On 4/10/05 2:52 PM, "Michael Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's interesting that the "class" argument is brought up by a ban proponent. > I've discussed this earlier. The ban has elitist undertones to it....... ban > proponents are in it for the little guy because they know better than those > poor busboys what's better for them.... the very people who don't have a > "choice" to work but a smelly, noisy, smoky bars. Ban proponents are doing > them a favor and protecting them. Again, it's people like you and the > Minneapolis city council who know better for the little guy, the > minimum-wage bar backs and bar tenders and waitrons than they know for > themselves. Question: Is the ban simply about telling the "little guy" what's better for them, or is it perhaps advocating for the "little guy" who risks being fired if they speak up for themselves? Wasn't there a waitress in St. Paul who got fired last year from her job at Billy's on Grand after talking about how much better it was at her other job at Caf� Latte, where smoking was already prohibited? I'm pretty sure other bar employees took note of that. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
