Workplace bans smoking and vaping on property
- Thread starter built4feel
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If it actually interfered with getting stuff done, we would have never gotten to the moon 45 years ago:
In fact, it seems we stopped getting this done as a country right around the time that smoking bans came into the workplace. Now who seems to be able to "get things done" today? The Chinese -- and they still smoke like fiends while working. Coincidence?
In fact, it seems we stopped getting this done as a country right around the time that smoking bans came into the workplace. Now who seems to be able to "get things done" today? The Chinese -- and they still smoke like fiends while working. Coincidence?
That seems so true. Once we was just worried about getting the job done. Now we are more focused on is everything safe and pc. Plus we make exceptions and hire not so qualified people just to look good.
If it actually interfered with getting stuff done, we would have never gotten to the moon 45 years ago:
In fact, it seems we stopped getting this done as a country right around the time that smoking bans came into the workplace. Now who seems to be able to "get things done" today? The Chinese -- and they still smoke like fiends while working. Coincidence?
I would say right now it is currently a 50/50 proposition. And leans toward pro-vaping since an employer could conceivably never know if a vaper is vaping in the company, and being paid by that employer while doing so.
Here is my thing about vaping in my workplace. I ALWAYS get my work done, even when I was taking cigarette breaks. However, sometimes, folks had to look for me because I wasn't at my desk. They knew where I was, but they still had to come get me. Now, I'm almost always at my desk. They like it SO much better this way.
I agree with you in that the mindset of the managment does dictate policy. However I disagree about the equal opportunity employee thing.
I do not think that vaping or smoking falls into being covered by equal oppurtunity.
There are more than two choices.. One does not have to quit vaping.. just do not vape at work.
In Alabama it's a felony (class b I think but not sure) to carry a loaded firearm onto private property without the landowers's written permission. I used that one on police officers when they stated my property was outside their jurisdiction.
The only exception to said law is law enforcement IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
Well, they found out quick being outside jurisdiction in a non emergency situation is not in the line of duty.
I would not try that extension of home crap as an argument, those laws were re-written to be weak and meaningless while I was just a pup.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The only exception to said law is law enforcement IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
Well, they found out quick being outside jurisdiction in a non emergency situation is not in the line of duty.
I would not try that extension of home crap as an argument, those laws were re-written to be weak and meaningless while I was just a pup.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I believe the problem with vaping in the workplace is that just like most other things in life, the few would quickly ruin it for the many.
At my last job, smoking was allowed on the campus but only in designated areas. The problem was that many smokers did not keep it to the designated areas, and even when they did, they consistently trashed them up with butts being thrown everywhere, as well as empty cigarette packs, etc. Needless to say, the campus is now "no smoking".
As far as vaping in the workplace, I think most vapers would be respectful and use common sense, but not all....and that's where the problem comes in.
At my last job, smoking was allowed on the campus but only in designated areas. The problem was that many smokers did not keep it to the designated areas, and even when they did, they consistently trashed them up with butts being thrown everywhere, as well as empty cigarette packs, etc. Needless to say, the campus is now "no smoking".
As far as vaping in the workplace, I think most vapers would be respectful and use common sense, but not all....and that's where the problem comes in.
Please! smoking bans have nothing to do with litter. They are the result of militant activism by anti-smoker puritan extremists who want to punish others for enjoying life. It also fits with the demonization and marginalization doctrine established by TC years ago. Smoking bans are a policy of hate, nothing to do with health, respect, or littler.
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/co...rry-Not-if-the-health-puritans-have-their-way
IDK in the context of this thread I find it harmful to challenge assuming you agreed to work wherever and agreed to the statutes of the job, which everyone obviously did based on the evidence of receiving a paycheck. If something like this is challenged and successful I find it to be in a category like "squatters rights" ect. and consider this harmful to property rights.
On the other hand if you don't work in my establishment and wish to protest outside on the public sidewalk, I fully support that and I would not even support the local municipality in requiring permits for such a protest.
Its not about suppressing anyone and you as a person who asks about this policy specifically should know that. Anyone like you would be the exception. Of course anything negotiated individually would be respected as contract. Actually as an employer I could not care less about vaping or how many unscheduled "breaks" you might take yada yada as long as you meet or exceed expectations.
What I am saying however is that if I had a no vaping policy in my establishment that you agreed to from the beginning and challenged it that just would not end well for you. A contract is a contract and we would not make it to court as there is zero standing for you as an employee who signed the contract to work and all workplace policies were explained to you before you began employment. In your example above that is not the case as you had a separate contract regarding the specific issue. I would be embarrassed as an employer trying to re-neg on this contract also; the suppression you mention.
I do own the air in my establishment in the sense that if you are a customer that has not bathed or crapped your pants and insist in being inside I will make you leave because I don't want to smell you. If you smoke inside you are going to leave because its my air and I don't smoke; weather I am "open to the public" or am private establishment. If you are my employee and have hygiene issues that aren't medical problems then you will address them or you will seek employment elsewhere because its my air and I don't like the smell of you, sorry. Likewise I can require your hairstyle be cut a certain way, facial hair included and noncompliance will result in termination, this would fall under uniform policy that you agreed to pre-employment. I can have a no cologne or perfume policy as well if I like, my air.
If you negotiated a fan at "your" window you could correctly pose that I am a cool employer and that you are a 1%er that reads all fine print. As a vaper and former smoker if I were an employer I can tell you that no such contract between us would be necessary but we could put it in writing if you wish. If I were a small non-corporate business I would welcome your individuality in general and with respect to your employment terms, as a corporate employer though there's just not room for that and the market would just provide another candidate that would comply. It's just supply and demand.
TL;DR
Your position stated above has a unique, specific contract attached to this issue. My position assumed you agreed to terms of employment as is.
Last edited:
Without getting into the question of whether SHS is actually bad for your health, a lot of nonsmokers find being around it unpleasant. They don't like the smell and for some it causes coughing. That's at least part of the reason for the bans. I don't think it's appropriate to write those people's opinions off. And for ex-smokers it's painful for a different reason.
If we tell them they need to just live with it because smokers like doing it, they are going to see that as selfish and inconsiderate. My mother used to send my father and grandfather out to the garage to smoke their pipes, and that was before anyone even considered smoking to be bad for your health, never mind second hand smoke.
There may be "anti-smoker puritan extremists who want to punish others for enjoying life" out there, but that's not all that's going on. If you had won the battle and the rules said that it was OK to smoke at work or anywhere else, there would be people on the losing side who would call you equally ugly names.
In the context of this thread, this was put upon the employee the day after they were hired.
Nevertheless, if an employer makes a rule about something in their business, I observe it as their rule, their right. But am yet to see the harm in questioning or challenging the rule, especially if there is reasoning involved. Your only counter argument that I've seen is that if I challenged you, and you were my employer, I'd be embarrassed. Like that would stop me, or any reasonable person.
Did you also work at my last place of employment? If not, how in the world would you know exactly why they banned smoking? I won't and can't speak for other employers, but I can tell you that the reason it was banned at my work was because it became a problem with cigarette butts all over the place, as well as smokers not restricting themselves to the designated smoking areas. In short, management became tired of dealing with it, and as a result, took the easy way out and banned it.
Smoking policy is the prerogative of the property owner or current occupant. Outside interference within this space is unconstitutional in the US, a dangerous trespass against individual rights, and a very steep slippery slope towards Orwellian control of people's behavior, actions, even thoughts.
On the technical side, good ventilation would've taken care of most busybody complainers, while the rest could simply choose to shop or work elsewhere, with policies more suited to their own personal sensibilities.
What's unacceptable is the demonization of some 20% of the population (44million US smokers) and the continuing abuse of their human rights in all aspects of society because of legal choices they make. Soon smokers will be denied the right to healthcare, housing, employment, free movement, etc. all because fanatical "dogooders" disliked the smell of tobacco.
Dude OK in the context of the thread OP said the same as you, their rule, their right and even hinted at seeking employment elsewhere. Maybe give an example of how you would go about challenging something that you observe as their rule, their right; cause we all know what the answer to questioning their rule, their right is: "that's the rules".
For the record I think its pretty bunk for employers to lump vaping together with smoking. Never seen a nasty vape area with empty ejuice bottles and vape butts laying around everywhere.
It's all good towelie. I was just ribbin' ya.
Though I certainly don't dislike your answer.
Sent from my device.
Disclaimer: I live in America but I wasn't born here and the American Constitutional system is still a bit of a mystery to me.
When I first came to America in 1990 I worked in an office that was about to move from allowing smoking to having a designated smoking area. The smokers were allocated desks in a separate section. That lasted a year, it was scrapped because it interfered with business to have people from a business unit separated, so we had to go outside to smoke. I doubt that many business owners make decisions based on anything other than making money, except maybe some Christians or people who have very strong views on the Constitution or whatever.
I was there for a bunch of employee meetings where it was discussed. I heard numerous people complaining about the smell. If you sit in an office with smokers for 8 hours you will go home with your clothes smelling of tobacco smoke. And then your family has to live with the smell too. People with asthma, and people who had children with asthma, were particularly outspoken about it. The smokers mostly didn't say anything. It's hard to argue for your right to impose your stinky habit on your colleagues, especially when almost all of us wished we were able to stop doing it anyway. Not many business owners will be prepared to live with the level of unhappiness I saw at those meetings, and the rights of business seem pretty clear cut.
Right now I drive around with a smoker most days. We smoked together in the truck for years so I wouldn't feel right asking him to stop for my benefit. That's my choice. But now I can smell the smoke, unlike when I smoked myself. And my wife who quit recently can smell it when I get home too.
There's a phrase used in constitutional discussions, the tyranny of the majority. There's another to the effect that my rights end where yours begin. I don't know enough to argue about that side of the matter from a constitutional standpoint. I doubt if it's simple though. In the gun debate people argue endlessly about the significance of the placement of a comma in a single clumsily written sentence.
As far as I'm concerned all that goes out of the window anyway if SHS actually is a health hazard. I know a lot of people don't agree, but I think it probably is.
Vaping has been sucked into the cigarette banning process because people with an agenda characterize it as being just another form of smoking, with no justification I can see. Which seems like a good reason for us not to hitch our wagon to the SHS battle. That one has already been lost and I don't want to go down with that ship. Fight the battles we might be able to win.
I would gather info first. Probably lots of it, but I wouldn't walk in blindly and say something off the cuff. I'd be prepared for a dispute. I'd feel out other staff to see if I have supporters or if I need to go it alone.
If I was instead met with a "because we said so," then I would likely proceed in one of two ways. 1 - gathering further info, on more than one issue, hoping to make a stronger case, being patient, doing my job, making the best of it. Or 2 - looking for places where I know I can get away with vaping while I do my job good enough and job hunt elsewhere. On my last day there, I'd (maybe) let them know all the places I enjoyed vaping in their establishment, while no one was the wiser.
In my experience, companies will at least give off appearance that they are reasonable, open to discussion on things they know are open ended. The "because we said so" thing would be a deal breaker for me, but I would milk the cow out of respect (for myself) or out of spite toward them, and would depend on a bunch of factors if I went there. I've usually not had issues talking with head honcho of a place if I truly desired to do that, and at that level, change in policy can occur very quickly.
On the vaping indoors topic, I'm yet to hear a good reason to disallow, especially in designated areas. If firmly disallowed, I would think it would be "because we said so" and rather cut to the chase in this thread's discussion with what I believe makes most sense and is doable. But, in reality, I believe most companies executive staff would at least pretend to be open to consideration that their policy is perhaps an extreme position that needs to either be made more solid or is open to change. My challenge, assuming it is allowed and they appear open, would be based on scientific data, reasoning and what other things the company does allow that people are not paid to do (i.e. chit chat), which I can find annoying, sometimes, at a job when I'm busy doing work. As noted on this thread, I'm yet to work for a employer or even hear of one where employees never ever engaged in something they were not paid to do (i.e. chit chat). FWIW, since age 16, I've always left a job on my own terms.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
