow, a quote I agree with from one of the customers is:

"Women can be both big and beautiful as long as they carry themselves well."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> The one legal glitch I can sense in casino's position is with the people who develop medical conditions some time after they are hired, which caused the weight gain. The article mentioned a server who developed a thyroid problem after she was hired. Because this is a medical problem, if the server is seeking treatment for her problem then does that legally prohibit the employer from firing her? I know in at least one state it would.


 
From my understanding of employment law, the employer in this position would argue that the accomodations to keeping her hired would be unreasonable.  If your job is based on your looks (Hooters waitress, clothing model, bartender, etc.), and those looks become worse, whether your fault or not, then the employer could essentially argue that they had no choice but to fire you.  The catch is that they'd actually have to show how having someone who's now an ugly betty in the current position would hurt the company, and that there's no realistic alternative, not just argue it.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

I think it is a  simple matter of freedom and liberty.  If you own a business you should be able to hire or fire anyone you want for whatever reason you want.  The only exception to this should be the government since it recieves tax money from all citizens.  If you follow the freedom and liberty policy it pretty much resolves the issue.  If you refuse to hire effective if physically different people and people stop going to your restaraunt or business, problem solved.  If you prefer to hire effective but physically different people and you succeed, problem solved.  Private property rights are the bedrock of freedom in a society.  Check out Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell on this concept, they will describe this process in much greater and more definitive detail than I can.


----------



## BloodMoney (Nov 9, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Yes I see both sides, but honestly, if you work in a place where your looks are responsible for the income, then those looks are a job requirement.
> 
> I work in software development. My looks have nothing to do with my job performance. If I were to be a male model and started putting on weight, losing my hair, had a busted face because of martial arts training, etc... then it would affect my job performance.
> 
> ...



Nail on the head

Dont sign on the dotted line and dont apply for the job if you dont like the requirements and conditions. I think the world we live in his pretty ****** for having such standards, but thats another matter altogether.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 10, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> Nail on the head
> 
> Dont sign on the dotted line and dont apply for the job if you dont like the requirements and conditions. I think the world we live in his pretty ****** for having such standards, but thats another matter altogether.


 
Just to pursue another avenue of thought, you and at least one other mentioned that you believe the world to be messed up for having such standards.

Well, why do you cosider the world messed up for having potentially extreme standards (for work or otherwise) of a person's looks?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> I really have to side as above, but with a heavier lean to the Casino.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity people show when they go into a job, knowing full well what the job requires of them, get fired for not meeting those requirements later, then suing because the requiresment were unfair.
> 
> ...


 

While I can see what you mean I wouldn't put the smoking case with barmen in though. Being a barman/maid here is never a career choice, it's a job people do to keep the wolf from the door, it's poorly paid and usaully part time but helps pay the bills. Working in a pub is often a job that women with kids do because it's in the evening when they can get baby sitters easier. It's a dead end job so it's a bit unfair to compare it to a career as a soldier though the soldier could rightly complain if it was his own side shooting at him!


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I see both sides.
> 
> From the side of the women who sued, I agree that no one should have to starve themselves to keep their job, especially when their weight has nothing to do with how well they can do their jobs. I get it.
> 
> ...


For me, it has to do with salient characteristics of the job.  If I need a web designer, I need someone who can do the job.  If I need a high altitude welder, a guy in a wheelchair may be incapable of doing it.   

In your case, Bill, same as in mine, unless the modeling job is for balding, middle aged men, we're out of luck as looks are integral to the position.

Regarding the thread drift toward smoking, I think we've had threads on this here before.  My personal opinion is that we have safety standards in every job.  It's an accepted role of government to prevent unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals or materials, and to ensure that employees who as a condition of employment face such exposure are protected as much as possible.  In other words, the two options I see are to ban smoking in places of employment or to require employees to wear suitable respirators... and wearing a respirator would make it pretty hard to communicate with the waitress, IMO.

We have banned smoking in just about every office building in America specifically to protect white collar workers from exposure to second hand smoke.  But it's okay for us, in some States, to knowingly crap on blue collar workers.  I don't get it and I am strongly in favor of smoking bans anywhere that someone is earning a living.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> It's kind of like before they banned smoking in restaurants/bars here in Michigan, there was all this cry about bartenders/server who had to put in smokey environments. I thought that was utter rubbish. If your life long dream is to become a bartender, then one must understand that (at the time) most bars have smoking. A hazard of the job. It'd be like a soldier suing the military because s/he got shot at while out on patrol. Erm...dur?
> )


Risking your life as a soldier is part and parcel of what you're signing up for.  If you're a combat soldier, by definition, you risk getting shot at.  In combat, you may find yourself in a situation where you are under fire.  You may be in a situation where you literally HAVE to risk your life in order to get the job done.

Last I heard, you can drink a beer without smoking.  People do it all the time.  In fact, you can do anything without smoking, except to smoke.

Saying that any employee, whether waitress, bartender or whatever, should be forced to breathe a known carcinogen is pretty much the same in my book as suggesting that office employees should be forced to knowingly breathe asbestos.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 10, 2010)

Then again, we have to put up with the also known hazards of paper-dust and toner fumes from our printers - I now have asthma as a direct consequence of my working environment and there is nothing I can do about it.

The health dangers of passive smoking are exagerated, in my view.  The emissions of motor-vehicles are much worse for us, or just plain old smoke from wood or coal fires.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2010)

In America, if not in the UK, Sukerkin, if you worked in an office and alleged health issues resulting from overexposure to toner or paper dust, you could contact OSHA and they'd test the air quality of your office.

and, frankly, I think it's pretty funny that you're alleging asthma as a result of exposure to toner and paper dust, and are in the next sentence basically calling people who are exposed for hours to concentrated levels of a substance known to cause cancer, emphysema and a host of other life ending ailments a bunch of whiners.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 10, 2010)

You misread me, my friend.  That was not the impression I intended to give.  

It is simply that there are so many harmful factors in our environment all the time, about which nothing is done because it would be inconvenient for too many, that the focus on the dangers of passive smoking is akin to the security theatre at airports.

Aye, it is nice to be able to go to a restaurant and not have to put up with a smoky atmosphere - but that's because such an atmosphere is unpleasant, not because it is dangerous.

Disclaimer:  I am here speaking, of course, as an ex-smoker :lol:.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2010)

O an phone so plz forgive typos.





Sukerkin said:


> You misread me, my friend.  That was not the impression I intended to give.
> 
> It is simply that there are so many harmful factors in our environment all the time, about which nothing is done because it would be inconvenient for too many, that the focus on the dangers of passive smoking is akin to the security theatre at airports.
> 
> ...



 no problem, but I think you missed the first part of my post.  If you are in the usas believe that you are drying f from illnesses that are  Environmenetal  you can get the air quality tested.  except cf smoke in some places.  

And there's a big difference between eating in smoke and working 40/week in smoke.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 11, 2010)

A quick disclaimer on the smoking issue: I am for all public smoking bans, and greatly enjoy that I can go to a restaurant or bar these days without it being filled with smoke. And I am a smoker.



Tez3 said:


> While I can see what you mean I wouldn't put the smoking case with barmen in though. Being a barman/maid here is never a career choice, it's a job people do to keep the wolf from the door, it's poorly paid and usaully part time but helps pay the bills. Working in a pub is often a job that women with kids do because it's in the evening when they can get baby sitters easier. It's a dead end job so it's a bit unfair to compare it to a career as a soldier though the soldier could rightly complain if it was his own side shooting at him!


 
Not all analogies are perfect! 

Working in a pub is often a job lots of people do for lots of different reasons, wether they have kids, pets, or not, that is irrelevant. Wether it is a dead-end job or not, I will not say, but I also know it is not the ONLY such job that can fill certain requirements. The point I was trying to make, though, is that working at a smoking establishment is a choice. They could choose to work at the bar down the street that is not smoking. 

"But that bar doesn't pay as well or have the same hours, or is further away!" - Well, same can be said of a lot of places. It is still a choice. Now, I'm all for government regulating safety issues with regards to places of employment, but this isn't about slip resistant shoes, safe latters, or kill switches on machinery. But I have digressed to far, and smoking is not the topic of the thread.

I believe my analogy was flawed, and feel it has lost me the point I was trying to make: point being that if you sign up for a job, and full well know the requirements and risks involved, I believe it should deny you the right to take legal action against the employer because you feel you cannot meet those requirements (with caveat added that should the requirements/conditions change after you are employed then it is an issue).



stevebjj said:


> Risking your life as a soldier is part and parcel of what you're signing up for. If you're a combat soldier, by definition, you risk getting shot at. In combat, you may find yourself in a situation where you are under fire. You may be in a situation where you literally HAVE to risk your life in order to get the job done.
> 
> Last I heard, you can drink a beer without smoking. People do it all the time. In fact, you can do anything without smoking, except to smoke.
> 
> Saying that any employee, whether waitress, bartender or whatever, should be forced to breathe a known carcinogen is pretty much the same in my book as suggesting that office employees should be forced to knowingly breathe asbestos.


 
Again, no analogy is perfect. But the point is that I am not saying that an employee is "forced to breath a known carcinogen", as knowing it was a smoking establishment they don't HAVE to get the job there (as if having or not having the job will physically kill said person). Now, if they worked at a bar that was non-smoking, later switched to smoking, that would force them to breath said carcinogens if they wanted to keep their job. That I'm not okay with. Does that make clear my distinction?

We _have_ to eat. We _have_ to sleep. We _have_ to breath. We don't have to work. We don't have to work at that place or this place. Sure, employment will directly affect the quality or standard of our _haves_, but the _haves_ are not directly reliant upon that. Much as a bed affects how we sleep, we don't _have_ to have a bed to sleep. Make sense?


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> A quick disclaimer on the smoking issue: I am for all public smoking bans, and greatly enjoy that I can go to a restaurant or bar these days without it being filled with smoke. And I am a smoker.


And in the same vein, I'll make clear that I smoked for 14 years and think that any adult who wants to smoke should be able to do so to his or her heart's content.  Just not where people work.





> Not all analogies are perfect!


I think mine was closer than yours, though. 


> Working in a pub is often a job lots of people do for lots of different reasons, wether they have kids, pets, or not, that is irrelevant. Wether it is a dead-end job or not, I will not say, but I also know it is not the ONLY such job that can fill certain requirements. The point I was trying to make, though, is that working at a smoking establishment is a choice. They could choose to work at the bar down the street that is not smoking.


It doesn't matter one iota why someone works where they do.  I don't know about the UK, but in the USA we decided over a century ago that the government should be able to regulate working conditions.  Everything from child labor laws to environmental safety.  We, as a society, have agreed that a person shouldn't have to unnecessarily risk his or her health in order to earn a wage.  Period.  By your logic, we should do away with any such regulations.  I mean, a person doesn't HAVE to work in a coal mine if he doesn't want black lung.  A person can always get a new job if he doesn't want mesothelioma from the asbestos on his construction site.  And in the same spirit, we can add back in all of the chemicals and solvents that have been banned over the years because they are known to cause cancer or other life threatening diseases.  Maids, cooks, dishwashers, assembly line workers.  In every industry, the government regulates safety in the workplace, and it's precisely along these lines that States are banning smoking.  By your logic, as long as someone is informed of the risks ahead of time, it's all on them.  Right?  

It's been well established that most companies, if faced with a choice between profit and protecting the safety of their employees, will most often choose profit.  If you haven't read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair, I'd give it a go.  It's an appalling look at what happens when employees are treated as chattel, used up and discarded when broken.  


> "But that bar doesn't pay as well or have the same hours, or is further away!" - Well, same can be said of a lot of places. It is still a choice. Now, I'm all for government regulating safety issues with regards to places of employment, but this isn't about slip resistant shoes, safe latters, or kill switches on machinery.


It's about extended exposure on a regular basis to a known poison.  And it's exceedingly preventable. Once again, the real confounding thing to me is the assertion that smoking is integral.  The only place I could even possible cede that point is a cigar bar, ie, a place specifically created in which to smoke.





> I believe my analogy was flawed, and feel it has lost me the point I was trying to make: point being that if you sign up for a job, and full well know the requirements and risks involved, I believe it should deny you the right to take legal action against the employer because you feel you cannot meet those requirements (with caveat added that should the requirements/conditions change after you are employed then it is an issue).


Yeah, I addressed this above.  Look.  I see your point.  I just think you're flat out wrong in this case.  Sure, if it's not a matter of health, or if we were looking at a condition of employment that is unavoidable, I get it.  I mean, you can't be a cop without risking your life.  You can't be a nurse without risking exposure to foreign DNA in all of it's various shapes and sizes.  But you can be a waiter without smoke.  It's done all the time.  People gamble without smoking.  They drink without smoking.  Anything that can be done while smoking can also be done without it.  Again, the only exception obviously is smoking.  


> We _have_ to eat. We _have_ to sleep. We _have_ to breath. We don't have to work. We don't have to work at that place or this place. Sure, employment will directly affect the quality or standard of our _haves_, but the _haves_ are not directly reliant upon that. Much as a bed affects how we sleep, we don't _have_ to have a bed to sleep. Make sense?


This part?  Honestly, this makes no sense to me.  You're saying that people should just quit and not work if they don't like it?  No bed is exactly what many would have.  Between you and me, if it's a choice between dying slowly in a job I know is literally killing me in order to feed my kids and keep a roof over their head or not, the choice is easy.  This exact choice was made all the time by men and women not that long ago in this country.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2010)

Holy crap.  I just noticed that you're in Michigan according to your location.  In a place where unemployment is somewhere up around 13 or 14% and the State has some of the most , you're seriously suggesting that most people have or feel that they have any _choices_ about where they work?  That they "could choose to work at the bar down the street that is not smoking."  Really?  More then one out of every seven adults in the workforce is competing for every job.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> And in the same vein, I'll make clear that I smoked for 14 years and think that any adult who wants to smoke should be able to do so to his or her heart's content. Just not where people work.


 
Oh, I quite honestly agree. I've said before, I enjoy that I can go for a drink or dinner without smoke. Wish I still had the option to at a place or two, but I'm not really missing it and am better off without it.



> I think mine was closer than yours, though.


 
It was. 



> It doesn't matter one iota why someone works where they do. I don't know about the UK, but in the USA we decided over a century ago that the government should be able to regulate working conditions. Everything from child labor laws to environmental safety. We, as a society, have agreed that a person shouldn't have to unnecessarily risk his or her health in order to earn a wage. Period. *By your logic, we should do away with any such regulations.* I mean, a person doesn't HAVE to work in a coal mine if he doesn't want black lung. A person can always get a new job if he doesn't want mesothelioma from the asbestos on his construction site. And in the same spirit, we can add back in all of the chemicals and solvents that have been banned over the years because they are known to cause cancer or other life threatening diseases. Maids, cooks, dishwashers, assembly line workers. In every industry, the government regulates safety in the workplace, and it's precisely along these lines that States are banning smoking. *By your logic, as long as someone is informed of the risks ahead of time, it's all on them. Right?*


 
(bold is my emphasis)

I do not feel we should do away with such regulations, and never alluded to such. Just for the record. 

As to the second bolded part, yes (in a sense). Until the government steps in to regulate such risk factors, it is up to you to choose to work somewhere where you are informed of the risks. If I work for company A, which has potential unregulated (as of yet) risk B, then it is my choice to work there or not. And I have to be accountable for my choices and what they bring.




> It's been well established that most companies, if faced with a choice between profit and protecting the safety of their employees, will most often choose profit. If you haven't read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair, I'd give it a go. It's an appalling look at what happens when employees are treated as chattel, used up and discarded when broken.


 
Fully agree. Profit is usually the first concern of a company, and sadly some go to extremes in achieving that profit. I have not heard of that book, but I will certainly add it to my reading list. Thanks!



> It's about extended exposure on a regular basis to a known poison. And it's exceedingly preventable. Once again, the real confounding thing to me is the assertion that smoking is integral. The only place I could even possible cede that point is a cigar bar, ie, a place specifically created in which to smoke.


 
It is exceedingly preventable. But if someone chooses to work in that environment, who are we to stop them? Not all employees in smoking environments were hapless victims thrust into a job to make a wage. Some liked working a smokey-bar-like environment. Fine by me if you want to do that. As to the second point of yours above, I agree as well.



> Yeah, I addressed this above. Look. I see your point. I just think you're flat out wrong in this case. Sure, if it's not a matter of health, or if we were looking at a condition of employment that is unavoidable, I get it. I mean, you can't be a cop without risking your life. You can't be a nurse without risking exposure to foreign DNA in all of it's various shapes and sizes. But you can be a waiter without smoke. It's done all the time. People gamble without smoking. They drink without smoking. Anything that can be done while smoking can also be done without it. Again, the only exception obviously is smoking.


 
I most likely am wrong. I'm used to it. Weird world out there and who am I to say I understand any of it or feel my opinions are correct? But again, I'm not arguing that we should be able to smoke in places of employment. Just more that until the smoking ban went into effect, working in a bar or restaurant with smoking was a known hazard same as any other job's known hazards. Don't want to work in a smokey environment? Don't be a bartender. Don't want to be shot at? Don't be a soldier. 

That's the angle I'm viewing it from. Which again, I'll be the first to admit is probably vastly different from the "we as a society" agreeing on how the country is run.



> This part? Honestly, this makes no sense to me. *You're saying that people should just quit and not work if they don't like it?* No bed is exactly what many would have. Between you and me, if it's a choice between dying slowly in a job I know is literally killing me in order to feed my kids and keep a roof over their head or not, the choice is easy. This exact choice was made all the time by men and women not that long ago in this country.


 
Yes!!! If you don't like where you work, or even working at all, then DON'T! But understand that other aspects of one's life will suffer because of it. If you're fine and happy sleeping in a box, having no food or all the joys of modern convenience, then by all means, who am I to stop you? I would assume that most of us, however, enjoy the little things (and big things) in life that having a job offers us. As such, we often make some exceptions when it comes to our health, both mental and physical. But these exceptions are decreasing and becoming less extreme thanks to our government instituting safety regulations, as we've both agreed upon earlier.

In time to come, thanks to the efforts of "we as a society" and the government that binds us, the choices between compromises in our mental and physical health when looking for employment will be lessened. But ultimately, it cannot do everything for us, and _we must always be responsible for the choices we make and the reprecussions of those choices._


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Holy crap. I just noticed that you're in Michigan according to your location.


 
Sure do! Love this state (and many others)!



> In a place where unemployment is somewhere up around 13 or 14% and the State has some of the most , *you're seriously suggesting that most people have or feel that they have any choices about where they work?*


 
(bold emphasis is mine)

Well, I cannot suggest what "most people" _feel_ about having or not having choices. Seriously. I can't speak for them. Though I could assume that right now they don't _feel_ as if they have a lot. But they still have choices, wether they know it or not. They are just harder to come by, require a little more effort, and a little more compromise than we would feel normally.

I might have to work for a bit less, a bit further than home, be a little more spartan in my spending outside of work, get a new degree or certification, etc. The jobs are out there, I just have to adapt to them and work harder to find them than the guy who just sits back and expects to have a job.



> That they "could choose to work at the bar down the street that is not smoking."Really? More then one out of every seven adults in the workforce is competing for every job.


 
Well, a bit flawed in that statement. There no longer is smoking in bars in Michigan, so one wouldn't need to go down the street to find one that offered a smoke-free environment. 

But I get your point. The one to get the job, however, is the one willing to work harder, sell themselves further, and compromise more than the other six.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> I do not feel we should do away with such regulations, and never alluded to such. Just for the record.


Well, you did allude to such.  That's what I'm responding to.  By your logic, as long as the employer makes any risks known they're off the hook.  At the very least, your position is inconsistent.





> As to the second bolded part, yes (in a sense). Until the government steps in to regulate such risk factors, it is up to you to choose to work somewhere where you are informed of the risks. If I work for company A, which has potential unregulated (as of yet) risk B, then it is my choice to work there or not. And I have to be accountable for my choices and what they bring.


That's what we're talking about.  At least, that's what I'm talking about: banning smoking in places of employment.  I think it should be a national ban, but State by State it's making its way.  

I disagree with your assertion that it's all on the employee. Tobacco smoke is a notable contradiction to all of the regulations we have attempting to keep work places as safe as possible. 


> In time to come, thanks to the efforts of "we as a society" and the government that binds us, the choices between compromises in our mental and physical health when looking for employment will be lessened. *But ultimately, it cannot do everything for us*, and _we must always be responsible for the choices we make and the reprecussions of those choices._


I do not believe that government can or even should "do everything for us."  THIS, however, it can and should do.  Nobody should have to choose between knowingly endangering their health unnecessarily and taking home a paycheck.  



Muawijhe said:


> Sure do! Love this state (and many others)!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In any economy, I think you're oversimplifying the situation.  In this economy in particular, I just flat out don't get it.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Well, you did allude to such. That's what I'm responding to. By your logic, as long as the employer makes any risks known they're off the hook. At the very least, your position is inconsistent.That's what we're talking about.


 
Well I apologize if that is what my point seemed to be. I'm not so sure if my position is inconsistent, more presented inconsistently. I think we have a few issues at hand here, and both of us are going down seperate but related thoughtways.

To clarify, I don't necessarily mean to imply that if an employer states the risks they're off the hook for it. Cooks in a kitchen may be told there is a chance to slip and fall, but if the employer doesn't offer additional safety training, procedures or incentives to wear slip-resistant shoes, etc., then they are at fault for not doing their best to make it a safe work environment.

However, if said employee does slip, with the employer doing all it can to prevent it, then have the employee sue or get upset 'cause they fell, then I have an issue. And this, I believe, is more in line with the original topic of the casino worker (and less of our divergent smoking topic).

Still, if not ever slipping and falling was a huge concern of mine, I'd expect to make a choice not to work somewhere where slipping is a constant hazard. And I think that's where my point comes in. When it came to smoking in public work places, or the banning thereof, I heard a lot of cry about the "poor restaurant and bar workers" who had to inhale all that smoke, like they were victims. So when I hear this, I think, "Man, what kind of idiot is concerned about not inhaling smoke then goes and gets a job where smoking is prevalent?"

So the employer is not off the hook, so to speak, but most certainly neither is the employee. And again in line of the original discussion more than smoking, that is why I side with the casino.



> At least, that's what I'm talking about: banning smoking in places of employment. I think it should be a national ban, but State by State it's making its way.
> 
> I disagree with your assertion that it's all on the employee. Tobacco smoke is a notable contradiction to all of the regulations we have attempting to keep work places as safe as possible.


 
I'm all for the national ban. I'm always confused by a lot of the Sate by Sate laws. Begs the question: Are we one nation, or just a collection of states?

And again, I don't mean to assert that it is all on the employee. More of a "buyer be ware". If you don't like breathing smoke, asbestos, gasoline fumes, etc...best to just avoid those places all together. If you willingly go there, understand it is your choice you are as accountable (in a broad sense).



> I do not believe that government can or even should "do everything for us." THIS, however, it can and should do. Nobody should have to choose between knowingly endangering their health unnecessarily and taking home a paycheck.


 
True, but if one does choose to knowingly endanger their health "unnecessarily" for a paycheck, it does come with responsibility and not wholly reliant upon the employer.



> In any economy, I think you're oversimplifying the situation. In this economy in particular, I just flat out don't get it.


 
I am oversimplifying for the sake of this conversation. Unfortunately, I don't have the answers to all of the issues, so I work in broad strokes with what I do know.

I apologize again if it seems my point is inconsistent. This conversation, I believe, has been great as you have done an excellent job challenging my beliefs. A part of that process is that my ideas become more concrete, while also changing slightly, as I work through your ideas to form my own and then present them.

So in short, to summarize as best I can: 

- I believe smoking should be banned from places of working nationally (with possible exceptions for arenas that make their sole profit on tobacco, such as smoke shops, pipe/cigar/hookah bars/clubs, etc.). And please, don't go working there if you have an issue with tobacco smoke inhalation!!!

- I believe that the government working with employers and employees, can find regulations and laws to make for better and safe work environments for all, but the responsibility does not rest soley on one of the above.

- If an employer states a potential health risk for working there, it does not absolve them of guilt, but nor does it make its employee a hapless victim if they willingly choose to work there. Ultimately, no one will force you to work, and it is your choice to do so to maintain your standards of living.

- A distinction that you helped me realize for myself, that I was not circumventing well, is that smoking in a workplace is not directly a hazard of that workplace in a way such as, say, being around dangerous machinery for factory workers or violence for LEOs. It seems obvious, but in subtle ways it was throwing me off in some of my thought processes.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2010)

I think you're pretty clear now.  We could go round and round, if you want, but I think you've made your point. 


Muawijhe said:


> I'm always confused by a lot of the Sate by Sate laws. Begs the question: Are we one nation, or just a collection of states?


I'm not sure you understand how big a question that is. We fought the Civil War over that question and State's rights vs Federal rights is an issue that comes up all the time.  Federalism and how the States and the Federal governments share power is very interesting.


----------



## Muawijhe (Nov 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I think you're pretty clear now. We could go round and round, if you want, but I think you've made your point.


 
ha, I think I'm hardly clear. But we've both contributed some interesting things to ponder on (at least I hope something I've shared was of interest to you, as you have certainly made me think).



> I'm not sure you understand how big a question that is. We fought the Civil War over that question and State's rights vs Federal rights is an issue that comes up all the time. Federalism and how the States and the Federal governments share power is very interesting.


 
haha, I have no idea how big of a question that is. Very interesting topic, but one I should keep my trap shut on even more than the above. I'll let others field that one in another thread.

Thanks again for your time and thoughts, stevebjj, and to everyone else who has contributed. I appreciated the discussion.


----------

