Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:47 am Post subject:

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.

god of English

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:11 am Post subject:

northway wrote:

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.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:49 pm Post subject:

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:

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.

CentralCali

Joined: 17 May 2007

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject:

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.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject:

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).

god of English

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject:

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

god of English

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject:

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.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:04 am Post subject:

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.