Then help him by starting a legal fund after a smoking ban goes into effect. I know you won't.
VRWC: Those that exist in fact you choose to ignore and those that exist in fantasy you choose to want to impose. You:Again, I'm baffled. What exactly, do I wish to impose on anyone?
You want to require that an employee have to work in an evironment that is filled with smoke, while her counterpart in other businesses isn;t required to do the same.
VRWC:The only common denominator is selfishness... YOU:I posit that you are selfish for bringing your annoyance into someone else's business. The fact of the matter is this: were a tobacco company to produce a completely non-carcinogenic cigarette, you would still vote to forbid it's use in restaurants - simply becuase it annoys you
I told you, I would not vote for these bans even though I'm gratefull they are taking place.
The ban is in effect. I am not a business owner affected by it, therefore I have no case. However, should a grass-roots case appear, I will help it - one way or another. Have no doubt.
You want to require that an employee have to work in an evironment that is filled with smoke, while her counterpart in other businesses isn;t required to do the same.
Um. No. One. Is. Required. To. Work. Anywhere. Additionally, no one has the "right" to a job. How did you make this leap in logic?
I told you, I would not vote for these bans even though I'm gratefull they are taking place.
My apologies. I missed that post. Why would you not vote for it? The reimbursal issue?