Buy to lets

[Derek Geldard]

Lock the goat in the shed during working hours..

DG

[The Medway Handyman]

Oh dear. I thought you believed in market forces Andy?

Assuming that 25% of the population smoke, roughly that percentage of pub goers smoke, and therefore 25% of bar staff smoke.

So its safe to assume that 25% of pubs would allow smoking, so the 25% of bar staff who smoke could work in those venues.

No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

[The Medway Handyman]

Just think Geoff - if we had sensible legislation, which allowed smoking or non smoking venues, you could insist on employing smoking or non smoking staff - in other words you could choose.

As it is, there is a 100% smoking ban, but if you tried to employ only non smokers, or tried to sack a smoker you could have all sorts of trouble.

[Derek Geldard]

Yes, erm, err, No !

Don't get me confused !

What I mean is I couldn't.

Neither could I but we'd signed up to both (as it were) before the rates went up !

8-((

DG

[geoff]

Well, I personally don't mind if they smoke at work or not, it's a factor which would be way down my list of criteria

My wife smokes

Having broken a 50-60 / day addiction, I know how difficult and ultimately how easy giving up can be

I do see how stupid smoking is from any angle you look at ur

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I've got a good solution. Employ dribble - he doesn't smoke. I'm sure he would soon sort out your business for you...

[Derek Geldard]

Leaving all the semantics aside it's absolutely clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that it would have been possible to cater for smoking drinkers in premises set aside for smoking drinkers, manned/womanned by staff who could chose whether to work there or work somewhere else or even go on the 'dilly* or live on benefits.

If there were no staff prepared to work there then the smoking drinkers would get no beer.

I don't smoke. That outcome seems fine to me.

*live on the earnings of prostitution.

'dilly = Euphemism for Piccadilly, a nice green and pleasant open-air square and focus of routes in the centre of Manchester where much bescabbed hookers hang out knee deep in used condoms and Mc Burger packaging on the site of the original Manchester Royal Infirmary.

It's nice. :))

HTH

DG

[Derek Geldard]

Before, or after ?

Be careful she doesn't burst into flames.

They'll blame you for it, whatever ...

DG

[geoff]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

I might just give that offer a miss, thanks

[John Rumm]

He may not smoke, but there is a fair chance a few PCBs would not long after getting dribbled!

[John Rumm]

You should work for the tourist board!

[Andy Hall]

I certainly do.

Ah but what about the choice of the 75% of bar staff who would like freeom of choice over where they can work? They are in the majority and yet couldn't work in smoking bars without being pickled..

There is a difference between free choice that affects only the person making the choice and "free choice" that affects others as well.

Since we live in a civilised environment (allegedly), the principle of freedom to do what I want to do as long as it doesn't affect the equal right of my fellow individual to do what he wants to do, does reasonably transcend a market force argument.

[Lobster]

Does the legislation actually prevent someone from employing a non-smoker? Don't know.

However I'm sure there would be no problem with firing an individual who repeatedly ignored warnings not to smoke in non-smoking areas; it might be more problematic to sack someone for not working while spending 5 mins per hour outside having a drag - would be interested to know.

David

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Strange. The majority of your posts suggest worker's rights aren't high up on your agenda. Apart from when it suits your argument, of course.

[Stuart Noble]

Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking pub. This really is a silly argument.

They are in the majority and

[Andy Hall]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "worker's rights".

If it's a collective thing as in a group of workers, then that is low on my agenda. If it's the right of an individual, while working, not to have to breathe toxic fumes unnecessarily, then it's very important.

[Andy Hall]

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is over anyway.

[PM]

Yeah, sounds very sensible to me :-)

[Andy Hall]

Perhaps it's like that guy I see when I occasionally watch UK TV with sauce bottle glasses wanting to quote people happy or some such nonsense. Perhaps he does happy slapping on the side, I'm not really sure.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I suspect it's a law which will soon fall out of use - like so many others

- and it will be left to the individual to decide. Like in other countries that have similar laws.