Today researchers released two reports that validate the social benefits of smoking bans. By snuffing out the habit in restaurants and other public places, the often-controversial laws typically reduce heart attacks by 17% during the first year of enactment, concluded one of the studies. The other pegged the decrease at 26%.
The second study asserted that 154,000 people could be spared coronaries if a nationwide smoking ban was implemented.
Clearly the findings should steamroll the opposition to bans, a resistance that has often included restaurants. Still uncertain is how the industry will respond to this character-defining moment.
Is it going to react as it usually does, bashing the research and resorting to the black-and-white view that any burden on business is bad, anything less than a pro-business stance completely intolerable? Or will it take a more enlightened and realistic path, recognizing that many of its own members no longer embrace the sensibility that any management intrusion or strain on profits is intolerable? They no longer view issues like smoking bans, nutrition disclosure, or kids-marketing guidelines as the end of capitalism.
They’d prefer a creative accommodation of social causes, particularly when the result is an undeniable good.
Yet, even with the report pages barely creased, some industry members were lapsing into the old argument that they couldn’t survive another business-dampening measure.
This might trigger a few heart attacks, but I think the industry should drop the no-way line and instead push for a national smoking ban. One prohibition, from Maine to the westernmost Aleutians.
Fighting bans on a county-by-county or state-by-state basis is like trying to hold back the tide, especially with today’s indictment of the no-at-any-cost stance. The battle was turned long ago. The industry has to recognize that patrons who want to smoke should get takeout and climb back into their horse and buggies.
Practicalities aside, the industry would reach out to a younger constituency that can't abide the old-guard stances. They have trouble with the industry’s defense of menu items that pack thousands of calories or hundreds of salt grams. They’re sympathetic to demands that restaurants push their suppliers for more sustainable practices, from field to fork, and understand that ecological considerations have to be addressed. They'd like the industry to be a kindler, gentler employer, even if that means a higher outlay for labor.
I addressed a culinary class last Thursday and mentioned Starbucks’ health-care policy. It offers coverage to all staffers, including part-timers. Many of the students nodded their heads in agreement and admiration, as if to say, “’Bout time someone did.”
But if you think we’re about to join hands and launch into a rousing rendition of “Kumbaya,” don’t worry about needing any Purell. Instead of joining hands, make yours into a fist, and then aim it at the casino industry.
Because of the money that business generates, it has succeeded in wresting an exception to several smoking bans that affect virtually other service business. The argument can be summed up as, “Yes we did!”
That nonsense has to stop. If consumers can’t smoke in your places, they shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in casinos, either. Same with bars, airports, parks, bowling alleys, bingo halls, baseball stadiums, even churches. And restaurants should say as much, loud and clear.
If they’re going to do the right thing, do it all the way.
Showing posts with label green laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green laws. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Ted Kennedy & the restaurant industry
The restaurant industry lost one of its steadfast adversaries last week, the legendary Sen. Ted Kennedy. Even his bitterest opponents wouldn’t disrespect such a man by relishing his passing. But some in the business may secretly harbor relief, remembering Kennedy’s ardent fight for minimum wage hikes, worker benefits like parental leave, and any number of measures that foisted new costs and responsibilities on the trade.
It’s a shame their ideology blinds them from learning two key lessons from a 46-year public servant who undoubtedly ranks among the most committed ever to serve in the U.S. Senate.
At the very least, they should appreciate the fervor that drives someone who’s acting out of conviction to his ideals. Often, though less so today, restaurateurs oppose a law, regulation or social movement solely on the basis that it’ll cost them money, time or aggravation. They seem flummoxed that an undue burden on business isn’t enough of an objection to halt the other side.
The fallback is to equate the burden to lost jobs, as if anyone would really believe their motivation is keeping entry-level employment at the highest possible level.
Financial hardship is certainly a valid reason to oppose a measure. But some restaurateurs fail to appreciate that their opponents may, like Kennedy, be pushing a measure because they burn with the certainty it delivers a higher good. Arguing that something will cut profits just seems callused when the other side is insisting with conviction that a change in the status quo will help families, children, education, the underprivileged, social well-being, upward mobility, the hungry, or just leveling the playing field. Shortchanging investors or business owners is hardly the kryptonite counterargument against such righteous zeal.
It’s especially important for the trade to appreciate that ardor as values are reshaped by the recession. In a great social paradox, being harder pressed for money has prompted many people to downgrade its importance and elevate intangibles like connection, quality of life or having purpose. The industry can see it in dynamics like youngsters accepting lower wages for a position that resonates more with their principles. Is working for a greener company worth collecting 50 cents less an hour? How many of you would doubt it?
Similarly, survey after survey has shown that consumers are willing to pay more at a business that assumes a responsibility to the environment. Even with less to spend, they want to spend it with principle. Economics are trumped by values.
So what’s the industry to do to protect its business interests in a reasonable fashion?
As the posthumous tributes have all noted, Kennedy was the master of compromise and coalition-building. For too long, the industry’s lobbying position could be summed up as, “No.” No way, no how, no further discussion. Pitched opposition was the default setting.
Wouldn’t it be better to be a little Kennedy-esque? To work with adversaries and allies alike to find alternatives that protect business without drowning out other concerns, or refusing to shoulder some of the burden needed to benefit society as a whole?
The trade did it with the menu-disclosure bills that were introduced last year—accepting the concept of calorie counts being posted on chain menus, but tempering the requirements to ease the wallop.
Some industry old-timers must’ve clutched their chests when they saw the business calling for menu labeling, once the trade’s Freddie Krueger of causes.
But it will hopefully serve as a working model, in part because attitudes are changing within the industry’s workforce. An associate who works with tomorrow’s management says his young charges can’t understand why the business is always lining up on the wrong side of issues—matters like health, or worker benefits like sick leave, or, most pointedly of all, the environment. They’re often dismayed, if not embarrassed, by the trade’s political stance.
You can readily see it in the greening effort. Staffs are impatient with their employers’ commitment to sustainability. More expensive? So what? Many would no doubt favor government mandates to force the movement along.
The industry should do itself a favor and harness that zeal. With a little of what Kennedy practiced, it could use their ardor to hammer out a solution, instead of fostering a split between old and new attitudes.
It’s a shame their ideology blinds them from learning two key lessons from a 46-year public servant who undoubtedly ranks among the most committed ever to serve in the U.S. Senate.
At the very least, they should appreciate the fervor that drives someone who’s acting out of conviction to his ideals. Often, though less so today, restaurateurs oppose a law, regulation or social movement solely on the basis that it’ll cost them money, time or aggravation. They seem flummoxed that an undue burden on business isn’t enough of an objection to halt the other side.
The fallback is to equate the burden to lost jobs, as if anyone would really believe their motivation is keeping entry-level employment at the highest possible level.
Financial hardship is certainly a valid reason to oppose a measure. But some restaurateurs fail to appreciate that their opponents may, like Kennedy, be pushing a measure because they burn with the certainty it delivers a higher good. Arguing that something will cut profits just seems callused when the other side is insisting with conviction that a change in the status quo will help families, children, education, the underprivileged, social well-being, upward mobility, the hungry, or just leveling the playing field. Shortchanging investors or business owners is hardly the kryptonite counterargument against such righteous zeal.
It’s especially important for the trade to appreciate that ardor as values are reshaped by the recession. In a great social paradox, being harder pressed for money has prompted many people to downgrade its importance and elevate intangibles like connection, quality of life or having purpose. The industry can see it in dynamics like youngsters accepting lower wages for a position that resonates more with their principles. Is working for a greener company worth collecting 50 cents less an hour? How many of you would doubt it?
Similarly, survey after survey has shown that consumers are willing to pay more at a business that assumes a responsibility to the environment. Even with less to spend, they want to spend it with principle. Economics are trumped by values.
So what’s the industry to do to protect its business interests in a reasonable fashion?
As the posthumous tributes have all noted, Kennedy was the master of compromise and coalition-building. For too long, the industry’s lobbying position could be summed up as, “No.” No way, no how, no further discussion. Pitched opposition was the default setting.
Wouldn’t it be better to be a little Kennedy-esque? To work with adversaries and allies alike to find alternatives that protect business without drowning out other concerns, or refusing to shoulder some of the burden needed to benefit society as a whole?
The trade did it with the menu-disclosure bills that were introduced last year—accepting the concept of calorie counts being posted on chain menus, but tempering the requirements to ease the wallop.
Some industry old-timers must’ve clutched their chests when they saw the business calling for menu labeling, once the trade’s Freddie Krueger of causes.
But it will hopefully serve as a working model, in part because attitudes are changing within the industry’s workforce. An associate who works with tomorrow’s management says his young charges can’t understand why the business is always lining up on the wrong side of issues—matters like health, or worker benefits like sick leave, or, most pointedly of all, the environment. They’re often dismayed, if not embarrassed, by the trade’s political stance.
You can readily see it in the greening effort. Staffs are impatient with their employers’ commitment to sustainability. More expensive? So what? Many would no doubt favor government mandates to force the movement along.
The industry should do itself a favor and harness that zeal. With a little of what Kennedy practiced, it could use their ardor to hammer out a solution, instead of fostering a split between old and new attitudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
