Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is straight from the poster posted AT the workplace. Next night I go to work, I'll be sure to get the number of people considered a "small business"...who are exempt from the minimum wage.
Not saying it's "right"...just that it IS.
Be that as it may, an employer has to obey the law. They can't just cook up some "contract" between them and the employee whether it be re: wages or whatever. You shouldn't be constantly arguing the examples. Point is, to reiterate, employers have to obey the law. They can't just make whatever business decision they want if it is against the law. Even if the employees were to agree to it.
The right to engage in business (and to earn a living) is subject to state and federal regulatory authority. One may not run a business without license; nor may one contract the labor of others without compliance with the requirements for payment of minimum wage, employment taxes, compensation and casualty insurance, and all other provisions of the law - the violation of which may be sanctioned by civil and criminal penalties. The notion that one has an absolute right to the product of one’s labors (and that of others) is utter nonsense - worse, it is a prescription for anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of such rights. To claim otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights over those of everyone else. To put it simply, it is insupportable.
In Canada and Parts of Europe now, Restaurant and public areas are becoming smoke free. If you want to smoke go outside or get fine. I think you get a maximum fine of $5000 if you try to smoke in a public area. even if smoking near a public entrance, u have to be over 9ft from the entrance. In one Provence in Canada, they even going a step further by banning smoking in any vehicle that has children in them.
With the price of cigarette these days, you would think it would make people quit.
I swore I was going to leave this one alone and go eat some stuff not good for me, BUT...this one really IS the last! LOL Soooo, here is my last one, Katriana!
Quote:
There are plenty of people so desperate for a job they would take one no matter what the conditions, even if they knew it was dangerous. Which brings me to my main point: second hand smoke is dangerous!
Let me sort of put the ball in your court, so to speak. Is it your contention that there is a "right" to a job in the first place? In other words, does some abstract right exist to be employed? If so, say so. If not..then the workings of a free market go like this: A person applies for a job at a place they know ahead of time are the conditions, wages, etc. The employer needs help and s/he hires accordingly. Simple as that. A voluntary contract within certain legal specifications.
Quote:
It is forced if you have to put up with it in order to keep the job.
Then for gosh sakes, don't apply to begin with. I want to understand the mindset of those who believe that employment is a "right" at all. Smoking be dammed either way far as that goes. To prove your point you must start by establishing the premise that someone has a "right" to a job and someone else is obligated to give them one.
Quote:
NO THEY ARE NOT! It is a medical decision, not a business decision.
Then I think I will get a bunch of people together and form a special interest group who zeaously believe that too much colonge and perfume polute the air in public places. Medically? I have the proof. Lets roll....
Quote:
No one told us to go elsewhere. That is something you read into my post. We just decided to leave, when we might have stayed and spent more money.
But you didn't, right? And if enough people did what y'all did?...then eventually the place might change their smoking policy!
The right to engage in business (and to earn a living) is subject to state and federal regulatory authority. One may not run a business without license; nor may one contract the labor of others without compliance with the requirements for payment of minimum wage, employment taxes, compensation and casualty insurance, and all other provisions of the law - the violation of which may be sanctioned by civil and criminal penalties. The notion that one has an absolute right to the product of one’s labors (and that of others) is utter nonsense - worse, it is a prescription for anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of such rights. To claim otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights over those of everyone else. To put it simply, it is insupportable.
LOL You state but a lamentable truism. What is your point? That because the government has become so intrustive on private property rights that the regulations have constitutional authority?
Be that as it may, an employer has to obey the law. They can't just cook up some "contract" between them and the employee whether it be re: wages or whatever. You shouldn't be constantly arguing the examples. Point is, to reiterate, employers have to obey the law. They can't just make whatever business decision they want if it is against the law. Even if the employees were to agree to it.
Smoking causes lung cancer! Second-hand hand smoke smoke causes lung cancer! Of this there is no doubt. That is the whole point of my argument! That is the whole basis of my rationale for banning smoking in restaurants. I do not care to tell other what to do with their lives in general.
Smoking causes lung cancer! Second-hand hand smoke smoke causes lung cancer! Of this there is no doubt. That is the whole point of my argument! That is the whole basis of my rationale for banning smoking in restaurants. I do not care to tell other what to do with their lives in general.
George Burns died of lung cancer?
Took it a long time, if so, since he lived to 100.
I swore I was going to leave this one alone and go eat some stuff not good for me, BUT...this one really IS the last! LOL Soooo, here is my last one, Katriana!
Let me sort of put the ball in your court, so to speak. Is it your contention that there is a "right" to a job in the first place? In other words, does some abstract right exist to be employed? If so, say so. If not..then the workings of a free market go like this: A person applies for a job at a place they know ahead of time are the conditions, wages, etc. The employer needs help and s/he hires accordingly. Simple as that. A voluntary contract within certain legal specifications.
Then for gosh sakes, don't apply to begin with. I want to understand the mindset of those who believe that employment is a "right" at all. Smoking be dammed either way far as that goes. To prove your point you must start by establishing the premise that someone has a "right" to a job and someone else is obligated to give them one.
Then I think I will get a bunch of people together and form a special interest group who zeaously believe that too much colonge and perfume polute the air in public places. Medically? I have the proof. Lets roll....
But you didn't, right? And if enough people did what y'all did?...then eventually the place might change their smoking policy!
I do not think anyone has a "right" to a specific job. However, everyone needs a means of support. Who among us hasn't taken a job they really weren't thrilled with b/c they needed an income? I know I have. The science behind cigarette smoke as a carcinogen is solid. This is not the same issue as perfume, which comes up a lot on these smoking threads, too. When the incident with my baby happened, there were no non-smoking laws in our town or in Colorado. In fact, the city council was finally persuaded to require non-smoking sections b/c some people testified at a council meeting that they went out of town to go out to eat b/c of that. The smokers were causing the restaurants to lose business and the city to lose tax revenue. Yet the smokers were so powerful, it took the council passing a law, just to get "no-smoking" sections in the restaurants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
LOL You state but a lamentable truism. What is your point? That because the government has become so intrustive on private property rights that the regulations have constitutional authority?
Please explain...to put it simply.
As I understand his point, no businessperson can run a business with no restrictions.
As is a habit of mine - getting old, I guess -- I sometime look back in for a "last look" and final word. Although in THIS case, since I got some chicken-fried steak and okra to tend to, I will TRY and be brief and git back to it! LOL
In other words, Katriana, after THIS post, you get the last word (at least until tomorow sometime, after ham and grits for breakfast)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I do not think anyone has a "right" to a specific job. However, everyone needs a means of support. Who among us hasn't taken a job they really weren't thrilled with b/c they needed an income? I know I have.
So, answer the question. Who or what is obligated to furnish that job and means of support? I have worked in a bait house (Texas boy of course), roofed houses, changed big truck tires, been a produce manager and all the time trying to work myself thru college. In EVERY case, THEY did ME the favor by hiring me. It was sorta like this: Ok, boy...here it is and here is the way it will be...you do this for us and we will pay you (this certain amount). My notion of "rights" didn't enter into it at all. It was like this. Take it or leave it. Which is the way it should be. Ain't nobody gave a fiddlers damn about my self-esteem or my "rights". Do it or you dont and if I didn't then there was a million and two chinamen who would be glad to get the chance.
Quote:
The science behind cigarette smoke as a carcinogen is solid. This is not the same issue as perfume, which comes up a lot on these smoking threads, too.
The point it seems to me you miss is that this is NOT a debate over the health hazards of smoking. Nor an issue of smokers vs. non-smokers rights! It is an issue of whether or not government (at whatever level) should be allowed to control private property.
You are right. Perfume is NOT the same as second-hand smoke. I agree. BUT...can you make a case, historically or logically, as to why that if, government is given the authority to ban smoking in private businesses...that its arm can't later ban perfume?
Quote:
When the incident with my baby happened, there were no non-smoking laws in our town or in Colorado. In fact, the city council was finally persuaded to require non-smoking sections b/c some people testified at a council meeting that they went out of town to go out to eat b/c of that.
As a parent myself, I am truly sorry about what happened with your child. BUT...YOU are the one who took the risks and knowingly exposed your child to danger. I don't mean to put this harshly, but you knew about it ahead of time. Don't blame others for it.
Quote:
As I understand his point, no businessperson can run a business with no restrictions.
Hmmmm. Interesting. Who SHOULD invoke the restrictions? Government? Fine. But to what limits and by what credentials of expertiese? The biggest farce in the world is for some government committee -- composed of idiots who never created a dime's worth of wealth sans the public tit -- to lecture those who do.
Ok..enjoyed it...but outta here for tonight! Y'all all have a good one!
Last edited by TexasReb; 04-19-2008 at 08:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
