News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Bill To Allow Smoking In Bars Is Killed |
Title: | US CA: Bill To Allow Smoking In Bars Is Killed |
Published On: | 1998-06-30 |
Source: | San Jose Mercury News (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-07 07:08:01 |
BILL TO ALLOW SMOKING IN BARS IS KILLED
Assembly Committee Rejects Plan
SACRAMENTO -- Yet another attempt to allow smokers back into California
bars was snuffed out Monday, but tavern employees who want to light up in a
smoking-designated break room won a small victory from the same legislative
committee.
A bill introduced by Sen. William ``Pete'' Knight, R-Palmdale, would have
allowed bars to be designated as smoking establishments if employees
consent to work in a smoky environment, or if adequate ventilation systems
are installed to accommodate non-smoking workers.
The bill (SB 1513) was killed on an 8-8 vote, largely divided along party
lines, by the Assembly Local Government Committee. Democrats lined up on
the side of labor, which opposed the bill, while Republicans said the
free-market system should allow business owners to decide whether to allow
smoking. Only two Democrats sided with Republicans, while another Democrat
abstained from voting.
Michael Hambrick, senior vice president of the National Smokers Alliance,
an organization of 300,000 California smokers and bar owners that is
heavily financed by three tobacco companies, said the group will continue
to push for an exemption to California's stringent, 6-month-old bar smoking
ban. More than 20 tavern owners lined up in support of the bill, telling
members revenues were down more than 60 percent in some cases, prompting
layoffs of bartenders, waiters and waitresses.
The tavern owners ``are telling (lawmakers) to get out of their ivory
towers, get in the real world, put their butts on the bar stool and feel
our economic pain,'' Hambrick said.
But labor groups and medical and health associations said their surveys
show that most Californians support the smoking ban. They point to state
tax records that show revenues in small bars and restaurants actually rose
1 percent in January, the first month of the ban, compared with the same
month last year.
``What this bill does is gut the protections of (the state law) that all
employees of this state deserve: protections from being exposed to
carcinogens that cause lung cancer and heart disease,'' said Tom Rankin of
the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
Knight's measure would have allowed employers to pay an annual $50 fee and
apply for a Class I smoking lounge permit from the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control. The permit requires all employees to consent to working
in an establishment that allows smoking. If workers don't agree, a bar
owner could pay $100 a year and apply for a Class II permit, but would also
have to install an air ventilation system approved by the State Building
Standards Commission.
With either permit, bar owners would have to post signs indicating smoking
is allowed and accommodate employees who do not want to work in smoking
sections. Employers who coerce workers into working in areas against their
will would face a maximum $7,000 fine per violation.
Knight's bill represents the fourth attempt this legislative session to try
to overturn the smoking ban in California bars, taverns and cardrooms. Two
bills that sought to exempt bars from the law for another three years died
in the Senate. The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee killed another
bill written by the labor committee chairman, Dick Floyd, D-Carson, that
would have exempted bars until the federal government adopted ventilation
standards.
On Monday, the local government committee approved a bill by Senate
Republican Leader Ross Johnson of Irvine that would give employees in bars,
taverns and cardrooms a chance to light up on their breaks without having
to step outside. Under the California Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 1994,
employers may designate break rooms for smoking if proper exhaust systems
are in place, and if employees are not required to work in or walk through
the smoking area while performing their tasks.
Labor groups said Johnson's bill was unnecessary, but supporters said there
was confusion over whether the law covered drinking establishments, which
were exempted from the original smoking ban until Jan. 1.
Assembly Committee Rejects Plan
SACRAMENTO -- Yet another attempt to allow smokers back into California
bars was snuffed out Monday, but tavern employees who want to light up in a
smoking-designated break room won a small victory from the same legislative
committee.
A bill introduced by Sen. William ``Pete'' Knight, R-Palmdale, would have
allowed bars to be designated as smoking establishments if employees
consent to work in a smoky environment, or if adequate ventilation systems
are installed to accommodate non-smoking workers.
The bill (SB 1513) was killed on an 8-8 vote, largely divided along party
lines, by the Assembly Local Government Committee. Democrats lined up on
the side of labor, which opposed the bill, while Republicans said the
free-market system should allow business owners to decide whether to allow
smoking. Only two Democrats sided with Republicans, while another Democrat
abstained from voting.
Michael Hambrick, senior vice president of the National Smokers Alliance,
an organization of 300,000 California smokers and bar owners that is
heavily financed by three tobacco companies, said the group will continue
to push for an exemption to California's stringent, 6-month-old bar smoking
ban. More than 20 tavern owners lined up in support of the bill, telling
members revenues were down more than 60 percent in some cases, prompting
layoffs of bartenders, waiters and waitresses.
The tavern owners ``are telling (lawmakers) to get out of their ivory
towers, get in the real world, put their butts on the bar stool and feel
our economic pain,'' Hambrick said.
But labor groups and medical and health associations said their surveys
show that most Californians support the smoking ban. They point to state
tax records that show revenues in small bars and restaurants actually rose
1 percent in January, the first month of the ban, compared with the same
month last year.
``What this bill does is gut the protections of (the state law) that all
employees of this state deserve: protections from being exposed to
carcinogens that cause lung cancer and heart disease,'' said Tom Rankin of
the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
Knight's measure would have allowed employers to pay an annual $50 fee and
apply for a Class I smoking lounge permit from the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control. The permit requires all employees to consent to working
in an establishment that allows smoking. If workers don't agree, a bar
owner could pay $100 a year and apply for a Class II permit, but would also
have to install an air ventilation system approved by the State Building
Standards Commission.
With either permit, bar owners would have to post signs indicating smoking
is allowed and accommodate employees who do not want to work in smoking
sections. Employers who coerce workers into working in areas against their
will would face a maximum $7,000 fine per violation.
Knight's bill represents the fourth attempt this legislative session to try
to overturn the smoking ban in California bars, taverns and cardrooms. Two
bills that sought to exempt bars from the law for another three years died
in the Senate. The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee killed another
bill written by the labor committee chairman, Dick Floyd, D-Carson, that
would have exempted bars until the federal government adopted ventilation
standards.
On Monday, the local government committee approved a bill by Senate
Republican Leader Ross Johnson of Irvine that would give employees in bars,
taverns and cardrooms a chance to light up on their breaks without having
to step outside. Under the California Smoke-Free Workplace Act of 1994,
employers may designate break rooms for smoking if proper exhaust systems
are in place, and if employees are not required to work in or walk through
the smoking area while performing their tasks.
Labor groups said Johnson's bill was unnecessary, but supporters said there
was confusion over whether the law covered drinking establishments, which
were exempted from the original smoking ban until Jan. 1.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...