Just as the title says, GE's smoking policy effective Jan 1, 2011 bans all smoking INCLUDING e-cigarettes
GE bans smoking on all its properties - including e-cigarettes
- Thread starter Can_supplier
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
... and all that does is open smoking throughout the entire site vice posted areas. WTG GE.
So why the ban on ecigs? It's not smoking....ignorant buttwholes again.
Last edited:
Yeah, a posting on the wall...
Looked for a link even on the company website, but none specify e-cigarettes. I do assure you that "e-cigarettes included" is posted.
Rob, I'm all for sounding the alert on things...and I agree, better to be too alert than not alert enough. But I can't find anything at all on any of GE's sites when I search nicotine, or tobacco, or cigarettes, etc etc etc. Let alone electronic cigarettes or vaping.
The only thing I found was an announcement from last March, saying they planned to make their workplaces tobacco-free in 2011. Fine. Also, according to the announcement the policy will only address at-work behaviour.
But as we all know...a battery, cartridge, atomizer & e-juice...these things are not tobacco. Even the optional nicotine in the e-juice...not tobacco. Or is GE planning to fire anyone they catch wearing a patch or chewing NRT gum?
Just saying let's not look for problems until they're clearly happening. I don't see any evidence that GE even knows about vaping at all, or that they plan to ban it. Just as I don't see any evidence that they would plan to ban gums or patches.
The only thing I found was an announcement from last March, saying they planned to make their workplaces tobacco-free in 2011. Fine. Also, according to the announcement the policy will only address at-work behaviour.
But as we all know...a battery, cartridge, atomizer & e-juice...these things are not tobacco. Even the optional nicotine in the e-juice...not tobacco. Or is GE planning to fire anyone they catch wearing a patch or chewing NRT gum?
Just saying let's not look for problems until they're clearly happening. I don't see any evidence that GE even knows about vaping at all, or that they plan to ban it. Just as I don't see any evidence that they would plan to ban gums or patches.
Well, I guess with the latest US court ruling deeming them as tobacco products it will become irrelevant "what" you call them when gov/corps start wording their policies to ban "tobacco use" instead of "smoking". After all, nicotine IS a product of tobacco as far as I'm aware.
I'm not saying its proper..... but lets be realistic and see that this new declaration will allow those in 'any' charge a further word play to govern 'behaviour' through nanny-ism (warranted or not).
I'm not saying its proper..... but lets be realistic and see that this new declaration will allow those in 'any' charge a further word play to govern 'behaviour' through nanny-ism (warranted or not).
Just saying let's not look for problems until they're clearly happening. I don't see any evidence that GE even knows about vaping at all, or that they plan to ban it. Just as I don't see any evidence that they would plan to ban gums or patches.
Rachel, it is happening. I am not making this up.
As I said, I can't find an online reference.
I have been aware of the smoking ban at GE, and up until yesterday, I had no idea that it applied to e-cigarettes. For the reason you state, it isn't published online anywhere I can find. I have a friend who works there who called to tell me. Of course I questioned him, so much so I had to go and see it myself.
I assure you at site there are posters on the walls saying "No smoking, no tobacco products bla bla bla e-cigarettes included" I saw it with my own eyes.
If you still don't believe me, I can go take a picture of the poster if you like
Also if you search deep enough on this subject, you will find an American e-cig company that is giving a discount to GE workers, on I assume the assumption they can use them. So this really did come from out in left field.
Maybe this is an overzealous person in the Canadian division, or an overzealous person site specific. But again, it is posted on the walls, which by plant regulations must be an approved company communication. Again, I assure you it is there.
Last edited:
Guess they should ban poppy seed buns because poppys produce opium?
Nanny-ism is never grounded in reality.
What needs to be said here is that after 25 years the powers to be has turned society against smokers while still lining their pockets. Folks do not care what it is. As far as they are concerned (the public at large) we are degenerate nicotine addicts, nothing more nothing less.
It took 25 years to get to this stage, do we think we are going to change public perception overnight? "Smoking Everywhere" <---- is perhaps where it started, oh yeah! I don't think so Tim.
My last job there were to be no smoking on the property. The entire complex was turned into an ashtray vice designated smoking areas. If caught, company policy = termination, and yes they could do it. It was a term of your employment.
It took 25 years to get to this stage, do we think we are going to change public perception overnight? "Smoking Everywhere" <---- is perhaps where it started, oh yeah! I don't think so Tim.
My last job there were to be no smoking on the property. The entire complex was turned into an ashtray vice designated smoking areas. If caught, company policy = termination, and yes they could do it. It was a term of your employment.
Funny you should mention that because you will test positive for narcotics with a urine sample.
@ Switched- It takes a LOT of poppyseed bagels for it to show up, and even then it's a trace amount. It will hit as a "positive" but a follow-up test will screen it as "trace levels".
Nice to see someone else from Dartmouth here! You aren't buy chance the person who demo'd their PV to my Wife and I at the Company Xmas Party at the Citadel Hotel are you?
Nice to see someone else from Dartmouth here! You aren't buy chance the person who demo'd their PV to my Wife and I at the Company Xmas Party at the Citadel Hotel are you?
Rob, my apologies - I didn't mean to imply you were making things up. That was by no means my intention. I know you're a good and totally honest guy!
I was just saying I couldn't find anything about it...and pointing out that firing someone for vaping would be the equivalent of firing someone for using a patch or NRT gum (something I seriously doubt any company like G.E. would ever do).
Anyway, I realize now that you weren't reading something into it that wasn't there. I hadn't realized earlier that you'd spoken with someone who works there. Don't worry man - I trust you.
All I can say is...geez. Vapers who work there should approach their management & HR people, calmly explain the whole deal with vaping & thereby explain that it doesn't belong lumped in with the tobacco/smoking ban. Vaping doesn't produce smoke. E-juice contains no tobacco (and doesn't even necessarily contain nicotine). It isn't harmful, and it should be allowed. I mean seriously, I presume that G.E. is not going to have a problem with employees using patches or gums while at work...right?
My understanding of employer/employee rights is not particularly strong. But my admittedly ill-informed guess is that private employers can put in place just about any ridiculous "requirement" that they want to, so long as it doesn't discriminate in regards to sex/gender, religion or colour...and employees who don't like the crazy restrictions can hit the bricks. The flip side of this coin is that hated employers do not draw the cream of the crop from the employment pool. Ultimately, stupid policy that creates an atmosphere of distrust & confrontation between employer & employee, can hurt profits.
At any rate...if what they're doing is legal, then it's their dime. Employees who vape will have to hope they can explain things to those in charge & get a reasonable amendment to the decision re: vaping...or start looking in the Classifieds for a better job elsewhere.
Though I don't actually know whether this sort of sweeping ban constitutes something employees can legitimately protest against...so it's theoretically possible that there's a real case against G.E. here. I mean they definitely seem to me to be overstepping the bounds of reasonability.
What exactly is their basis for banning vaping? What is their basis for banning patches/gums? Why don't they ban coffe (or caffeine altogether) too? How are they going to enforce all this baloney? Will they start watching employees like a hawk as they take their breaks or lunches? Spying on them in the bathrooms? Urine testing every day? This b.s. is totally counterproductive to any of G.E.'s real business goals. It'll just drive reasonable people away from there to go work for their competitors (and drive G.E.'s stock value down).
I mean I sure as hell wouldn't want to work for such an overbearing employer...would you?
I was just saying I couldn't find anything about it...and pointing out that firing someone for vaping would be the equivalent of firing someone for using a patch or NRT gum (something I seriously doubt any company like G.E. would ever do).
Anyway, I realize now that you weren't reading something into it that wasn't there. I hadn't realized earlier that you'd spoken with someone who works there. Don't worry man - I trust you.
All I can say is...geez. Vapers who work there should approach their management & HR people, calmly explain the whole deal with vaping & thereby explain that it doesn't belong lumped in with the tobacco/smoking ban. Vaping doesn't produce smoke. E-juice contains no tobacco (and doesn't even necessarily contain nicotine). It isn't harmful, and it should be allowed. I mean seriously, I presume that G.E. is not going to have a problem with employees using patches or gums while at work...right?
My understanding of employer/employee rights is not particularly strong. But my admittedly ill-informed guess is that private employers can put in place just about any ridiculous "requirement" that they want to, so long as it doesn't discriminate in regards to sex/gender, religion or colour...and employees who don't like the crazy restrictions can hit the bricks. The flip side of this coin is that hated employers do not draw the cream of the crop from the employment pool. Ultimately, stupid policy that creates an atmosphere of distrust & confrontation between employer & employee, can hurt profits.
At any rate...if what they're doing is legal, then it's their dime. Employees who vape will have to hope they can explain things to those in charge & get a reasonable amendment to the decision re: vaping...or start looking in the Classifieds for a better job elsewhere.
Though I don't actually know whether this sort of sweeping ban constitutes something employees can legitimately protest against...so it's theoretically possible that there's a real case against G.E. here. I mean they definitely seem to me to be overstepping the bounds of reasonability.
What exactly is their basis for banning vaping? What is their basis for banning patches/gums? Why don't they ban coffe (or caffeine altogether) too? How are they going to enforce all this baloney? Will they start watching employees like a hawk as they take their breaks or lunches? Spying on them in the bathrooms? Urine testing every day? This b.s. is totally counterproductive to any of G.E.'s real business goals. It'll just drive reasonable people away from there to go work for their competitors (and drive G.E.'s stock value down).
I mean I sure as hell wouldn't want to work for such an overbearing employer...would you?
Last edited:
What if your employment pre-dates the policy?
What we have here is someone taking part in a legal activity (yes smoking is still legal) but the company can fire you for it. What is the difference if they made a policy that they could fire you if you drank Coke? Where is the line drawn?
I'm sure someone will bring up the an example like playing the bagpipes is legal, but if you do it at your desk, you could get fired for it. However in a case like that the reason behind your termination is you are disrupting others work.
Even dress code. It could be argued that if fired for that its not because of the cloths themselves but rather how you affect the company's image.
I fail to see how a company has any legal ground to fire someone for a legal activity, smoking outdoors, that is not causing the company, or anyone, any harm.
The real killer here is the shop floor hourly workers CANNOT leave the grounds any time during their 8 hour shift. Take a 30 year smoker, who as we can all relate to, can't quit. He smoked for all those 30 years he worked for you. Now you lock him up for 8 hours and take away his addiction? WOW. You have to be a non-smoker and an idiot to even consider doing that to someone.
Agreed, Rob. Good post. I'm no fan of smoking anymore...but I completely agree that telling smokers they can't even go outside - outside! - to an outdoor smoking area to have a puff during their break or lunch, is pretty damn unreasonable.
Rob, my apologies - I didn't mean to imply you were making things up. That was by no means my intention. I know you're a good and totally honest guy!I mean I sure as hell wouldn't want to work for such an overbearing employer...would you?
Rachel, I completely understand your skepticism. I had to go see the posting with my own eyes. I really should’ve taken a picture, because it is one of those things that is so hard to believe it doesn’t matter the source.
Also nicotine replacement therapy is offered and allowed. But we all know how well that works. Ironic to, going back to smokum point that nicotine comes from tobacco. Same is true for the gum and patch.
It’s not about wanting to work for someone, rather than having to work for someone.. Are you going to walk away from $27/hour as unskilled labor in this economy? That’s the catch.
The problem with discussing something like this with HR is they push the issue off, which in a large company is very easy to do. Here is what happens, you got see plant HR and plead your case. They (fake) tell you how sympatric they are for you, and what a good point you raise BUT it is out of their hands, it comes from the next level up. IF you go to the next level up, same story. Until you reach the top. Then the answer is “we are a global company with 999999 sites, all 9999998 of them are complying with the regulation, so you will to”. Of course that is the answer they give all the 99999 others as they try the same thing individually. Plus with smokers being only 20% of the workforce, you don’t have the support of the other 80%, so you get the “majority of employees support this”. It’s a lost cause, just plain outnumbered. That’s how it played out when the union tried to address the smoking issue for the guys that just can’t quit. I doubt it will be any different for e-cigarettes. It’s not about caring, it’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about control, and “we know best”
I wish there was more support for this, because nanny-ism won’t stop there. The 80% that don’t smoke don’t care. I wish they will see once something like this gets started, it doesn’t stop. Mark my words, next will be companies controlling what you eat. We are already seeing it starting in schools, the exact same way smoking bans started.
Rob...that's completely hypocritical of G.E. to allow (& even offer) traditional NRT, with it's 90 to 95% failure rate...but disallow vaping. Just because they can do a stupid thing like this, does not mean it makes any sense for them to do it.
I still wonder how exactly they intend to enforce all this baloney. Are they going to start watching people like a hawk everywhere they go (including in the bathrooms)? Requiring daily urine tests? And for what? For a policy that is so obviously flawed & hypocritical...a policy that will create a workplace atmosphere of distrust, confrontation, unhappiness & stress. This is a recipe for reduced efficiency, reduced productivity, & higher employee turnover.
I still wonder how exactly they intend to enforce all this baloney. Are they going to start watching people like a hawk everywhere they go (including in the bathrooms)? Requiring daily urine tests? And for what? For a policy that is so obviously flawed & hypocritical...a policy that will create a workplace atmosphere of distrust, confrontation, unhappiness & stress. This is a recipe for reduced efficiency, reduced productivity, & higher employee turnover.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
