Cyclone Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Again, you have taken what I have said and reached some interpretation of it that is beyond me? At no point did I say that you should not offer the job to a non smoker! Okay, so you offer them the job. How do you now ensure that they are safe at work? That was my entire point. Thats asumming that a high enough number of non smokers would object though isnt it. I know of a lot of non-smokers who dont object at all to being in smokey environments, They might not make a big fuss about it, I doubt that they like it though. I never objected when I had no choice, what would the point have been. they just choose not to smoke first hand. And ultimately, a non smoker who did object could maybe apply for a job in a non smoking pub (If govt would be kind enough to cater for smokers and non smokers), or as I said in my earlier post, if we do have this hypothetical smoking pub should EVERYONE then stop smoking in it so 1 person can have a job?:loopy: Yeah good one So you are advocating restricting the job applications to those who smoke, or to ignoring the health of those who don't but apply for the job anyway.... You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Thats right, there are places outside for smokers and those of us who don't smoke are no longer forced to endure passive smoke. We now have a choice too:D Jeeeeesus, wish people would read previous posts, at no point am I saying or do I beleive that non smokers should endure other peoples smoke :loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Okay, so you offer them the job. How do you now ensure that they are safe at work? That was my entire point. They might not make a big fuss about it, I doubt that they like it though. I never objected when I had no choice, what would the point have been. So you are advocating restricting the job applications to those who smoke, or to ignoring the health of those who don't but apply for the job anyway.... You can't have it both ways. So what your saying is....... we have this hypothetical pub where smoking is allowed, a job becomes available and a non smoker applies and gets the job, so to ensure the 'safety' of the new person everyone in there has to stop smoking? I guess in some respects I am restricting job applications yes, some areas of work will restrict jobs depending upon someones circumstances.... Im yet to see a gay Imman, female only hostels quiet rightly only employ female workers. Smoking pubs could employ smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Well, no. It was a question rather than a statement about what should happen. So, hypothetical smoking pub, job, non smoker applies and gets the job (can't discriminate on non smoking status). How do you solve the health and safety issue? I've never seen a job advert for an Imman (that said, maybe they exist and just don't advertise the fact, it's not something that will potentially harm their health if not mentioned), I think it might be considered a vocation rather than employment anyway. And there are some exceptions to anti discriminatory laws, but normally wanting someone who doesn't mind compromising their health isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Well, no. It was a question rather than a statement about what should happen. So, hypothetical smoking pub, job, non smoker applies and gets the job (can't discriminate on non smoking status). How do you solve the health and safety issue? . Thats a difficult one to answer as the H&S scene in UK is its own animal and in some ways ridiculous. I guess I would advertise the job as potentially cancerous if a long term career is desired, or free smoke included in the workplace. Still 100% think there should be smoking pubs for people who choose to smoke regardless of job status etc etc. Non smokers have somewhere, smokers should too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 None of my smoking friends object to the ban - and it's had two great consequences - first, everywhere now provides an outside area where you can cool off for a bit if it gets too hot inside, secondly, there is no longer that stale smell of tobacco on anything I've worn out. I know a few people who object, but I think the vast majority are happy with the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblade1! Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 why can't they just have a smoking room in each pub/club? would it not make it fair? then people who smoke don't have to freeze in the winter and go outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxryan Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 There are no good reasons to smoke really. I am 100% for the ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 There are no good reasons to smoke really. I am 100% for the ban How about choice, if people choose to smoke, surely thats a good enough reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrooveArmada Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 The most disgusting habit. One thing i can't stand is smoke or smokers anywhere public or private usally move away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.