Help me avoid the HR crackdown!

[BlueMoods]

I pitched a fit when my employer tired that - flat out asked if he was going to pay for it, as well as continue sending my check to my family when I go cancer form second hand smoke because he forced me to go to the smoking area to vape. Next day, the smoking area was on one side of the building as it had always been, the vaping area was on the other side. Didn't get it back indoors but, got it equal to smoking and, fair to those of us that do not want second hand smoke any more than we want to smoke.

 

[EddardinWinter]

How about it make some of the other employees uncomfortable.

Come on no love for the politically incorrect reference to going postal I know some one had to crack a smile!

There you go. Approval of a Pseudo-Intellectual Wannabe Anarchist. Maybe you were better off without my endorsement....

 

[Uncle Willie]

It is much easier to appease the majority of employees in any closed work environment than it is to appease the minority that want to use a PV ..

Use of a PV appears to look like smoke ..

A non-smoker or former smoker could care less what the justification of using the PV is ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

How about it make some of the other employees uncomfortable.

Come on no love for the politically incorrect reference to going postal I know some one had to crack a smile!

Cracking a smile over a post like that .. ?? Really .. ?? .. Perhaps you can explain to me what makes it funny .. ??

 

[SissySpike]

There you go. Approval of a Pseudo-Intellectual Wannabe Anarchist. Maybe you were better off without my endorsement....

Thanks Edd now I feel better ;-) if that was a compliment not sure

 

[EddardinWinter]

Thanks Edd now I feel better ;-) if that was a compliment not sure

It is the best I can do...I doubt any respectable citizen will endorse your violent separatist suggestion.

 

[SissySpike]

It is the best I can do...I doubt any respectable citizen will endorse your violent separatist suggestion.

Well then Im glad your not respectable;-) You can share in the monetary burden I get from the law suit I get slapped on me cause if he dose it will be my fault.
but now your partially to blame to cause you endorsed my reckless irresponsible behavior. Thanks buddy your a swell guy!

 

[MJMcMahon]

I've sent a request to discuss to the HR contact and we'll see how far that gets me. I'll be sure to bring printed material from CASAA and the Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study to support my side of the debate.

Film at 11!

BTW buzzzlove - don't tempt me! I have a wide selection to choose from, although not so 'small caliber'

 

[Madison76]

I've sent a request to discuss to the HR contact and we'll see how far that gets me. I'll be sure to bring printed material from CASAA and the Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study to support my side of the debate.

Film at 11!

BTW buzzzlove - don't tempt me! I have a wide selection to choose from, although not so 'small caliber'

Of course I am curious to see how this plays out, but hope you aren't pushing things at the expense of your job.

 

[Micgyver]

I think you should be glad that that establishment has not taken the route that some hospitals/companies have : to test for nicotine in your body as a drug and release you for failing a drug test. When you test positive for a LEGAL drug and get fired then it gives them control over you 24/7, including the hours you are not even paid for. What are we supposed to do about that?

 

[Myk]

I think you should be glad that that establishment has not taken the route that some hospitals/companies have : to test for nicotine in your body as a drug and release you for failing a drug test. When you test positive for a LEGAL drug and get fired then it gives them control over you 24/7, including the hours you are not even paid for. What are we supposed to do about that?

Want worse than that?
Nicotine in conjunction with my prescribed IBD drugs makes them something like 30%-40% more effective.

When I switched to ecigs at 11mg I was in a flare (undiagnosed at that point), it got worse. Convinced I had cancer I started cutting nicotine, it got really worse. I stayed off nicotine while being tested in case it was Crohn's or cancer, continued bleeding through the summer until I got an Ulcerative Colitis diagnosis and got the OK to add nicotine back into my mix.

Now the really bad part, most of the places that ban nicotine in the blood are hospitals who know nicotine is a recognized therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

Nicotine users need to start suing. Except I think smokers have become so used to be walked on and kicked around they don't consider that possibility even when they have grounds to sue and they're no longer smokers.

 

[DC2]

Nicotine users need to start suing. Except I think smokers have become so used to be walked on and kicked around they don't consider that possibility even when they have grounds to sue and they're no longer smokers.

Lawsuits would be the quickest way to change things.
But in order to sue, there has to be damages that can be proven in court.

Over time the court of public opinion is going to see things our way.
But that is going to take a very long time without some sort of high visibility event to speed things up.

 

[Myk]

Lawsuits would be the quickest way to change things.
But in order to sue, there has to be damages that can be proven in court.

Over time the court of public opinion is going to see things our way.
But that is going to take a very long time without some sort of high visibility event to speed things up.

Does there need to be damages or will a claim of possible damages be enough?
Who sued the tobacco companies? Only a few people who had actual problems they claimed were caused by tobacco sued. The big suit was the government who jumped on the bandwagon to claim possible damages to take the money away from the people with the actual damages and protect the tobacco companies from getting more lawsuits from those with the actual damages.

The real question is can you find an ambulance chasing lawyer who will take the case where you don't pay until you win.
If I go in the hospital and can't stealth or have to go outside for a cigarette because the patches I'm sure they'll be willing to sell me don't work to replace smoking and get back on a smoking addiction and I have to stay in the hospital longer because the lack of nicotine causes a flare that keeps me in the hospital or I go back to smoking because of their rules I'll be calling our local ambulance chaser.
If I go into the hospital and end up with a colectomy because their nicotine free policy makes something minor become major then we're talking real damages.

The libertarian in me says it comes down to force. You're not forced to accept the job wants to control your blood. You're not forced to go into a hospital that doesn't allow nicotine. You're not forced to vape in a smoking area. But that has already been overruled by the courts when they ignored that nobody was forced to smoke or inhale second hand smoke.

"Force" me, a vaper to inhale smoke in a smoking area, you're accepting the responsibility just like the tobacco companies were forced to accept.

 

[DC2]

Does there need to be damages or will a claim of possible damages be enough?

My understanding is that you have to prove damages.
Basically, when you sue, you are suing to be made whole for specific damages that you suffered.

 

[Myk]

My understanding is that you have to prove damages.
Basically, when you sue, you are suing to be made whole for specific damages that you suffered.

I agree, but they didn't seem to follow that with second hand smoke and smoking suits. Just like they didn't follow the, "nobody forced you (to work/smoke)" rule.

If I go into the hospital, given my reaction to no nicotine last time I'd expect to get dramatically worse (if I follow their no nicotine, except you can buy our overpriced patches, rule, which I don't plan on doing and don't foresee a problem given the reaction I've had from nurses to ecigs). I'd think it would be easy to prove damages.

 

[DC2]

I agree, but they didn't seem to follow that with second hand smoke and smoking suits.

My understanding is that the "states" sued the tobacco companies to recover the medical costs (damages) of treating smokers.

 

[house mouse]

I think you should be glad that that establishment has not taken the route that some hospitals/companies have : to test for nicotine in your body as a drug and release you for failing a drug test. When you test positive for a LEGAL drug and get fired then it gives them control over you 24/7, including the hours you are not even paid for. What are we supposed to do about that?

Move to a state that has laws that prohibit job discrimination based on tobacco use. Thanking God every day I live in one of those.

 

[Myk]

My understanding is that the "states" sued the tobacco companies to recover the medical costs (damages) of treating smokers.

*nudge nudge wink wink*

That makes requiring actual damages even less of an issue.
If the states paid it was through Medicare Medicaid, so they had already received the funds to run it. They had no added financial burden because of tobacco because any tobacco problem was already there and factored in.
Plus that lumps all those "smoking diseases" that aren't caused by smoking into it without proof of those actual damages.

Here's the Wiki run down of the settlement. Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use."

Got the actual damage? Sorry, you get nothing. Got unprovable financial damage that is simply claimed to be cause by smokers that you may or may not actually pay for? Sure, you can have the money.
Go down and see what Godshall has to say about it. It's protection money. Pay the government to protect you from liability.
The problem is they passed it off as legal precedence. So do we really need actual damages or can we get away with what the government had and just allege there could be possible damages?

The same with second hand smoke. There is no proof that it is harmful yet governments are passing laws to ban it for people's "safety". That makes it pretty hard for them to ignore forcing non-smokers into smoking areas as harmless until damages are proven.

 

[DC2]

The problem is they passed it off as legal precedence. So do we really need actual damages or can we get away with what the government had and just allege there could be possible damages?

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the tobacco companies not settled.
The question is would the court have determined there was enough evidence to prove actual damages directly caused by smoking.

The same with second hand smoke. There is no proof that it is harmful yet governments are passing laws to ban it for people's "safety". That makes it pretty hard for them to ignore forcing non-smokers into smoking areas as harmless until damages are proven.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but there is no way anyone would win a lawsuit based on being forced to vape in a smoking area.

I have been trying to find a way to prove some kind of damages so I can figure out who might be able to sue.
I think someone in your position might possibly have a case if you were fired from work for testing positive for nicotine.

 

[Myk]

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but there is no way anyone would win a lawsuit based on being forced to vape in a smoking area.

In a sane world I would agree. But we've moved way beyond living in a sane world with scientific evidence stating there is no problem with second hand smoke yet it's treated as there is. Some second hand smoke lawsuits have been thrown out, some have been won. Although I think the ones that have been won have been over the stink and not actual health claims.

I have been trying to find a way to prove some kind of damages so I can figure out who might be able to sue.
I think someone in your position might possibly have a case if you were fired from work for testing positive for nicotine.

Again, I think in a sane world I shouldn't be in that position because I have a choice not to work there, also in a sane world an employer wouldn't think of my blood as their property. (Literally, I interviewed at a place that pretty much demanded blood donations from employees.)

I do think we are in a sane enough world that I could tell the hypothetical employer why I need nicotine and show the studies and have an exemption made. But I'm gullible like that.