Vaping Policy in the Workplace - Input needed

[kristin]

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not saying perception is not a valid claim - what I'm saying is that using the excuse that these will be perceived as they claim they will is what isn't valid.

They claim that people's perception will be that people using these are "smoking" and cause confusion and smokers to light up - it's the same excuse they used in King County. There just no basis in reality that seeing these used will cause people to light up real cigarettes.

In order to use perceptions as an excuse for banning something, there has to be some established pattern or history to prove that is actually going to be the perception and reaction - or at least REASONABLE risk. But there is no reason to believe that e-cigs will largely be perceived this way because one, e-cigs don't really look like tobacco cigarettes other than the color (of some models) and the vapor. Someone smoking has smoke coming off the lit end, smoke smells very distinctive, they need to use a lighter and an ashtray. Seeing someone using even the realistic-looking e-cig may look similar at first glance, but anyone who sees it will obviously look closer (probably out of initial shock) and it would be hard to miss someone taking a puff and sticking it in their pocket or laying it on the table - no ashtray or sidestream smoke in sight. Second, even if it IsS genuinely mistaken for smoking, no other smoker nearby is going to automatically light up because they see it, any more than they would if they saw someone actually smoking in a state or city where they KNOW that it's banned.

So, their whole claim on how the public is going to perceive these and react is invalid. It's not that perception isn't valid in general, just that their claim of what people's perception WILL be is way off base.

Unfortunately perception is 9/10's of the law in business. When I worked as a government contractor I was required to have short hair and follow military grooming regulations. When I worked for PBG the standards were looser as a merchandiser, but the move up to CR would have meant "lose the beard and ponytail". You rarely see a Lawyer or Doctors receptionist in a tube tip and short skirt. Hell, even wally world won't let their employees wear holey jeans.

It sucks, but perception will be used against us whether or not it is valid.

 

[kristin]

That's a good point, but I think it's another misconception. (Not trying to pick on you - you just made some good conversation points.)

Many bars and restaurants welcome smokers who want to come back and vape and many more would if they knew that they weren't going to be hassled by health department inspectors. Many would be happy to offer disposables for "jealous smokers." It's easier to explain an e-cig to other patrons when you are making added income from smokers sticking around and helping pay your bills. It's a known fact that smokers tend to linger longer and spend more money - especially in bars.

CASAA has created a sign for establishments who wish to allow vapers (where it's legal still) but want to minimize confusion. They could also be used as table tents:

Something like this would easily solve their fear of "confusion."

Another thought... most business owners/HR departments could care less if its "fair" or not, they don't want the hassle of dealing with smokers complaining that people can vape. Like parents, they don't want justice they just want silence.

 

[oldsoldier]

Oh I don't disagree with you Kristin. I'm just saying regardless of right or wrong, perception is a large part of how business related decisions and HR decisions are made. Pointing out that their perceptions are flawed rarely changes their decisions. HR will just fall back onto the unassailable position that "it looks unprofessional and doesn't meet our standard of employee behavior".

The rest of your argument on perceptions is very valid. The people trying to make Law are completely unjustified using perception as justification. In fact I'm sure that it will be found unconstitutional should any organization push it hard. I'm saying the unconstitutionality of the concept, not making it an ecig specific battle.

I agree with you completely that seeing someone smoke an ecig is not going to cause a smoker to light up- at least not one that is normally law abiding.

 

[kristin]

Yeah - it's THEIR perceptions which count - not how the general public would perceive it. I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, too true. Hence why they King County board of health made a ruling based on their idea of "social norms" and not on science and reason!

Good thing because social norms are always so important to maintain - it would be horrible if husbands were prosecuted for beating their wives or if African Americans were allowed to drink from the same fountain as whites.

Oh I don't disagree with you Kristin. I'm just saying regardless of right or wrong, perception is a large part of how business related decisions and HR decisions are made. Pointing out that their perceptions are flawed rarely changes their decisions. HR will just fall back onto the unassailable position that "it looks unprofessional and doesn't meet our standard of employee behavior".

The rest of your argument on perceptions is very valid. The people trying to make Law are completely unjustified using perception as justification. In fact I'm sure that it will be found unconstitutional should any organization push it hard. I'm saying the unconstitutionality of the concept, not making it an ecig specific battle.

I agree with you completely that seeing someone smoke an ecig is not going to cause a smoker to light up- at least not one that is normally law abiding.

 

[Jaguar G]

Are we forgetting the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rulers.

I don't follow their policy based on perception because their perception of perception is wrong. I vape at work against this policy and the folks I work with are fine with it, they have no mis-perceptions of what's going on. I believe management doesn't want to deal with reality, so they make up an excuse and ride it until it dies. I have already proven it wrong, but I am not going to push their nose in it because no good will come of it (and a whole lot of bad may.)

Maybe I am cutting my own throat, we'll see. No one has complained, everyone I work with knows and is fine with it. I vape in my little office, in a lonely corner of the building, and if "busted" I will live with the consequences. But a policy based on faulty logic isn't really going to stop me, it will only keep me from vaping publicly, like in the break room. HR and the GM can stay ignorant, fine with me. I actually told HR when they informed me of the policy, "the one person bathroom in the back has a door that locks, maybe I'll just go there." She just laughed, not sure if she believed me or not.

I have been with this company for seven years, I battled cancer five years ago and now I have recently been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma. They know I have smoked for years and tried quitting several times, and they read the CASS literature so they know this may help save my life. Yet they still base a decision on faulty logic and make it difficult for me by suggesting I go outside with the smokers. I asked if they would make alcoholics go to bars to drink tea, they were not amused.

Jag

 

[Gummy Bear]

Ever heard the old expression "The boss may not always be right,,, but he is NEVER wrong"?
Like I said right or wrong doesn't matter if the boss or HR has made a decision. (it will only get you fired).
All they want to hear is " Yesa Master". And we all know that there are a lot of decisions made in the working world that have nothing to do with logic.

 

[Jaguar G]

Well, I doubt they will fire me if I am caught vaping in my office; no one else wants my job, lol. However, that is my situation and I don't recommend others follow my lead. They might get mad and huff and puff, but unless I violate a written policy (you know, like all the folks who dip snuff in a "tobacco free" environment, and yes they do) they really don't have a leg to stand on. There is no written policy against vaping, and although they told me not to, I don't see them enforcing a verbal statement with termination.

 

[thymetraveler]

well said!!

 

[VapingRulz]

Good thing because social norms are always so important to maintain - it would be horrible if husbands were prosecuted for beating their wives or if African Americans were allowed to drink from the same fountain as whites.

Haha! Excellent point.