are patio heaters ethically acceptable?

LastMagicBean · 22 Sep 2014

Ennui said:
Firstly, you blame anti-smokers for landlord's decision to use patio heaters.

Well, fundamentally yes is the answer.

Even an idiot can see that .

If everybody smoked, patio heaters would not be put in the beer gardens for the warmth of the smokers.

Are you really stupid or just pretend to be???

Ennui · 22 Sep 2014

jockscott said:
Ennui, most landlords who provide heaters for smokers have done so to at least try and assure a livelihood for themselves, by ensuring that smokers are catered for. This was only ever due to legislation by the UK government.

Nowhere in the legislation does it mention that landlords must provide heaters for smokers.

jockscott said:
Someone mentioned that pubs could have offered a non smoking room too. You countered this by saying, non smoking bar staff may also have to enter these rooms. That's utter b*****ks, brought on by the iniquitous Human Rights Act/Employment legislation. A non smoker should have had to make the landlord aware (at interview stage) that they were not prepared to enter a room where smoking is/was taking place. (yep you know they wouldn't have got the job)

Your ridiculous assertion has been well dealt with by stivino.
Bar staff wanted, only smokers need apply!

Incidentally, it wasn't me. It was a point well made by slup.

jockscott said:
Much like the Muslim shop workers who now use HR legislation to say they cannot bring themselves to sell/handle alcohol to bonafide members of the public. (strange how they never mentioned this before they got the bloody job in the first place)

I think it may have been devastatingly obvious what religion they were when they applied. Or can employers now discriminate on the basis of religion?
Blood bank worker wanted. JWs need not apply!

Garage/Insurance workers needed, Amish need not apply!

Santa Claus wanted JWs need not apply.

Bank worker wanted. Bhuddists need not apply.

Contraceptive clinic worker wanted. Catholics need not apply.

etc. etc.

jockscott · 22 Sep 2014

Ennui said:
Nowhere in the legislation does it mention that landlords must provide heaters for smokers.

Yes and if you read my quote in full, you'd have seen the bit about landlords providing these to ensure their business continued.

Blood bank worker wanted. JWs need not apply! icon_rolleyes.gif
Garage/Insurance workers needed, Amish need not apply! icon_rolleyes.gif
Santa Claus wanted JWs need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif
Bank worker wanted. Bhuddists need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif
Contraceptive clinic worker wanted. Catholics need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif

etc. etc.

I agree, current legislation doesn't permit the wording of job adverts to state the obvious (as in xxx, need not apply) , but the example I did use, shows that some people do apply for jobs they can't do for religious reasons, then complain afterwards.. Why do they do this? ( I'll hazard a guess here and stand by ready to be shot down in flames,,,,,, COMPENSATION..)

Looking through the forum I see the subject of discrimination law and employment has been well covered before, where the name changed to positive discrimination, then later changed to positive action as the thread progressed (positive action, is still discriminating against someone however)

tony1851 · 22 Sep 2014

Ennui said:
In my opinion, it's a waste of energy.
You have a problem with that?
Or do you want to deny people an opinion?

I don't have a problem with that, and everyone is entitled to their opinion -
just so long as people don't start telling others how to live in the name of saving the planet.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

slup said:
Because a possibly non-smoking member of staff would have to go into that room as part of their job?

No they wouldn't. The smoking room would be served by smoking staff.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

AronSearle said:
JBR said:

Tell me why pubs cannot cater for both non-smokers and smokers by assigning separate rooms

Click to expand...

They always could, they never did.

No they couldn't. Look up non-smoking laws relating to public places under cover.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

Ennui said:
I notice you've removed your thanks from LastMagicBean's comment since my response.
Wise decision.

I have done no such thing. When I click to 'like' a post I do not later remove it and, be assured, I would certainly not be swayed by any of your comments.

Some strange things go on on this forum, including mods removing posts or comments for no apparent reason and, of course, giving no reason.

Stivino · 22 Sep 2014

JBR said:
slup said:

Because a possibly non-smoking member of staff would have to go into that room as part of their job?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. The smoking room would be served by smoking staff.

So two sets of staff then, and twice the price for the drink.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

Stivino said:
What happens when the landlord is a non smoker, does he have to give up his job too?

Under my ideal regime, landlords would have the choice whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub, or a pub offering both facilities (in isolation, of course).

That's freedom, a concept abhorred by greenies and do-gooders.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

Ennui said:
Blood bank worker wanted. JWs need not apply!
Garage/Insurance workers needed, Amish need not apply!
Santa Claus wanted JWs need not apply.
Bank worker wanted. Bhuddists need not apply.
Contraceptive clinic worker wanted. Catholics need not apply.

etc. etc.

DIYnot members wanted. Trolls need not apply!

plugwash · 22 Sep 2014

Is spending energy on things you enjoy unethical?

does it matter whether those luxuries are having a beer and fag with your friends at the pub without freezing? owning a big old house that takes lots of energy to heat? having a big house in the countryside which requires a long commute by car to get to your job in the big city? going sightseeing in a private plane? driving a sports car because you enjoy the rush the acceleration gives?

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

Stivino said:
JBR said:

slup said:

Because a possibly non-smoking member of staff would have to go into that room as part of their job?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. The smoking room would be served by smoking staff.

Click to expand...

So two sets of staff then, and twice the price for the drink.

No, instead of two members of staff who are not allowed to smoke (whether they want to or not), one smoker and one non-smoker.

JBR · 22 Sep 2014

LastMagicBean said:
Hang on, Where's my thanks gone????

Enuidiot, you're comedy gold.

It's back! I didn't remove it. Do some of our trolls have the means to do these things, along with removing posts?

I'm not sure he's a comedian. I find him rather boring.

AronSearle · 22 Sep 2014

JBR said:
Stivino said:

JBR said:

slup said:

Because a possibly non-smoking member of staff would have to go into that room as part of their job?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. The smoking room would be served by smoking staff.

Click to expand...

So two sets of staff then, and twice the price for the drink.

Click to expand...

No, instead of two members of staff who are not allowed to smoke (whether they want to or not), one smoker and one non-smoker.

******.

It's either safe for workers to be exposed to it, or it isn’t. It is also the job of the government to protect workers, or it isn’t.

Those are are the only relevant arguments

If it is decided it is not safe, and we live in a country where the government enforces H&S = then it is banned.

Too many people don't have the luxury to turn down jobs in the manner you describe.

What you want to argue is the abolition of government enforced H&S, fine, make that argument.

But don’t talk fantasy rubbish about half and half workers that simply ignores reality.

mark vincent · 22 Sep 2014

JBR said:
Ennui said:

Blood bank worker wanted. JWs need not apply!
Garage/Insurance workers needed, Amish need not apply!
Santa Claus wanted JWs need not apply.
Bank worker wanted. Bhuddists need not apply.
Contraceptive clinic worker wanted. Catholics need not apply.

etc. etc.

Click to expand...

DIYnot members wanted. Trolls need not apply!

Trolls aren't always wrong.

are patio heaters ethically acceptable?

Similar threads