Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
AceHigh:
Always the mysterious "they" who are to blame.
A few days ago me and my friend had lunch in a café. Ordered French onion soup and a glass of water while waiting. All glass sizes were the same, as the place is not aimed at the demographic that is only interested in shoving large quantities of food in their gaping maw.
If small cup sizes are your daily problem, then I have some bad news for you: you might want to reconsider the choice of the place when eating out. Honestly you Americans really try to convince me even more that in your country you have nothing else other than McDonalds. Because seriously, whining for a government regulation to make you stop eating at the place of your choice is silly.
Ixarku:
You guys can spend the rest of your life arguing the pros and cons of 'social engineering' and not come to any sort of agreement. I think it's another one of those ideological things where one's view is derived from one's own personal morality.
Personally, I won't shed any tears if and when tobacco is completely banned. I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion. I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
As far as tobacco goes, in the U.S. at least you're going to find more and more companies trying to control their employees to prevent its use -- there's more social engineering right there, except it's coming from the private sector. Example: at my company, we're required to disclose any tobacco use in anyone covered by our health insurance, and if we have tobacco users covered, we pay a penalty on our premiums. We're also required to fill out an online 'health risk assessment' questionaire about our personal health condition, or we pay another penalty on our premiums. That's just the beginning -- I've heard anecdotally stories of other businesses actually firing employees who use tobacco.
Nikkoru:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on November 12, 2012, 11:03:21 AM --- I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion. I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
--- End quote ---
Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.
You can say, "Well, they can always quit" To that I'll say fuck you.
What if your employer put a gas generator next your desk or made you work in a building lined with asbestos? You'd probably be very very unhappy. But chances are you still want to work, and are willing to do so regardless because steady employment is generally a good thing. You'll probably tolerate it, or someone else will. Especially if you're working in a low-skill occupation like food services.
Like it or not the service industry does have rights, negligible though they may be, protection from lethal carcinogenics is one of them.
Now, if the owner does all the labour him or herself and wants to die with expediency, good for them.
Recreational drug use needn't be illegal, but I don't have to tolerate threats to myself or others simply to oblige users.
Bob2004:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on November 12, 2012, 11:03:21 AM ---You guys can spend the rest of your life arguing the pros and cons of 'social engineering' and not come to any sort of agreement. I think it's another one of those ideological things where one's view is derived from one's own personal morality.
Personally, I won't shed any tears if and when tobacco is completely banned. I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion. I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
As far as tobacco goes, in the U.S. at least you're going to find more and more companies trying to control their employees to prevent its use -- there's more social engineering right there, except it's coming from the private sector. Example: at my company, we're required to disclose any tobacco use in anyone covered by our health insurance, and if we have tobacco users covered, we pay a penalty on our premiums. We're also required to fill out an online 'health risk assessment' questionaire about our personal health condition, or we pay another penalty on our premiums. That's just the beginning -- I've heard anecdotally stories of other businesses actually firing employees who use tobacco.
--- End quote ---
I actually applied for a job the other day, and one of the questions on the application form was "Are you a smoker?". I thought it was a slightly odd thing to ask, until I got to the bottom of the form, and there was a bunch of stuff about work hours, conditions etc, and it said "[Company] is a strictly non-smoking organisation, and we take the health and safety of our staff very seriously. Therefore, employees are strictly forbidden from smoking during their shift, or on or near the premises, under any circumstances." - at which point I put two and two together, and realised exactly why they were asking applicants if they were smokers: So they could immediately reject any applicants who said yes.
Also, +1 to Nikkoru's post there. I agree completely.
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on November 12, 2012, 11:44:22 AM ---Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.
--- End quote ---
If you seek employment in a pub called "Cigar and whiskey", then you pretty much know what you will be dealing with on a daily basis. It's not like anyone is forced to work in places that specifically caters to smoking customers. As I said free market and it includes job market as well. Because following your logic we should close down coal mining business and a lot of other hazardous industry.
The only thing that government could demand in my opinion is some quality control from tobacco industry. Imagine if you bought cigars and cigarillos only. No more smoking paper impregnated with all kind of shit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version