labor lawAdivision of labor law center

Michigan seems poised to pass a smoking ban that would affect almost all employers, including restaurants and bars, in the next legislative session. Both the state house and senate passed bills protecting employees from second-hand smoke in the workplace in 2008. However, the two bills had significant differences and the legislature was unable to resolve those differences before they adjourned for the summer in late May.

 

Bills to ban smoking in restaurants and bars were introduced in 2007 in both the Michigan House and Senate. In each case, the bills generated a lot of debate and were sent into the 2008 legislative session.

 

In the spring of 2008, the Michigan House passed HB 4163, which would have banned smoking in most workplaces, including restaurants and bars. The bill, however, contained some significant restrictions. It would have permitted smoking in cigar bars, casinos, and racetracks. Proponents – mostly Detroit Democrats — say these measures were necessary to protect Detroit area businesses. A smoking ban in casinos, they argue, would result in gamers switching to area Indian-controlled casinos, which cannot be covered under the law.

 

The House version of the law also provided an exclusion for collective bargaining. Under it, a union could permit smoking in a workplace if the majority of members voted to allow smoking.

 

The Senate version of the Michigan smoking ban bill excluded these exceptions and would make smoking illegal in casinos, retail operations, bars and restaurants throughout the state. It would not permit any smoking under a collective bargaining agreement.

 

Both versions of the law would make it legal for voters in Michigan to pass smoking bans at the local level. If passed, the measures would have gone info effect as early as this month.

 

According to the Detroit Free Press, because these differences could not be resolved before the summer recess in late May, the House and Senate went on vacation without a Michigan smoking ban being passed. The discussion was tabled until the legislature returns in the fall. Realistically, a vote is not expected until after the fall elections when it can no longer be a campaign issue.

 

Because of the support in both the House and Senate, Michigan employers should expect a workplace smoking ban to be passed by spring 2009, at the latest.

Last 10 posts by Amelia

• Illinois, Nevada and Kentucky Minimum Wage Increases - July 1st, 2009
• Mandatory Sick Leave Law - June 19th, 2009
• GINA Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Goes Into Effect - June 12th, 2009
• Maryland Minimum Wage Increase 2009 - June 5th, 2009
• California Noncompetition Agreements - May 27th, 2009
• New Illinois Sexual Harassment Law - May 15th, 2009
• California Wage and Hour Law - May 13th, 2009
• Free Flu Pandemic Seminar for Employers - May 8th, 2009
• New Pregnancy Discrimination Regulations - May 6th, 2009
• OSHA Swine Flu Warnings - April 27th, 2009

1. Posted by: Recent Links Tagged With "exceptions" - JabberTags

   [...] on Thu 20-11-2008 Tomcat, Spring Web MVC, and Exceptions Saved by odwrotnie on Sun 16-11-2008 Michigan Smoking Ban Saved by abrs on Sun 09-11-2008 The dreaded AddressAccessDeniedException Saved by kevjumba on Fri [...]

2. Posted by: Ken Hill

   This letter, from a non-smoker, refers to all anti-smoking bans.

   *An open letter that was emailed to all (103) Ontario, Canada political MPP’s in early May, 2008. No replies!

   Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children

   We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!

   Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.

   This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government’s pernicious slogan “health and safety.”

   By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!

   The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!

   The most”dangerous smoke” comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not ‘health and safety.’

   Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!

   Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies– honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War– disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!

   From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, “It doesn’t matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true…..You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine.” We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!

   For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.

   In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, “I was acutely conscious of the pressure to ‘adapt’ and to absorb the values of the ‘tribe’—family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?”

   Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality–that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country’s interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea’s truth or falsehood–that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people–that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority–in short, gang rule and mob rule–if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in–and camouflaged by–the notion of ‘Government by Consensus.”

   ‘Rule by Consensus,’ (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays’ anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from ‘Rule by Consensus’ is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.

   Note this recent example, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn’t entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to “too much intrusion into people’s private lives.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker’s individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker’s family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.

   In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930’s, 1940’s, Germany used “politicized ecology and public health” to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government’s shameful anti-smoking agenda.

   References:

   Paul Watson - Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) - book
   Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem - book
   Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - book

3. Posted by: Amelia

   Hi Ken! Thanks for your comments. There are certainly two sides to this issue. While smokers decry the infringement on their rights, in New York deaths from second hand smoke were significantly reduced, just one year after the smoking ban.

   With very few exceptions, “smoking bans” don’t prevent people from smoking in their own homes or cars. They simply limit the exposure of innocent people to second-hand smoke, especially in the workplace and other public areas.

   At any rate, smoking bans are the wave of the future, with more than half the states having a workplace smoking ban of some sort in effect. Thanks for your comments!~ Amelia

4. Posted by: Ken Hill

   Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick

   Government’s that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, “Today, we live in the age of envy.”

   I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930’s, 1940’s. Do you?

   Exactly how can our government “create a healthier society for all” when they betray the smoker’s sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?

   This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker’s to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.

   A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government’s suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions.

   Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person’s struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.

   In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke.

   Then why does government pathetically use smoker’s as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?

   Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.

5. Posted by: Amelia

   Hi Ken! Um, right. So smoking doesn’t cause disease…but quitting does. Do you have any research to back this up? Just wondering.

   Sorry, but we don’t buy your arguments about Nazi Germany. Hitler and every single member of his staff breathed air. That doesn’t make air evil. Yes, these were very bad men, but that was due to their actions, not the items or thought patterns associated with them. They wore black boots, too…but that doesn’t make black boots evil.

   Besides, didn’t most of the Nazis smoke? So, following your logic, wouldn’t that make smoking evil???

   And, if you feel that young people must inherently form their own judgements…wouldn’t that include using cocaine and heroin? So are you advocating those drugs should be legal, as well? Just wondering.~ Amelia