Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
I am not forced to work in Korea. I can find another job somewhere else. I choose to work here. I chose to work here when I applied for the job


When I get 400 applications for an $11/hour warehouse position, I'm not sure how much choosing there is involved in low-skill labor. People work wherever they can. If your only employment options are smoking restaurants, then it's no longer a choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
god of English



Joined: 23 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

northway wrote:
When I get 400 applications for an $11/hour warehouse position, I'm not sure how much choosing there is involved in low-skill labor. People work wherever they can. If your only employment options are smoking restaurants, then it's no longer a choice.

Good point but not good enough. Steelrails' definition of "forced" means "forced at gunpoint". These applicants can choose to remain unemployed, move into a cardboard box, and die of exposure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tardisrider wrote:
sligo wrote:
HE WAS FORCED TO ENTER SEVERAL RESTAURANTS


Not true. He could have purchased raw potatoes at an outdoor market and eaten them while hiding in an alleyway.


And was he forced to eat in smoking restaurants or did he have the choice of eating in a McDonald's? Or KimbapChunguk? Or KFC? Or Paris Baguette?

Or he could eat street food. It is Korea.

But please explain how he was forced to enter a smoking restaurant.

Heck, he could get a sandwich or a cup of ramen at the Family Mart like half of Korean kids do.

Quote:
To cut a long story short, they got drunk one night, had a massive argument, and parted company. His friend took himself off to spend the time travelling,


Sounds like quite a bit of choice and actions having consequences.

Unless being drunk is an acceptable excuse.

Quote:
When I get 400 applications for an $11/hour warehouse position, I'm not sure how much choosing there is involved in low-skill labor. People work wherever they can. If your only employment options are smoking restaurants, then it's no longer a choice.


Then how come there is an over 100% turnover rate in the restaurant industry?

If people are forced to work in restaurants and the economic situation is so dire, shouldn't the rate be below 10%?

Quote:
Good point but not good enough. Steelrails' definition of "forced" means "forced at gunpoint". These applicants can choose to remain unemployed, move into a cardboard box, and die of exposure.


Again- Over 100% turnover rate in the industry.

No one is forced or even close to approaching it. Over 100%=Lots of choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralCali



Joined: 17 May 2007

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, get off it. It's a complete falsehood to say that there aren't customers who smoke in the convenience stores or the kimbap restaurants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So everyone in the restaurant industry works there by choice? There can't possibly be individuals who don't?

I'm a smoker, mind you, but restaurant smoking bans are entirely reasonable. Bar bans I'm a bit more ambivalent towards, and I can understand both sides.

One overlooked effect of smoking is its impact on smoking patterns. I think there are a lot of occasional smokers who would have been full blown addicts if you could still smoke in all the places you could twenty years ago. That's a victory in and of itself.

CentralCali wrote:
Oh, get off it. It's a complete falsehood to say that there aren't customers who smoke in the convenience stores or the kimbap restaurants.


To be honest, I can't say that I've ever seen this (not that it doesn't happen).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
god of English



Joined: 23 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Again- Over 100% turnover rate in the industry.

No one is forced or even close to approaching it. Over 100%=Lots of choice.

Over 100% ≠ more jobs than applicants
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
god of English



Joined: 23 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

northway wrote:
One overlooked effect of smoking is its impact on smoking patterns. I think there are a lot of occasional smokers who would have been full blown addicts if you could still smoke in all the places you could twenty years ago. That's a victory in and of itself.

Good point. An overlooked argument is that workplace smoking bans still benefit smokers as well as people who are ambivalent to smokers.

This makes me think of the galbi joint I went to last week. This particular restaurant in Gangnam was non-smoking; men were getting up and lighting up in front of the restaurant. There were about six ajumas working there. I doubt any of them were smokers. And while I can't say whether they cared about the smoke-free environment, I'm sure they're healthier for it. This is a good thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralCali wrote:
Oh, get off it. It's a complete falsehood to say that there aren't customers who smoke in the convenience stores or the kimbap restaurants.


And its a complete falsehood to portray such places as "smoking restaurants". Such occurrences are isolated and not common.

So yes, I bet you can walk into a KimBapChunguk, McDonald's, or Family Mart and get a non-smoking dining experience. The only chance you might not is if you go in at 3AM in which case that has more to do with the one or two people working in the store being scared to piss off a group of 8 drunk swearing and arguing men. People who aren't exactly in the state of mind to care about the law.

Quote:
So everyone in the restaurant industry works there by choice? There can't possibly be individuals who don't?


Not enough to make a claim that you should regulate business under the pretext that people being forced to work in a restaurant with smoking.

There might be one person who is "forced" to be a janitor. That doesn't mean that's an acceptable pretext to mandate that they should be wearing hazmat suits on the off-chance something in the garbage is toxic.

You have a choice- either a .001% chance is a good reason to make broad sweeping policy changes (IF JUST ONE PERSON...) or you can understand that no matter what, there is always a .001% of something and it's no reason to start writing new laws. .001% is the reason we have policy and lawyers- to take care of things on an individual level.

Sorry, but no one is forced to do something unless they can prove so to a court of law or call in the cops over it. And that's the way it should be. Claiming someone is "Forced" to do something is a serious charge and should have the backing of the law.

Screaming that restaurant workers are "forced" to endure smoke is ridiculous. If they were, they'd be able to sue and show how they were coerced and intimidated. Of course such a law suit would have to be a class-action law suit, because just because one restaurant does it, does not justify a law. It justifies punishment against that particular restaurant.

Quote:
Over 100% ≠ more jobs than applicants


=choice.

Please, just drop the forced angle. 100% Job Turnover! Why can't you just admit that no one in the developed world is "forced" to work in a restaurant? It's a job market where one can easily choose where to work and can easily move about.

Shouldn't there be thousands of stories of "imprisoned" restaurant workers if people are really forced to work there? Shouldn't there be pickets and riots and lawsuits? There aren't. No one is forced and trying to claim that people are is just making you look silly.

Quote:
Good point. An overlooked argument is that workplace smoking bans still benefit smokers as well as people who are ambivalent to smokers.


Not a good enough of a reason to make a law that affects Freedom of Assembly of people who are aware of the health dangers and consent to the risks and do not require others to participate. The others who are exposed, do so voluntarily when they choose to enter an assembly of those people or to enter their facility.

Quote:
This particular restaurant in Gangnam was non-smoking; men were getting up and lighting up in front of the restaurant. There were about six ajumas working there. I doubt any of them were smokers. And while I can't say whether they cared about the smoke-free environment, I'm sure they're healthier for it. This is a good thing.


Thank you for proving my point!- They owned and operated their own restaurant and chose to make it non-smoking. They weren't forced to be a smoking restaurant, they voluntarily chose to be a non-smoking restaurant. Any smokers who entered accepted the rule of no smoking. The workers got to enjoy a smoke-free environment, in no way were coerced to offer smoking, and non-smokers could choose to patronize that establishment and enjoy things in an atmosphere suitable to them. Most importantly, this didn't require and laws and was regarded as a common custom which was established before you or I ever set foot in that place.

So no, not all the restaurants in Seoul are smoking. Yes, businesses CAN stand up to smokers. Yes, drunk ajosshis will comply. No, workers aren't forced to be around smoke. Yes, people can agree to accept a restaurant's policies, even if they prefer a different one. No, laws aren't necessary- All that is necessary is the free market, a private policy, the will to enforce that policy, and a product that makes smokers choose between that product and smoking. Guess what? They chose the product.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
god of English



Joined: 23 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Shouldn't there be thousands of stories of "imprisoned" restaurant workers if people are really forced to work there? Shouldn't there be pickets and riots and lawsuits? There aren't. No one is forced and trying to claim that people are is just making you look silly.

Speaking of looking silly, your concept of "forced" seems to be limited to slaves and chain gangs. It's pretty obvious to everyone reading this thread that northway and I are referring to people who are forced to work in restaurants because they don't have other employment options.

Quote:
Thank you for proving my point!- They owned and operated their own restaurant and chose to make it non-smoking. They weren't forced to be a smoking restaurant, they voluntarily chose to be a non-smoking restaurant. Any smokers who entered accepted the rule of no smoking. The workers got to enjoy a smoke-free environment, in no way were coerced to offer smoking, and non-smokers could choose to patronize that establishment and enjoy things in an atmosphere suitable to them. Most importantly, this didn't require and laws and was regarded as a common custom which was established before you or I ever set foot in that place.

Said restaurant used to be smoking before the workplace smoking ban took effect.

And judging by your barely coherent sentence structure, you're starting to unravel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As areas frequented by the public by design, restaurants can legitimately be considered public areas. Regulation of public areas is a completely legitimate form of legislation. This might not render restaurant smoking bans necessary, but it does render them legitimate, and being legitimate, it's simply a matter of the policies the public supports.

Steelrails wrote:
All that is necessary is the free market, a private policy, the will to enforce that policy, and a product that makes smokers choose between that product and smoking.


No, all that is necessary is one thing: a smoking ban in public restaurants. This isn't some big personal freedom issue; what's on the table is the right to go to a public place, light a small, toxic fire, and then blow it around the room. It's not even on the table whether people have the right to ban that in any area frequented by the public (of course they do), the only question is whether the common man is exasperated enough to actually demand the policy, and all over the civilized the world the answer appears to be yes, they are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralCali



Joined: 17 May 2007

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good grief, Rails. You'ld miss the point even if you were standing on it. The simple fact of the matter is those places I mentioned--the restaurants, the convenience stores, the freaking subways, etc.--are all designated as no smoking areas and, surprise surprise, they are not, in fact, enforced as such. But go ahead and rail on. It's reached the point of hilarity.

By the way, I'm generally not frequenting convenience stores at 3 am. On the other hand, I do manage to patronize said stores in the middle of the day, at which time I have actually encountered smokers in the stores and not all that infrequently.


Last edited by CentralCali on Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickGHBusan



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralCali wrote:
Good grief, Rails. You'ld miss the point even if you were standing on it. The simple fact of the matter is those places I mentioned--the restaurants, the convenience stores, the freaking subways, etc.--are all designated as no smoking areas and, surprise surprise, they are not, in fact, enforced as such. But go ahead and rail on. It's reached the point of hilarity.


Seriously this smoking ban will not become effective overnight!

Takes time to get people to change. I remember waiting for a train in the Paris Nord train station in 2006. There was a huge sign that said smoking was banned there and that dog poop should be picked up. French people were smoking like there was no tomorrow and butting out their cigs on the post of the sign. In fact there was a small pile of dead butts at the foot of the sign and security personnel walked by doing nothing. Was there last year (same train station) and you could not find many smokers except in the smoking area.

Look at airports in Korea, people mostly smoke in that death trap of a smokers room. Things will change in time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralCali wrote:
By the way, I'm generally not frequenting convenience stores at 3 am. On the other hand, I do manage to patronize said stores in the middle of the day, at which time I have actually encountered smokers in the stores and not all that infrequently.


Out of curiosity, where do you live (roughly)? Living in Gyeonggi-do and Seoul and actually frequenting such places at 3 A.M., I can't recall seeing this but a few times, mostly around the cesspool that is Suwon Station. Then again, I left Korea ten months ago, so my memory might be shaky.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralCali



Joined: 17 May 2007

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Currently, I live in Maoming in China. The times I referred to above, though, was when I lived in Bucheon and Busan. The two areas of Busan where I lived were Gaegeum and Gunam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As areas frequented by the public by design, restaurants can legitimately be considered public areas.


I do in part agree with your legitimacy vs. necessary statement. As I expressed before, local or state-wide smoking bans enacted by popular mandate I would regard as legitimate. The same as if they ban alcohol or gay marriage or abortion. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or contrary to the "spirit" of a freedom and choice embracing society.

Would an age restricted night club with a cover charge be considered a public place?

Is a place where the primary focus of business is to serve alcohol, a controlled substance, a public place?

I can certainly be persuaded about restaurants, particularly during the dinner hours, but when it comes to late night places such as bars and clubs, I think the term "public place" is inappropriate for the reasons mentioned above- Cover charges and most of the money is derived through sales of a controlled substance.

Quote:
ood grief, Rails. You'ld miss the point even if you were standing on it. The simple fact of the matter is those places I mentioned--the restaurants, the convenience stores, the freaking subways, etc.--are all designated as no smoking areas and, surprise surprise, they are not, in fact, enforced as such. But go ahead and rail on. It's reached the point of hilarity.


But once it becomes a law, that will change everything?

That's like saying that because drugs are a problem, let's outlaw drugs and then people won't do drugs and cause problems related to drugs.

And really, you're claiming that a smoking ban in Korea, a place known for its strict and strident law enforcement, will be effective?


Quote:
If they have a few hundred thousand dollars and able to get a business/investor visa and able to deal with all the red tape in Korean and able to attract Korean customers as well as expats...then yes non-smokers can. But we are not talking with wealthy expat CEOs we are talking with (for the most part) economic migrants.


Back to the point of non-smokers here in Korea or back home not having enough money to open up their own restaurants and bars....If you have enough money to lobby on the national level and engage in an ad campaign, you have enough money to open restaurants.

Why not just open a chain of bars or restaurants dedicated to non-smokers?

You are entitled to do that. I don't feel that you should be entitled to walk into Mama Kim's Galbi restaurant, a place you have never patronized before nor do you own, a place that you have assumed zero financial liability for, and demand that they change to suit your preferences.

That strikes me as undemocratic, unfair, disrespectful, and narcassistic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 16 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International