Publicans defy smoking ban

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Ban it. Totally. Everywhere. Tax the companies to extinction that are supplying these pipes of death.

Hear hear well said down with that sort of thing carefull now, seriously smoking is DANGEROUS and should be regulated I am in favour ofthe smoke ban fullstop.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Yes I will concede that smoking is bad. But it's not the worst evil happening in our society right now.

Is that the approach you'd advocate? Prioritise societal problems by an arbitrarily-determined evilness value, and tackle them in strict single-file sequence?

Given the chronic state of our health services, education system, a national alcohol problem and the way we treat our OAPs, the whole issue of the smoking ban was a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

See above. Which of the four issues you mentioned should we tackle, to the neglect of the others?

Spain has the highest life-expectancy rate, even though most of them smoke like troopers and they are in the top three countries for smoking.

Ireland is in the bottom quadrant both for life expectancy and number of smokers.

I'm not using the above as justification for smoking, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Ireland is near the bottom of the scale for broadband access in Europe, and has among the lowest life expectancy. I'm not saying broadband will save lives, but it's interesting nonetheless.

And on a personal note, ever since coming back to Ireland post Celtic Tiger, I've noticed a complete turn-around in our national character. Far from being the easy-going, officialdom hating people we once were, we've now changed into this tetchy, supine, unhappy and whinging little race on the edge of Europe.

Officialdom hating was quaint for a while, but I think it's time we grew out of our post-colonial mistrust of authority.

...but it is great fun to bate the puritans and lifestyle-Gestapo on here. It gets me through the day almost as well as a few ciggies do!

Who's being lifestyle Gestapo? Poison yourself to your heart's content, see if I care.

Just do me a favour, and don't poison me while you're at it.

eth0_

Those pubs defying the ban had nothing to do with smokers rights! It was a blatant publicity stunt - they knew they'd get on the evening news!

Batbat

Its shocking the PC Nazis on these boards and in general irish society, no amount of reasonable argument can change their PC view on things. These people are like children and only see things in black and white or good and bad.

And say no to compromise, because there is no room in their world view for the grey in the black and white arguments.

Of course there should be compromise, obviously if a worker smokes and does not mind second hand smoke he should be allowed to work in smokers bars.

The argument is smoking is bad for you therefore it should be banned in public places, but it is legal therefore the issue becomes grey, it is no longer black and white, therefore there must be compromise, if people dont want to compromise then they should just ban them altogether, then the whole issue would make more sense.

Meh

Originally posted by DublinWriter
And on a personal note, ever since coming back to Ireland post Celtic Tiger, I've noticed a complete turn-around in our national character. Far from being the easy-going, officialdom hating people we once were, we’ve now changed into this tetchy, supine, unhappy and whinging little race on the edge of Europe.

The only tetchy, unhappy, whinging people I see in this thread are the smokers.

Ajnag

Who are you complaining about? It sounds like you are complaining that all pubs have not provided a room that you can drink and smoke in, but you say some pubs have

Wicknight I specificly refered to smoking area's and as such never mentioned the use of a room.Also the ban also legislates that a room is not acceptable.My reference was to those that allow drinking in their smoking areas.

As long as that room is not connected to the pub, or is connected through an large out side area, and so long as no staff member is ever required to enter the room, then I see no real problem, though I imagine with no staff to clean up the room it would get pretty mess very quickly, and would not really be a place I would like to sit.

My position on this is that the care of such a room would place an onus of responsibility on the smokers to care for the facilitys provided or lose them.Also the issue of security staff was also highlighted and that they may have to enter this area.As it stands now with the ban in place the security staff are expected to expose themselves to tobbaco smoke, should anyone infringe the ban within an enclosed enviroment.The legislation of the ban didnt take this in to account, so smoking room or no smoking room the security staff are expected to accept the enviromental risk reguardless.This is further discrimination in addition to that faced by the prision and psychiatiric staff and may cost the taxpayer millions in the Future.Which once again brings me back to M.martins motivation in the passing of this law.It seems somewhat politicly motiveated considering the the glaring inconsistencys and liabiltys the state is now suseptable to.

OscarBravo:

If that's a given, then what's your point?

Lol, Infinite loop of whats your point?

Let me just state, that I am in favour of the ban insofar as protecting non-smokers from passive smoking is concerned, but that I feel that this ban has been implemented in a manner that exceed's this concern for reason's not alligned with a concern for the health of non smokers.

Im simply saying that I belive that the ban can be implemented such that smokers can have a basis of comfort and respect, as opposed to being thrown out the door like animals.I also belive that the technical and logistical means to do this without exposing non-smokers to passive smoke are available.

There's a difference between committing an occasional minor infraction in the hope of not getting caught, and appearing on TV saying "I don't like this law so I choose not to obey it." I've broken laws in the past. I've mostly gotten away with it, but not always. When I was caught, I took my batin', because I knew I had done wrong - even when I didn't agree with the law.

Civil Disobediance is one of the few avenues available to challenge law.Although I agree that when you choose to do so, you accept responsibility for the action that will follow, to do otherwise is naivity.Most laws serve a purpose that is productive for our society, however the law is only as good as the politicians who pass it, and as such incapable of perfection.

My anti-smoking opinion stems from a desire to protect non-smokers from passive smoke. I'm puzzled as to why you would seek to distinguish those motives.

The motives are crucial tbh.It matters whether ones position on a debate is from a point of concern and open to debate, discussion and concenus or weather one is simply acting from a postion of piety and superiority unwilling to discuss and ultimately closed to reason.

This once again bring's me back to M.martin, and considering that he may yet be leader of Fianna Fail this also worry's me somewhat.He choose a good policy in the ban and its reasoning for doing so, however its the implementation and political leverage that have given me some concern.

Also Hes a reformed smoker , the problem with the reformed and reborn is that their reformation leads them to an unreasoned rejection and denial of their past and thus a position of piety.

In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Ban it. Totally. Everywhere. Tax the companies to extinction that are supplying these pipes of death.

Lol, tho I would probably argue against this if it were to be implemented, I would find it less hypocritical then the current status quo.
Hell! Im all for it!

Ban smoking outright, such that Ill either quit, emigrate, or make millions on the black market.

One more point on behalf of us poor besiged smokers, the rate of addiction for heroin is 7/10,
the rate of addiction for nicotine is 9/10.
Please bear this in mind when considering the personal responsibilty of the smoker and that quiting is a very large challenge.Its easier to lose 8 stone weight.

Batbat

My position on this is that the care of such a room would place an onus of responsibility on the smokers to care for the facilitys provided or lose them.Also the issue of security staff was also highlighted and that they may have to enter this area.As it stands now with the ban in place the security staff are expected to expose themselves to tobbaco smoke, should anyone infringe the ban within an enclosed enviroment.The legislation of the ban didnt take this in to account, so smoking room or no smoking room the security staff are expected to accept the enviromental risk reguardless.This is further discrimination in addition to that faced by the prision and psychiatiric staff and may cost the taxpayer millions in the Future.Which once again brings me back to M.martins motivation in the passing of this law.It seems somewhat politicly motiveated considering the the glaring inconsistencys and liabiltys the state is now suseptable to.

Political correctness gone mad

sceptre

Originally posted by Ajnag
Wicknight I specificly refered to smoking area's and as such never mentioned the use of a room.

Ah, worse again. How many research studies would you like that categorically indicate that this isn't satisfactory from the point of view of ventilation and keeping second hand smoke particles (particularly the carcinogens) away from people in the same room (room, hall, whatever)? My better half is currently doing a thesis on ventilation and smoking so I can probably literally[1] come up with a list of sources that will take years for you to finish reading if you give me a few days.

I even linked to a recent Australian study that I found myself during your pre-ban ranting but you chose to ignore it at the time (I can't remember the link, do a search for it).


[1]Literally. Not figuratively as people seem to interpret the word as these days

Ajnag

Originally posted by DublinWriter


And on a personal note, ever since coming back to Ireland post Celtic Tiger, I've noticed a complete turn-around in our national character. Far from being the easy-going, officialdom hating people we once were, we’ve now changed into this tetchy, supine, unhappy and whinging little race on the edge of Europe.

Heh, were richer then ever, but also more regulated and ever concerned with what our behaviour should be to avoid liabilty.And of course how did we celebrate our success?, charged each other through the eyeball's of course.Once remember someone saying the difference between america and ireland was that when an american sees a rich person, they say "I wanna be like that guy", when an Irish person sees someone rich they say "Im gonna get that fúcker". Just a little off topic rant .

sceptre

Originally posted by Ajnag
Once remember someone saying the difference between america and ireland was that when an american sees a rich person, they say "I wanna be like that guy", when an Irish person sees someone rich they say "Im gonna get that fúcker". Just a little off topic rant .

That would be Bono (Kenny Live or Late Late, can't remember which). There's a whingey thread on the go about him as well.

Ajnag

Originally posted by sceptre


I even linked to a recent Australian study that I found myself during your pre-ban ranting but you chose to ignore it at the time (I can't remember the link, do a search for it).

So Im ranting?

Ad Hominen?

Im not even gonna bother if thats your attitude.Ive more then made my position clear, you may care to read it and debate it as opposed to blithe attacks.

sceptre

Originally posted by Ajnag
So Im ranting?

Yup.

Ad Hominen?

Nope (assuming you're asking if I am rather than asking if you are). I quoted from your post for a reason. I don't know anything about you except that your "smoking area" argument is pretty laughable. Hence I quoted it.

Im not even gonna bother if thats your attitude.Ive more then made my position clear, you may care to read it and debate it as opposed to blithe attacks.

Read it, found the "smoking area" bit funny. Hence my quoting it. Fact is that you're calling for a "compromise" while there's a pile of scientific research that indicates that a designated smoking area is no compromise at all. Given that I won't be here till tomorrow at the earliest you could brush up on your reading by googling for (at a guess) +smoking +area +ventilation +study. You'll probably find arguments on both sides but at least you'll have something to run with rather than the nothing you currently appear to have. It's all about credibility. An "I want" (which is effectively where you're going) isn't worth bupkiss. Read what you find, concentrate on the carcinogen levels rather than the smoke particle levels. Any study that ignores the former in favour of the latter isn't worth anything.

Ajnag

Wow, Lovely attitude you got there, of course you choose to ignore that this law discriminates and that all im suggesting is that non-smokers need not be present.I guess my smoking in a room, poisons a non smoker half way accross the world by your logic.

But of course you seem to think I wanna get in to ventilation and so on.Not so, I just belive that It is possible not to treat smokers like animals and protect non-smokers at the same time.

I see that Eircom's pr unit has rubbed off on you

Batbat

I just belive that It is possible not to treat smokers like animals and protect non-smokers at the same time.

Well said

Velcrow

Originally posted by Ajnag
I just belive that It is possible not to treat smokers like animals and protect non-smokers at the same time.

Yes, animals should not be placed in a room full of poisonous gas! Thats Cruel :rolleyes:

As for smokers - who cares

sceptre

Originally posted by Ajnag
Wow, Lovely attitude you got there, of course you choose to ignore that this law discriminates and that all im suggesting is that non-smokers need not be present.I guess my smoking in a room, poisons a non smoker half way accross the world by your logic.

When in doubt, knock it out to reductio ad absurdum. Because I'm in an accommodating within reason mood, I'll humour you and say that I'm talking about the same enclosed area, same room, same hall, which is what I explicitly said above if you were reading (and I'm sure you were, even though you obviously missed that bit).

But of course you seem to think I wanna get in to ventilation and so on.

Actually, I don't. Your argument for a smoking area will fail dismally if you do. Hence, why would you? There's obviously the strong possibility that you just want to talk about rights and that's fair enough but even so I'm pretty sure you don't want to get involved in a discussion about how ridiculous the idea of a smoking area is. Either way, "rights" and "smoking area" lead us back to where I started but there are plenty of others who'll take that line of reasoning on and deal with it efficiently and effectively, as they already have.

Not so, I just belive that It is possible not to treat smokers like animals and protect non-smokers at the same time.

Sure. And I'm in favour of that. Tell me how. Seriously. Beware that using the phrase "smoking area", depending on how you define it, will, when I see it, put the thread into a temporary loop about ventilation and how it has been scientifically proved ineffective, which you don't want to talk about.

I see that Eircom's pr unit has rubbed off on you

While moderating the Ireland Offline board? Now that actually made me laugh:)

Ironic that, given that there's an undertone of being concerned at my getting personal (which I'm not) that you choose to post about my non-existent dealings with Eircom PR, one exaggeration of what I explicitly said and my "attitude". Cute. Mr Kettle paging Mr Pot. Stick to the point, there's a good chap.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
Also the issue of security staff was also highlighted and that they may have to enter this area.As it stands now with the ban in place the security staff are expected to expose themselves to tobbaco smoke, should anyone infringe the ban within an enclosed enviroment.

Security staff face greater risks than this on a nightly basis. Besides, if anyone infringes the ban, everyone in the room is exposed to tobacco smoke, hence the ban in the first place. At least now said security staff can eject the offender from the premises.

Im simply saying that I belive that the ban can be implemented such that smokers can have a basis of comfort and respect, as opposed to being thrown out the door like animals.

Smokers can have all the comfort and respect they want. All they're being asked to do is refrain from smoking in an enclosed workplace. I've seen lots of people smoking outside pubs, but I've seen almost as many smokers choosing to sit inside and enjoy their drinks in comfort.

Civil Disobediance is one of the few avenues available to challenge law.Although I agree that when you choose to do so, you accept responsibility for the action that will follow, to do otherwise is naivity.

Bingo. How many defiant smokers realise this? Of all those cheerful smokers we saw on the television over the last couple of days, how many will be as cheerful when they're handed a €3000 fine?

Most laws serve a purpose that is productive for our society, however the law is only as good as the politicians who pass it, and as such incapable of perfection.

True, but that fact of itself doesn't make this a bad law. Neither, by the way, does the fact that the law doesn't suit you.

The motives are crucial tbh.It matters whether ones position on a debate is from a point of concern and open to debate, discussion and concenus or weather one is simply acting from a postion of piety and superiority unwilling to discuss and ultimately closed to reason.

You miss my point. You asked me whether I was debating this topic out of concern for the health of non-smokers, or out of zeal as an anti-smoker, as if the two were somehow contradictory or mutually exclusive. For me, they're inseparable.

This once again bring's me back to M.martin, and considering that he may yet be leader of Fianna Fail this also worry's me somewhat.He choose a good policy in the ban and its reasoning for doing so, however its the implementation and political leverage that have given me some concern.

The implementation was the only one practicable (although I have issues with the exceptions made for prisons, psych hospitals and hotel rooms). The fact, again, that it doesn't suit you doesn't make it wrong.

Also Hes a reformed smoker , the problem with the reformed and reborn is that their reformation leads them to an unreasoned rejection and denial of their past and thus a position of piety.

You see unreasoned rejection and piety; I see a rational approach to a serious problem. What makes either perspective more valid?

Lol, tho I would probably argue against this if it were to be implemented, I would find it less hypocritical then the current status quo.

What's hypocritical about the status quo?

Please bear this in mind when considering the personal responsibilty of the smoker and that quiting is a very large challenge.Its easier to lose 8 stone weight.

No, it's not.

Ajnag

When in doubt, knock it out to reductio ad absurdum. Because I'm in an accommodating within reason mood, I'll humour you and say that I'm talking about the same enclosed area, same room, same hall, which is what I explicitly said above if you were reading (and I'm sure you were, even though you obviously missed that bit).

And Im saying clearly that I DO NOT want to smoke in the same enclosed area.The current law dosnt even allow for the provision of a shed with a couch in it.That I find ridulous and is what I find extremist about this legislation.

As for the Ioffl thing, well it was a natural one to go for.

Security staff face greater risks than this on a nightly basis. Besides, if anyone infringes the ban, everyone in the room is exposed to tobacco smoke, hence the ban in the first place. At least now said security staff can eject the offender from the premises.

But they are still discriminated against in their work and this discrimination will cost us millions in the future if the legislation is not corrected.

Bingo. How many defiant smokers realise this? Of all those cheerful smokers we saw on the television over the last couple of days, how many will be as cheerful when they're handed a €3000 fine?

Id like to see it too, As I feel that if their is any mass infraction of this law will test if it can work within reality.You may feel that 3000 euro is justifyed, but I feel it is exceisve and that there are probably far more serious crimes which draw a lesser penalty(tho thats just opinion).

True, but that fact of itself doesn't make this a bad law. Neither, by the way, does the fact that the law doesn't suit you.

FFS! Come on now, Ive already said I accept the law exept for Im not happy with its inconsistancys.But the fact that it suits you dosnt make it a good law either

The implementation was the only one practicable (although I have issues with the exceptions made for prisons, psych hospitals and hotel rooms).

Well I honestly think that the implementation was not in lieu of whats practicle but in persuit of politics.Those issues you have will possibly cost a lot in the future due to blatent discrimination.You honestly keep assuming Im against the ban, Well I dont like it,
but I accept its purpose is needed and as such I dont object.
Theres a saying that If your going to do something do it right.I feel that this was in pursuit in zealous Ideals and as such was not implemented in a proper legal fashion.Time will only tell if Im right or wrong, but If I am right then this will cost the country in the future.Also I dont condone discrimination of any kind, and I assume your not saying that the discrimination against the staff in the excluded facilitys is right because of the ends either.

No, it's not.

Im not getting in to it other then to say Ive experianced otherwise.But if your speaking from experiance say so.

Karl Hungus

I've been reading this thread, and it's far beyond me to reply to as many parts of this discussion as a whole, as that could take hours. But there is something I will comment on that I think is at the core of this issue.

Smoking is an addiction, and that is a fact. I'm also pretty sure that people here are aware that studies show that smoking is more adictive than herion. Now a lot of people here are talking about smokers rights, but I don't believe that it should even be considered a right, as addiction itself is an illness.

Should such an illness be encouraged?
I don't beleive so, but that's exactly what the 'Smokey Pub' enviroment is doing. Its making people feel comfortable and accepted with their illness/addiction, and people who do smoke have their judgement clouded by this addiction, so I say it's perfectly just for the government to step in and do the right thing even if the addicted people don't beleive it is the right thing in the first place. Banning smoking in pubs/resteraunts is probably the best first step possible to turning the attitude towards smoking on it's head.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
But they are still discriminated against in their work and this discrimination will cost us millions in the future if the legislation is not corrected.

I must be completely missing your point. You're saying that security staff are discriminated against because someone might smoke in their workplace, exposing them to tobacco smoke.

Um, hello? If someone is going to break the law in a pub, what's to stop them doing it in an office building? What's special about security staff in this regard?

Id like to see it too, As I feel that if their is any mass infraction of this law will test if it can work within reality.

If there's mass infraction of the law, I'd expect mass withdrawal of liquor licences. The individual fines could follow in due course. The vintners know that this is the reality of the situation, ergo the reluctance to engage in a mass protest.

That, and the fact that in my experience the majority of publicans are in favour of the ban.

You may feel that 3000 euro is justifyed, but I feel it is exceisve and that there are probably far more serious crimes which draw a lesser penalty(tho thats just opinion).

So increase the penalties for those crimes. If something is more serious than callously and recklessly endangering another person's health, I want to see it punished severely.

FFS! Come on now, Ive already said I accept the law exept for Im not happy with its inconsistancys.But the fact that it suits you dosnt make it a good law either

With respect, the thrust of your arguments have suggested that you're not happy with the law. Remember that it's a ban on smoking in workplaces. The only reason I'm unhappy is that it has been fudged in a few places. You're unhappy because it hasn't been fudged to the point of being meaningless.

Well I honestly think that the implementation was not in lieu of whats practicle but in persuit of politics.

I honestly think you're wrong. That's one point we're going to have to agree to differ on.

Those issues you have will possibly cost a lot in the future due to blatent discrimination.

[edit] I misunderstood your point. I think there could be trouble ahead, but I don't know if it's going to be that big a deal. IIRC, the POA and psychiatric staff lobbied for their exceptions.

You honestly keep assuming Im against the ban, Well I dont like it,
but I accept its purpose is needed and as such I dont object.
Theres a saying that If your going to do something do it right.I feel that this was in pursuit in zealous Ideals and as such was not implemented in a proper legal fashion.Time will only tell if Im right or wrong, but If I am right then this will cost the country in the future.Also I dont condone discrimination of any kind, and I assume your not saying that the discrimination against the staff in the excluded facilitys is right because of the ends either.

I've made it clear that that's the only aspect of the law I have a problem with.

As to it costing the country: I doubt it. The vintners produced a study today "proving" that jobs are being lost on a massive scale. Mandate (the main barworkers' union) dispute this. Now, think about it: if jobs were being lost wholesale, don't you think the union would have something to say about it?

Im not getting in to it other then to say Ive experianced otherwise.But if your speaking from experiance say so.

Not first-hand, but I've helped hundreds of people to quit smoking successfully. I've helped many (not nearly as many) to lose weight, but not eight stone, and not as easily in most cases as those who quit smoking.

Ajnag

You're unhappy because it hasn't been fudged to the point of being meaningless.

And your making assumptions on my behalf.That make's baby jebus cry.

No Im simply not happy because I simply feel it could have been designed better.As I said It dosnt even allow a couch in a shed, the whole 3 wall's stipulation is rediculous beyond contempt.Also dose the legislation adequatly define the workplace? Is a room to be smoke free 24hrs a day if a person works there for only an hour a day?.

Cork

I hope thay those filmed on news coverage smoking in bars will be fined.

I think that these people and bar owners should be subject to the the law & by breaking it should face sanction.

Victor

Will they get Ban Gardaí to enforce things?

Cork

Let RTE and TV3 surrender the tape to the Gardai - these people are clearly identifable.

Ban Gardaí

But the smoking ban is a positive for many workers in the hotel and bar sector who work long unsocial hours and not for great pay.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Meh
The only tetchy, unhappy, whinging people I see in this thread are the smokers.

Indeed. And on the flipside, quite a lot of the non-smokers have their own set of attributes, such as righteous indignation.

Many smokers, myself included, support the idea of preserving the health of employees, and yes, non-smokers. However at the same time we feel that the smoking ban as it stands discriminates against smokers, and will discriminate even further in a few months time.

All we seek, as has been pointed out, is compromise. However the members opposite aren't willing to listen, they seem to think that gloating and gleeful cries of "string em up" are admirable attributes. They're not.

adam

Ajnag

I hope thay those filmed on news coverage smoking in bars will be fined.

Well cork as a known Fianna Fail fan, I wish you luck on your new rigourous approach to the law.I do expect that charlie will be indited any day now.Or is just something about the law only applying to just the voters and no one else?

15000£ on shirts as familys lost their homes to banks during the eightys rescession says it all.Is charlie going to open the cork regatta this year? Or is he in {cough} "poor health" like he was when he opened it before.You got bev tho, so I guess one in lets how many is good I guess.

I find it mildly Ironic that the only one ejected from the party so far is someone who had done wrong on orders from her superiors while those still in the party did all their crimes on their own inititive.Tho theres nothing like free enterprise now is there.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Batbat
Its shocking the PC Nazis on these boards and in general irish society, no amount of reasonable argument can change their PC view on things. These people are like children and only see things in black and white or good and bad.

And say no to compromise, because there is no room in their world view for the grey in the black and white arguments.

Of course there should be compromise, obviously if a worker smokes and does not mind second hand smoke he should be allowed to work in smokers bars.

The argument is smoking is bad for you therefore it should be banned in public places, but it is legal therefore the issue becomes grey, it is no longer black and white, therefore there must be compromise, if people dont want to compromise then they should just ban them altogether, then the whole issue would make more sense.

I will agree to all of this if said smoking workers will also agree not to fill hospital beds in the future for lung cancer treatment.

Originally posted by dahamsta

All we seek, as has been pointed out, is compromise. However the members opposite aren't willing to listen, they seem to think that gloating and gleeful cries of "string em up" are admirable attributes. They're not.

adam

But as has been pointed out, many,many times, how can there be a compromise where the decision is made to stop indirect harm being caused to innocent non smokers.
Time has been called on that harm and those that are responsible for causing it,are the ones to lose out, which is not unusual for laws that correct the wrongfull harming of the innocent.

Ajnag

I think I have it!

We could have dedicated smoking rooms in which there would be a ban on non-smokers in effect.Any non-smoker caught in violation would be subject to a fine of 3000€ euro.

Just a little tounge in cheek

Cork

The reason why turnover in pubs has fallen is the price of drink and the rising popularity of wine.

But the smoking lobby for years did not do enough to install extractor fans.

Smokers have subjected bar workers and restaurent workers to much noxious smoke over the years. These workers don't work for loads of money and work unsocial and long hours.

Ajnag, everyboby in this country is subject to the laws of this country be they pub owners or not.