Ontario Ministry of Labour called upon for a ruling of unsafe work.

[jfalbanese]

didn't we invade Canada Yet?

 

[Kagey K]

I was thinking of doing exactly that. I would like to ensure that more union members and employees become aware of this issue, and that they remember that they got called on their BS, so that hopefully this crap doesn't have to happen to anyone else. This might be the only way to accomplish that.

I agree with Projectguy, I think I'm going to try to present a case to the joint health and safety committee recommending removing the silly policy restrictions on bringing liquid or refilling etc... there's also an unused boardroom that is too noisy for people to use (loud ventilation, but not harmfully loud), I'm going to try and see if they'll let us vape indoors as long as we do it there. A dedicated vape room.

Although, maybe I should go for broke and recommend that the policy be removed entirely, so we can vape at our desks. After all, there's no harm.

Of course, all my preponderance may be moot, as the JH&S is comprised entirely of hardcore antz, as far as I can tell. They do not seem interested in facts or research, their minds are set.

I think we're on the right track though, and this whole situation seems a whole lot more manageable after this significant victory over ignorance and fear.

SloHand, making this thread was pure GENIUS! This is a lot of great thinking you've started here, and hopefully this will make it much easier going for the next sorry bastage this happens to.

You guys all should have seen the happy dance after we read that MOL report. LOL!

This entire scenario has been bureaucracy at it's finest and this where our dues and taxes are going to. Witch hunts and paying "professionals" Some of these studies, especially ones from credited universities with research grants should be as admissible as a general statement from Health Canada 3 years ago.

It would be a more effective use of money to give the research Universities the money rather than hiring consultants to read what we have already read a million times. .... that one recommendation even referenced many of the studies we have all already read. Slowhand could have printed it out and made a few grand if he was a consultant.

effing ridiculous. There needs to be a point where the walk offs get punished or you guys get reimbursed for the silliness and harassment this caused.

I prefer punishment for them so they won't be so easy think they can get paid for being at home for nothing.

 

[astounded]

Although, maybe I should go for broke and recommend that the policy be removed entirely, so we can vape at our desks. After all, there's no harm.
]

You might want to think about the fact that a lot of places are making accommodations for what I think is called MCS (multiple chemical sensitivities) and just stick with the unused room - I know some places ask you not to wear any scented body care products etc - They don't need to prove something is harmful just that somebody is affected by it.

I'm not trying to make any comment about whether or not this is right, just thinking it might be better to go for a win - in either case they should not require you to use the smoking area if you don't want to and should at minimum provide a separate outside vaping area! (And that one is likely enforceable under discrimination).

Of course if you have to pass anywhere near the smoking area on your way to/from work you could probably make a case for unsafe working conditions yourself ...

 

[Kagey K]

Although, maybe I should go for broke and recommend that the policy be removed entirely, so we can vape at our desks. After all, there's no harm.
]

You might want to think about the fact that a lot of places are making accommodations for what I think is called MCS (multiple chemical sensitivities) and just stick with the unused room - I know some places ask you not to wear any scented body care products etc - They don't need to prove something is harmful just that somebody is affected by it.

I'm not trying to make any comment about whether or not this is right, just thinking it might be better to go for a win - in either case they should not require you to use the smoking area if you don't want to and should at minimum provide a separate outside vaping area! (And that one is likely enforceable under discrimination).

Of course if you have to pass anywhere near the smoking area on your way to/from work you could probably make a case for unsafe working conditions yourself ...

Definitely you should not be subjected to the same rules. Would they make a non smoker go outside to chew gum? You switched to avoid the carcinogens and additives that cigs have to offer so if you are out in the pit with them, you might as well smoke as they will still be getting in your lungs.

This should be made very clear, you are not a smoker, you are not looking for nor getting many of the compounds in cigarettes, and if they try to force you out there they are putting your health at risk.

 

[SoUnique]

That's not necessarily true, not all vapers are non-smokers. I know a number that mostly vape, but still smoke cigarettes.

Was not trying to be as technical as you, so sorry. When a person is using a PV, they are vaping, so should not have to be exposed to second hand smoke, unless they choose to be.

 

[SloHand]

I have always maintained with management that this is all about harm reduction but I suspect that there response to us wanting to minimize or eliminate our exposure to second hand smoke will be one of two responses, 1) don't vape when your at work or 2) find a place outside that is away from the smokers.

Not saying that we should just rollover with that response but that will be the starting point.

I'm thinking that we have to get them to make a vaping policy that is 'attractive' enough that smokers will consider vaping. They can save face this way by being able to claim that they are helping ALL smokers find a safer alternative. As Goat has pointed out the indoor option would be ideal. I'm sure there are plenty of smokers who would be willing to make an effort at vaping when it's minus 20 outside and there was an indoor alternative

 

[Projectguy]

didn't we invade Canada Yet?

Yes but we removed you in 1812, politely of course. And we've been worried about the "Manifest Destiny" ever since. We still love you guys flaws and all.

 

[Projectguy]

That's not necessarily true, not all vapers are non-smokers. I know a number that mostly vape, but still smoke cigarettes.

Picky, picky, picky.... LOL

 

[DuaneNeveu]

I'm thinking that we have to get them to make a vaping policy that is 'attractive' enough that smokers will consider vaping. They can save face this way by being able to claim that they are helping ALL smokers find a safer alternative. As Goat has pointed out the indoor option would be ideal. I'm sure there are plenty of smokers who would be willing to make an effort at vaping when it's minus 20 outside and there was an indoor alternative

That's a very good point, and the real overall win in my opinion.

The province is fairly clear regarding "Breaks and Eating Periods":

Breaks

Employers are required to provide eating periods to employees, but they are not required to provide other types of breaks.


Eating Periods

An employee must not work for more than five hours in a row without getting a 30-minute unpaid eating period (meal break) free from work. However, if the employer and employee agree, the eating period can be split into two eating periods within every five consecutive hours. Together these must total at least 30 minutes. This agreement can be oral or in writing.

Without knowing exactly where you work, the policy regarding "Breaks and Eating Periods" may be legislated by the collective bargaining agreement, and would supercede provincial legislation.
There's no obligation on the part of the employer to honour periodic "smoke-breaks", but if it's part of your CBA that's another story. Even still, shooting for the use of a dormant room is probably the next best step as opposed to fighting for vaping at your desk. The latter is likely a fight you just couldn't win anyway.

 

[Talyon]

Just wanted say how sorry I am that any of this had to happen, but it has and was unfortunatly needed. I'm also a union member Steelworkers, and I know it's only a matter of time til I have the same fight, however being in the manufacturing sector of a private business my fight well be much shorter, with no consequences. I have this entire thread and much more at my disposal etc, and because of my trade and ill just say the way things are here, i can't be intimidated or harassed in any way. So a big TY for the fight u had to go through as it well help many many others down the road. So far just myself and 1 other vapes, but hoping to influence more as there is several smokers here. I shall continue to monitor this thread as I have since I first found it a few weeks back, sorry was lurking until now lol.

 

[Projectguy]

I was thinking of doing exactly that. I would like to ensure that more union members and employees become aware of this issue, and that they remember that they got called on their BS, so that hopefully this crap doesn't have to happen to anyone else. This might be the only way to accomplish that.

I agree with Projectguy, I think I'm going to try to present a case to the joint health and safety committee recommending removing the silly policy restrictions on bringing liquid or refilling etc... there's also an unused boardroom that is too noisy for people to use (loud ventilation, but not harmfully loud), I'm going to try and see if they'll let us vape indoors as long as we do it there. A dedicated vape room.

Although, maybe I should go for broke and recommend that the policy be removed entirely, so we can vape at our desks. After all, there's no harm.

Of course, all my preponderance may be moot, as the JH&S is comprised entirely of hardcore antz, as far as I can tell. They do not seem interested in facts or research, their minds are set.

I think we're on the right track though, and this whole situation seems a whole lot more manageable after this significant victory over ignorance and fear.

SloHand, making this thread was pure GENIUS! This is a lot of great thinking you've started here, and hopefully this will make it much easier going for the next sorry bastage this happens to.

You guys all should have seen the happy dance after we read that MOL report. LOL!

Goat go slow.

The chances of getting laid by walking up to a co-worker in the hall and dropping trow are highly remote unless you are, as your moniker would suggest, hung like a goat



Would suggest that you start by creating the problem for them i.e.,
-> you are forcing me into a dangerous environment by putting me/us with the smokers
-> I will refuse to work because of the dangerous environment
-> You will have to call in the MOL to make a ruling

Then propose your solution because vaping is "Not likely to endanger". Not your opinion it is MOL's statement / pronouncement

 

[Projectguy]

This entire scenario has been bureaucracy at it's finest and this where our dues and taxes are going to. Witch hunts and paying "professionals" Some of these studies, especially ones from credited universities with research grants should be as admissible as a general statement from Health Canada 3 years ago.

It would be a more effective use of money to give the research Universities the money rather than hiring consultants to read what we have already read a million times. .... that one recommendation even referenced many of the studies we have all already read. Slowhand could have printed it out and made a few grand if he was a consultant.

effing ridiculous. There needs to be a point where the walk offs get punished or you guys get reimbursed for the silliness and harassment this caused.

I prefer punishment for them so they won't be so easy think they can get paid for being at home for nothing.

Grasshopper the most severe / painful form of punishment is the one that is self-inflicted as this will become as it plays itself out. For the ANTZ who created this mess it will be a complete loss of credibility and respect from a myriad of directions. From management who will not take them seriously at the bargaining table and think only once about job advancement. From the members of their union and from their social circle / co-workers.

In this case I'm not so ...... about paying my taxes

 

[Projectguy]

Without knowing exactly where you work, the policy regarding "Breaks and Eating Periods" may be legislated by the collective bargaining agreement, and would supercede provincial legislation.
There's no obligation on the part of the employer to honour periodic "smoke-breaks", but if it's part of your CBA that's another story. Even still, shooting for the use of a dormant room is probably the next best step as opposed to fighting for vaping at your desk. The latter is likely a fight you just couldn't win anyway.

Read the pdf file closely.....all will be revealed

 

[GoatScrote]

I see what you're saying Projectguy, I'm just brainstorming here

The reason for me considering the JH&S approach is because I'm told by management that their hands were more or less tied when it comes to JH&S creating policy. I'm not sure they have absolutely no say in the matter, but it may be a 2 vs 1 majority type thing.

Since MOL has stated it's not likely to endanger, then it seems that it should be even clearer that we're being harassed and discriminated against a vapers. I'm just trying to think of a good way to reverse some of this ridiculous crap lol!

I'd especially like to see an email from management circulated the same way the anti vaping policy was, but this time, stating clearly that they made a mistake, and vapers were never actually creating a health and safety hazard. It's sad that a lot of people believed them, and now we appear as evil villains to the uninformed, all because of their uneducated knee jerk reaction.

On the up side, I've tried the drop-trow-trick once, and for the record, it did work!

GoScro

 

[Projectguy]

I see what you're saying Projectguy, I'm just brainstorming here

The reason for me considering the JH&S approach is because I'm told by management that their hands were more or less tied when it comes to JH&S creating policy. I'm not sure they have absolutely no say in the matter, but it may be a 2 vs 1 majority type thing.

Since MOL has stated it's not likely to endanger, then it seems that it should be even clearer that we're being harassed and discriminated against a vapers. I'm just trying to think of a good way to reverse some of this ridiculous crap lol!

I'd especially like to see an email from management circulated the same way the anti vaping policy was, but this time, stating clearly that they made a mistake, and vapers were never actually creating a health and safety hazard. It's sad that a lot of people believed them, and now we appear as evil villains to the uninformed, all because of their uneducated knee jerk reaction.

On the up side, I've tried the drop-trow-trick once, and for the record, it did work!

GoScro

Then it's true.....?

 

[GoatScrote]

Well, it wasn't a coworker, and it wasn't in a hall, and I didn't have to drop trow... But yeah!

 

[fourtytwo]

Has anyone considered taking this to the media?
It seems to me that the whole "management siding with the worker against the Union" thing is just the kind of thing the news likes doing stories about.

 

[Ayce]

The only thing with the unused room idea that I can think of, would be the "smokers revolt". "If they can have an inside room, why can't we. If we can't, they can't. UNFAIR!!!! They'll be putting unwanted chemicals into the ventilation system!" (Even though there are filters that remove 99% of contaminants from the air coming in between the inlet and return systems.)

 

[Talyon]

The only thing with the unused room idea that I can think of, would be the "smokers revolt". "If they can have an inside room, why can't we. If we can't, they can't. UNFAIR!!!! They'll be putting unwanted chemicals into the ventilation system!" (Even though there are filters that remove 99% of contaminants from the air coming in between the inlet and return systems.)

The law in Ontario already states where a smoker can smoke and how it is to be erected etc, there's no Law in regards to Vapeing so it's a viable option.

 

[Projectguy]

The only thing with the unused room idea that I can think of, would be the "smokers revolt". "If they can have an inside room, why can't we. If we can't, they can't. UNFAIR!!!! They'll be putting unwanted chemicals into the ventilation system!" (Even though there are filters that remove 99% of contaminants from the air coming in between the inlet and return systems.)

Not likely to endanger

I think that would blunt any "smokers revolt"