A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
| Home | Search | About ASH | Why Join | Comment | Email page |
|
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
|
St. Paul Bar and Restaurant Fear Job Loss For Supporting Proposed Smoking Ban [08/12-2]
Excerpts from: Smoke and fired
By Pioneer Express [08/12/04]
If you're a bartender or waitress in St. Paul these days, publicly expressing your views on the city's proposed smoking ban could be hazardous to your job, some workers say.
Kirsten Olson of St. Paul, for example, says she was "let go" from her part-time job at Billy's on Grand after her concerns about the health effects of secondhand smoke were published recently.
The 23-year-old waitress believes her public comments prompted the action, but the bar's owner, Bill Wengler, denies that, saying the decision to let her go involved work performance issues and was made before the article appeared.
For many, the intensity of the St. Paul smoking ban debate pits serious health concerns against personal rights, job security and businesses' bottom lines. The debate so far has focused mostly on the impact on customers and bar and restaurant profits, but it's the mostly forgotten waitresses, waiters and bartenders who run the greatest health risks from their long hours of inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke.
Many bar and restaurant employees smoke and don't worry about inhaling secondhand smoke. Others don't smoke but accept the haze as a normal part of their jobs. Some — smokers and nonsmokers alike — worry about secondhand smoke but oppose a ban for fear of losing either hours or their jobs if the business suffers.
And others, like Olson, support the ban but are afraid to express their concerns because they fear retaliation from employers who vehemently oppose a smoking ban.
A nonsmoker all her life, Olson played hockey at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter and ran in Grandma's Marathon in Duluth in June. She took the job at Billy's to supplement her income from her full-time job at nearby Café Latte, a nonsmoking establishment.
"The (Star Tribune) article came out on Saturday," Olson said. "That Sunday, I wasn't on the (work) schedule. When I came in Monday to ask about it, no one had an answer," although she says her boss later told her that she was being released because the hours she could work were not compatible with the bar's needs.
At the end of their meeting, her boss asked her about the newspaper article, Olson said. "I'm assuming that that played a key role" in his decision to fire her, she said.
Olson's health concerns are not unfounded. While scientists continue to accumulate more evidence about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke, they do agree that the longer someone is exposed to secondhand smoke, the higher the level of carcinogens and the higher their risk of developing lung cancer.
"The literature supports this," said Kristin Anderson, an epidemiologist in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. "There's just no question. This is really bad for people."
A study conducted at the university, for instance, showed that nonsmoking women who live with smoking husbands have a five- to six-fold increase in carcinogen levels and a 20 percent increase in developing lung cancer, compared with women whose husbands don't smoke, Anderson said.
"If this was asbestos, we wouldn't be having this argument," Anderson said. Asbestos has been declared a known human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Under federal law, owners with asbestos in their buildings are required to clean it up.
"Environmental tobacco smoke was deemed a known human carcinogen by the EPA in 1992," Anderson said. "So what's the issue? In science, we sometimes get it wrong and we admit it. But this ain't wrong."
While it's easy for smoking ban opponents to speak their minds, employees who support the ban are reluctant to express their views.
"I don't want to say anything because I may not make the tips I do," said a longtime waitress who works at a popular St. Paul bar. "And the owner is very anti-smoking ban."
She asked to remain anonymous because she worries that her opinions might cause her to lose her job. And that bothers her.
"I sort of have the right to stand up for people who don't smoke," she said.
A nonsmoker, she works at the smoky bar "because it's a decent-paying job and allows me a lot of flexibility. But I firmly believe that secondhand smoke definitely affects me. If I get sick, it takes me longer to get better. When you come home at the end of a shift, your clothes just reek."
She said she knew there was a health risk when she began her job, "but the times are changing and we now know" how bad secondhand smoke is.
To make a smoking ban as fair as possible, she would like to see it pass at the state level. If that were to happen, she doesn't think business would drop off much, if at all.
"The No. 1 reason people come to bars is to socialize and drink, not to smoke," she said. "People are very adaptable."
The St. Paul City Council is expected to hold a public hearing Aug. 25 on two proposed smoking bans — one covering both bars and restaurants and the other covering just restaurants. Sept. 1 is the earliest date the council could take final action.
| Home Web Page | Search This Site | Learn About ASH | Why Join ASH | Comment on This | Email This Page |