Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because they recognize the inherent justness of compensating the waitstaff for subjecting them to their clouds of carcinogens?
|
For the moment, I will leave on the table the fact that there are conflicting studies about the affects of second-hand smoke. I realize that it would be foolish to assume that there is zero harm, but the question is whether that harm is more dangerous than that brought about by vehicles, electricity plants, the stove in the bar's kitchen, people wearing perfume (YUCK), etc.
In any event, waitstaff that I have known lo these last 3 decades have generally told me that they volunteer to work the smoking side of the bar/restaurant. Thus, they are willingly exposing themselves to the "carcinogens." Why do they like that side? Some were smokers themselves and not bothered by the smoke. Others felt that smokers were bigger tippers, willing to forgive minor slips in service/timing, or were just generally nicer people and more fun to be around. Could be any or all of the above. My experience with smoking sections in bars/clubs/restaurants is that they tend to have good fans keeping the smoke at bay anyway (which is good because I may smoke but I hate being in a smoky room). Also, in my experience, when smokers are out they smoke less -- possibly because of eating, drinking, talking, dancing, etc. that interfere.
Regardless of all that, the reason I oppose bans is that I think the individual bar owner should make the choice. If patrons don't want to be near smoke they will not go to a "smoking bar" and waitstaff who do not want to work in smoke will find work elsewhere. I think that if you offered it as an option you would see some bars voluntarily go smokeless and be okay while others will stay the same and likewise survive. Next thing you know, they will legislate against restaurants serving fatty food in order to encourage everyone to eat healthier -- I just don't like the government telling me what to do all the time.
WHEW.
