Happy Meal Toys Banned in San Francisco

[Murky]

Oh I agree, and I would never go to a restaurant that allowed smoking (Because I don't like it. If smoking was aloud in a certain room I'd still attend the non-smoking room.)

But that's their decision, its their private property. If they want to allow their guests to smoke, its their prerogative and its mine to decide if I want to eat there.

What about the people that work there? Do they have a choice if they want to serve smokers or not? What if they don't have other job options?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What about the people that work there? Do they have a choice if they want to serve smokers or not? What if they don't have other job options?

They have a choice to take or not to take the job. Private property rights trump your "Right not to inhale smoke." You don't have to work there. And I've been to states that allow smoking in restaurants at the owner's discretion, most of them don't even allow it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

"What if THEY DON'T HAVE OTHER JOB OPTIONS?"

 

[Tani Coyote]

Oh. lordy, you Americans are hilarious,

First, thank you for painting all Americans as a single group.

Check out all your government legislation for the last 20 - 30 years. And then look me in the eye and tell me there isn't a conspiracy for the government to take total control of your chidren?

I understand your sarcasm, but I never said there was a conspiracy, nor have I disagreed with all government regulation of some behaviors... for example, I think the government has every right to prevent child abuse, parental rights be damned.

But this, this is different. It's unnecessary restriction of choice. They should just raise the tax or force the toy to be sold separately. Leave it to the parents to spank the desire for fast food out of the child.

 

[Traitorfish]

They have a choice to take or not to take the job. Private property rights trump your "Right not to inhale smoke."

So I presume they also trump a waitress's right not be sexually assaulted?

 

[GhostWriter16]

"What if THEY DON'T HAVE OTHER JOB OPTIONS?"

Then they can deal with it or refuse anyway. And that situation isn't realistic, there's always something sooner or later.

So I presume they also trump a waitress's right not be sexually assaulted?

No because she didn't agree to that. She agreed to work in a smoke filled environment when she took the job. If submitting to sexual advances was part of the job (And that were legal to sign such a contract) then yes it would. I still think that should be legal if its agreed upon, but I can see the reasoning for banning that. Smoking is a much more moderate issue and its obviously not government's business...

 

[Camikaze]

No because she didn't agree to that. She agreed to work in a smoke filled environment when she took the job. If submitting to sexual advances was part of the job (And that were legal to sign such a contract) then yes it would. I still think that should be legal if its agreed upon, but I can see the reasoning for banning that. Smoking is a much more moderate issue and its obviously not government's business...

So using this logic, if I'm working in a smoke free environment (which I am) because smoking is banned in that environment (which it is), you would think it acceptable for smoking to remain banned, given that I did not agree to work in such an environment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is it "Acceptable" for it to remain banned? Of course. I personally don't like the idea of smoking in restaurants.

Is it "Legally required." No, but you are under no obligation to continue working, and depending on the contract agreed upon, they may owe you compensation. Its my ideal that such issues would be worked out beforehand, but if that's impossible, and that were changed, I'd consider you to be in a legal position to immediately renegotiate your contract.

 

[SalmonSoil]

But this, this is different. It's unnecessary restriction of choice. They should just raise the tax or force the toy to be sold separately. Leave it to the parents to spank the desire for fast food out of the child.

What you are underestimating is the power children have over their parents. Mcdonalds is not underestimating that. The toys arn't there to encourage parents to buy Mcdonalds for their children, they are there to make the children encourage the parents to buy Mcdonalds for them. This kind of advertising works so well that it can be used to sell cars. Like real motor cars. That children can't even drive.

 

[Camikaze]

Is it "Acceptable" for it to remain banned? Of course. I personally don't like the idea of smoking in restaurants.

Is it "Legally required." No, but you are under no obligation to continue working, and depending on the contract agreed upon, they may owe you compensation. Its my ideal that such issues would be worked out beforehand, but if that's impossible, and that were changed, I'd consider you to be in a legal position to immediately renegotiate your contract.

Do you really think it's good policy to be punishing workers for the destructive behaviour of others?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you really think it's good policy to be punishing workers for the destructive behaviour of others?

No, but its private property. They don't have an inherent right to work there.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, but its private property. They don't have an inherent right to work there.

Couldn't you use this logic to justify limitlessly poor working conditions? It's not as if the wage-serfs of a Victorian mill didn't know what they were getting into.

 

[dosed150]

Couldn't you use this logic to justify limitlessly poor working conditions? It's not as if the wage-serfs of a Victorian mill didn't know what they were getting into.

im sure domination will change his mind, when hes out trying to get a job and sees how bad the job market is

 

[generalstaff]

im sure domination will change his mind, when hes out trying to get a job and sees how bad the job market is

He's 15. But your point stands, it should be noted that the bad economy has forced people to accept worse working conditions.