Let's ban stress in the workplace

No employee should have to work in a dangerous workplace, so let's ban stress, or at least those people who cause stress in the workplace: customers, coworkers, and bosses.

http://www.stress.org/job.htm

60% to 80% of on the job accidents are stress related.
There are 6-7000 on the job deaths every year. There are 10x as many job related deaths every year. I feel it's safe to say that job stress kills some 40-50,000 people a year. For comparison, second hand smoke from all sources according to the institutes that have a strong vested interest in eliminating it, kills roughly the same amount. That's roughly 40,000 heart related second hand smoking deaths (apparently not due to being overweight, lacking exercice, eating poorly, or STRESS) and 3,000 deaths due to lung cancer (also apparently not due to xylene, toluene, uranium, etc. spewed daily into our environment thanks to fossil fuel use).


http://www.thinkandask.com/news/smoking.html
14 'first-world' nations have higher life expectancies AND a greater proportion of adult smokers

Full disclosure, I frequent bars. I generally don't like a lot of smoke in my bars. I visited Ireland pre-ban, and found my eyes watering in the bars there. I occasionally bum a cigarrette from my friends, usually while I'm in a bar. Every bar I've ever been to that effectively banned smoking, sucked: E-clubs, airport bars, bars in malls, bars in montgomery county, MD, bars without decks in Delaware. I haven't been to NYC since they've banned smoking. I feel that the smoking ban movement is not truly about worker safety (which I support) but rather about the apathy of the majority coupled with the crusade of the vocal minority. If the goal is merely worker protection, why then aren't employers allowed to protect their workers as they do in other industries: separation, ventilation, and filtration?

banning jobs. So there won't be any need for co-workers and bosses. There won't be very many customers either over time because those out-of-work, won't have any money to shop with.

when the fascist nanny state did away with it. It was such a cheap and effective way to retard flames. I mean, we couldn't totally rid the workplace of ALL carcinogens so why try? Smoking in the workplace or public places is sooooo necessary. What would we ever do if people can't walk around with a silly little burning stick of rolled up tobacco and paper.

People like smoking. Workers could serve smokers from a safe atmosphere.

And, having worked in the asbestos remediation field, I can tell you that, aside from boilers, piping, and spray on insulation, the backlash against asbestos was more about big payouts than any sort of safety.

Also, he was a belligerent smoker who refused to obey the indoor smoking laws until he was cited by the city.

Any links to prove asbestos is over rated? And I don't mean from defense attorneys or asbestos related companies. I believe Halliburton is caught up in those.

I too worked in the construction field along side asbestos remediation companies. We used to do schools.

As if women couldn't decide for themselves if they wanted to work in a placelike that or not!

and rat droppings, salmonella, heavy machinery with no safety guards, dwarf tossing, knife fights, gun fights, buildings without fire escapes etc. etc.

damn nanny-staters

After all, think what you would eliminate. Workplace injuries, flu and illnesses spread through workplaces, work taking you away from family, more time to exercise, for jury duty, for voting....

Wait, now I remember why. No work, no eat. I forgot.

That might be the difference between banning smoking and banning stress. One's a necessary incident of working, and one isn't.

those certain people - we all know who they are - just assholes who seem to live to make our lives more miserable......get rid of those f***ing people and 90% of the stress would go