Smoking establishments - Debate, not abuse.

[Harleyman]

There would be no need for employment advertisements to state that only smokers need apply. The job would be open to anybody. All applicants would have to sign an agreement absolving the establishment for any liability if health problems occurred later on due to second hand smoke.

 

These kind of agreements are not out of the ordinary. In the past when I went horse riding and parachuting I was required to acknowlefge the risk I was taking and absolving the dude ranch and sky sports establishment from any liability in case of death or injury

[SHYTOT]

There would be no need for employment advertisements to state that only smokers need apply. The job would be open to anybody. All applicants would have to sign an agreement absolving the establishment for any liability if health problems occurred later on due to second hand smoke.

 

These kind of agreements are not out of the ordinary. In the past when I went horse riding and parachuting I was required to acknowlefge the risk I was taking and absolving the dude ranch and sky sports establishment from any liability in case of death or injury

 

But that would encourage peope to take up smoking in order to apply for a job, and mean you faced the sack if you dared to quit. Hardly in line with the current government advertising campaigns towards folks quitting.

 

Then of course there is the discrimination aspect.

[Alien]

Common sense only applies when you know what your talking about.

Make believe ALWAYS goes over my head - I deal only in FACTS.

 

 

Surprising that considering their banned by law and you propose a reverse in your "make believe" way.

 

 

It's good you deal in facts. The fact is..you can't smoke in the places you think you should.

[Bulgarian]

But that would encourage peope to take up smoking in order to apply for a job

 

You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that.

 

You wouldn't have to smoke yourself, just say that you accept the risks of working in a smoky atomosphere.

[wellyman]

I'm bored already, if this is the kind of people you get in pubs thesedays I'm glad I don't go.

 

Don't worry, you can always pop round to the organgrinder's and share a fag. If the monkey's out he might even let you sit on his organ.

[SnailyBoy]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to do that.

 

You wouldn't have to smoke yourself, just say that you accept the risks of working in a smoky atomosphere.

 

So someone would have to sign away their basic heath and safety rights, just so smokers don't have to go outside the pub?

[Bulgarian]

So someone would have to sign away their basic heath and safety rights, just so smokers don't have to go outside the pub?

 

Only if they want to work there, I'm sure there are other more dangerous work places that people happily work in.

[Harleyman]

But that would encourage peope to take up smoking in order to apply for a job, and mean you faced the sack if you dared to quit. Hardly in line with the current government advertising campaigns towards folks quitting.

 

Then of course there is the discrimination aspect.

 

Why would someone who quit smoking be sacked? My previous post just said that anyone could apply and be accepted, smokers and non-smokers alike the only stipulation being that they all sign a waiver freeing the establishment from liability for any health problems related to smoking

[Harleyman]

So someone would have to sign away their basic heath and safety rights, just so smokers don't have to go outside the pub?

 

If they have a problem with signing an agreement then the obvious solution is not to sign and seek employment somewhere else

[SnailyBoy]

Only if they want to work there, I'm sure there are other more dangerous work places that people happily work in.

 

Sounds like something from Victorian times

 

Give me another example where a worker has to sign that they accept any adverse health effects from their workplace.

 

I'm not sure even the Armed Forces have to do that.