How many jobs lost due to smoking ban?
?
Statewide employment in construction, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing were in worse shape than the U.S. average, according to the monthly report issued by the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development.
If a smoking ban goes state wide…..
– A Newsletter Reader
?
Minnesota jobless rate climbs
The April jobs report didn’t get good grades as the state lost its edge over the national average for the second time in recent months.
May 15, 2007
By Susan E. Peterson, Star Tribune
By Susan E. Peterson, Star Tribune
Minnesota’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate jumped to 4.5 percent in April from 4.2 percent in March, matching the U.S. unemployment rate for only the second time in history.
Statewide employment in construction, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing were in worse shape than the U.S. average, according to the monthly report issued by the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development.
“It’s a very disappointing report — you have to look hard to find a shred of good news,” state economist Tom Stinson said.
“Certainly it’s been a source of pride that we had been for over 30 years below the national unemployment rate, and frequently significantly so,” said Steve Hine, labor market research director at the department. While the state’s 4.5 percent rate “doesn’t come close to being as high as it has been during some of the recessions of the past … if nothing else, it eliminates those bragging rights we’ve had for three decades.”
Hine noted that the state’s unemployment rate had been 4.5 percent in February, the only other time the rate equaled the national rate, before dipping to 4.2 percent in March and then see-sawing back to 4.5 percent in April. “It’s an estimate based on a relatively small survey, so it’s not unusual for it to jump in one direction or another,” he said.
Still, “we’ve seen the rate trending upward for about the past year,” Hine added. “For the most part, we could attribute that upward trend to a growing labor force — an increased number of people and share of our population were entering the workforce. … What’s a little more disconcerting is that [April’s rate] came with a simultaneous decrease in the labor force and the participation rate.”
Overall, Minnesota added 500 jobs in April. Among the state sectors showing job gains were education and health services, up 3,600 (partly because of a measurement change), trade, transportation and utilities, up 1,700, and government, up 1,600.
Losers for the month were construction, down 2,500 jobs, or 1.9 percent; manufacturing, down 2,000 jobs, or 0.6 percent, and leisure and hospitality, down 2,100 jobs, or 0.8 percent. Nationwide, construction and manufacturing were down 0.1 percent in April, and leisure and hospitality was up 0.2 percent.
“We’re continuing to see residential building and the specialty trades remaining fairly stagnant,” Hine said. While growth in commercial and heavy construction jobs offset residential weakness in previous months, that didn’t happen in April. In manufacturing, last month saw weakness in the durable goods area, especially wood products, related to housing, he said.
Stinson said the weak payroll numbers “are, if anything, more troubling” than the unemployment rate.
“We added 500 jobs last month and 700 since January,” he said. “That’s just not what we expect for Minnesota’s economy,” which typically has added 3,000 to 4,000 jobs a month during normal times.
He said the number of continuing unemployment claims is another problem. “The last two months’ claims haven’t showed a seasonal decline,” he said. “Normally you see a lot of people suddenly hired back on in April and early May, so the number of people receiving unemployment declines pretty rapidly. This year there’s been a slight decline, but not anywhere near what we’d expect.”
Stinson said the state’s job woes are widespread.
“Across the entire span of sectors, there just isn’t anyplace where we’re doing very well, with the exception of health care,” he said. “That’s the only place we’re doing better than the U.S. average right now.”
He said “we need to be thinking about what we can do to enhance the growth prospects for Minnesota in the future.” Stinson cited the need for greater investment in research and development, which has fallen behind past levels, and bolstering the quality of the state’s workforce — “something that’s been our biggest selling point.”
He said the state also must deal with productivity issues that will arise as baby boomers leave the workforce in the next 10 years.
“We can replace the bodies, but we can’t necessarily replace all that knowledge,” he said. “If we figure out ways to smooth that transition, that’s going to put us steps ahead of states that don’t figure that out.”
Susan E. Peterson • 612-673-4506 • sepeterson@startribune.com
Susan E. Peterson • 612-673-4506 • sepeterson@startribune.com
How many jobs lost due to smoking ban?
by Brandt Williams, Minnesota Public Radio
November 29, 2005
November 29, 2005
 |
| The debate over smoking bans has not abated since they were established in several metro area communities in March 2005. It has pitted indoor air advocates against bar and restaurant owners. The Hennepin County board will soon decide whether to relax its smoking ban. (Photo by Chris Furlong/Getty Images) |
 |
The Hennepin County Board takes up a proposal Tuesday afternoon that would weaken the county’s smoking ban ordinance. Some opponents of the county’s current total ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and private clubs say the law is responsible for lost revenues and a loss of more than 2,000 jobs. However state unemployment numbers don’t necessarily support that claim.
Minneapolis, Minn. – Supporters of the Hennepin County smoking ban say the law protects not only the health of patrons, but the health of bar and restaurant employees as well. But critics of the ban argue that protection under the seven month-old ban has cost lots of bar employees their jobs.
“We have over 2,500 jobs lost already,” says Sue Jeffers. “Over a million dollars in lost revenues every month.”
Jeffers owns Stub and Herbs bar in Minneapolis. She’s part of a very vocal group of bar owners who have spoken out against the Hennepin County ban, before and after its passage.
 |
 |
||
|
|||
|
 Sue Jeffers |
|
|
|
|||
Jeffers, who says she opposes any smoking ban, says the ordinance has led to the closing of at least 40 bars. And she says it’s hurting related businesses, like her beer distributor.
“They have already eliminated one entire route,” says Jeffers. “Which is a lot of jobs, because their business was down 16 percent. It all just adds up over and over and over again.”
According to state unemployment data, Jeffers is partially right about the impact on bar and restaurant workers.
Unemployment claims for people in the food and drink business in Hennepin County have gone up since the ban was passed. But not by thousands or even hundreds. So far in 2005, 18 more claims were filed by county bar and restaurant workers than in 2004.
Unemployment claims among hospitality workers also went up in surrounding counties.
Ramsey County — which allows smoking in bars and private clubs — saw a 5 percent increase in unemployment claims between 2004 and 2005. With the exception of Washington County, the counties closest to Hennepin County — counties where smoking is not banned — have all experienced increases in unemployment claims. Some as high as 30 percent.
|
I’m so broke. I don’t know that I could get a job that would pay me enough that I could pay off the remaining bills.
– Matthew Lamphear, former bar owner |
|
Steve Hine is the research director at the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. He says he doesn’t have an explanation for the difference in numbers.
“We’d want to look at any discernible trends very carefully before we would go out on a limb and attribute any of these to particular events, including the smoking ban,” says Hine.
Hine says there are several factors that make it difficult to determine what’s behind employment trends in the restaurant and bar business. The first is getting comprehensive information on workers. Not everyone who loses a job files for unemployment, and some workers aren’t eligible. In order to file for benefits, a part-time worker has to have been employed, anywhere, for at least six months and have earned at least $1,250.
Hine says more than three-quarters of the people who work in bars and restaurants are part-time employees. He says many workers change jobs frequently and work multiple jobs.
Some say the fact that workers can change jobs so easily means the industry is doing fine, even with the smoking ban.
Richard Lange has owned and run the Minnesota School of Bartending for 38 years. Bars, restaurants, supper clubs and VFWs call his school in order find bartenders. And Lange says there’s still a demand for bartenders.
“We get lots of jobs,” he says. “They come in from all over. The percentage is still there as far as jobs. We get lots of jobs, hundreds of jobs.”
Lange says bars and restaurants will stay in business because people will still want to eat and drink. But he says it appears the smaller bars are taking a hit.
Data from the Hennepin County’s own economic impact report on the smoking ban shows smaller, neighborhood establishments have generally fared worse under the ban.
Matthew Lamphear is the former owner of Molly Quinn’s in Minneapolis. He says the smoking ban is the main reason he went out of business. Lamphear says in fact, trouble began for him the first day the law went into effect.
“I immediately had a 25 percent drop in customers,” says Lamphear.
Lamphear says his best customers, his smoking customers, took their business elsewhere. After three months, he began laying people off and closing his doors earlier.
Lamphear says eventually he had to close for good after he couldn’t afford to pay his bills, and vendors stopped delivering food and beer. His 27 employees had to find work elsewhere. Some, Lamphear says, are having trouble finding new jobs.
As for Lamphear, he says he’s developed a heart condition and is facing a debt of about $250,000.
“I foresee myself pushing a shopping cart, collecting aluminum cans,” he says. “I’m so broke. I don’t know that I could get a job that would pay me enough that I could pay off the remaining bills.”
The Hennepin County Board’s final vote on the proposal to change the smoking ban ordinance is expected to take place next month.
Prohibition isn’t working now either.
January 4, 2006
Hennepin County rolled back? its smoking ban. Duluth and Moorehead voters rolled back overly restrictive? bans. A statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants died in committee in the? legislature.
Prohibition did not work the first time, and it’s not? working now. There will always be a border, a casino or noncompliance as people? choose to use a legal, however unhealthy, product. That’s why more and more? communities are saying no to smoking ban advocates funded by state and? charitable money diverted from programs that actually help people quit smoking.? Minneapolis should be
next.
next.
Smoking bans have little to do with public? health. If the issue were public health, we’d be talking air quality standards,? not social engineering or a prohibition on individual behavior. Smoking? bans do not hurt big tobacco; they hurt small business owners, our employees and? customers. They divide communities and waste resources while a quarter of the? population continues to smoke.
The smoking ban advocates begin by picking? off communities who are the easiest and most gullible (and desperate for? their fundiing) with the empty promise of a statewide ban to follow. No surprise? Bloomington, Minneapolis, Golden Valley and Hennepin County fell quickly. But? Ramsey County balked. So have Meeker and Baltrami Counties. Other cities and? counties refused to fall for exaggerated claims and scare tactics of ban? supporters. Common sense prevailed.
In spite of the expensive lessons? learned from our local prohibition and the chaos that followed, we still hear a? call for a statewide smoking ban. Mistakenly looking for a so-called “level? playing field” that does not exist, desperate bar owners hope a 50/50 exemption? will save their businesses. The exemptions spelled out in the Minnesota Clear? Air Act did not satisfy the nanny state social engineers. Why should this? promised exemption mean anything?
Bar owners and our staff are a smart? bunch. We know that secondhand smoke is not mustard gas. We know that bars and? restaurants equipped with ventilation equipment have air quality higher than? OSHA standards. For the majority of non-smoking employees that work only a few? years in the hospitality business, statistics show the risk of diseases? associated with smoking is actually less than the general population. Those? of us that make a career in the hospitality industry do so because we love? the business, to imply otherwise is insulting.
Our business is? “hospitality.” We don’t dictate the behavior and lifestyle choices of others. A? majority of people do not smoke and prefer a non-smoking environment, and there? are many establishments that have voluntarily gone smoke-free. That creates a? market for those of us with businesses located in areas where people choose to? smoke. Those are the customers we serve.
We owners know best how to make? our businesses profitable. We wondered why the anti-smoking advocates’ economic? studies were accepted as fact while other studies clearly showing a negative? economic impact were ignored. We wondered why no one bothered to read the? studies. We wondered why no one cared about the small business owners and our? staffs.
New, published and peer reviewed studies, show up every day to? further support our claims. Cancer, heart attacks and asthma do not decline? after a ban. They remain the same or increase because banning smoking in bars? does not eliminate even a fraction of everyday environmental toxic exposure.? Non-smokers continue to come down with cancer and heart disease.
But for? smoking ban supporters, the vision of a smoke-free society justifies dictatorial? means. They offer no standard for defining a “public health risk” that ensures? government regulations are not arbitrary. Science, property rights, personal? responsibility, choice, tolerance and freedom are ignored.
The excessive? economic burden on local businesses is ignored and the flood of nonsmoking? customers promised by ban supporters fails to materialize. We watch our revenues? decline, businesses close and jobs disappear as smokers and their non-smoking? friends go elsewhere. We continue to wonder what a public health risk is and? when people will realize this failed experiment in social engineering has cost? far too much already. And no one is any healthier.
Wake up Minneapolis,? it’s your turn to roll back the ban now.
Sue Jeffers
Stub and Herb’s
227 Oak Street SE
Minneapolis, MN
612-384-4374
Sue Jeffers
Stub and Herb’s
227 Oak Street SE
Minneapolis, MN
612-384-4374
