Where I work, they shocked the smokers by having a surprise meeting at the start of the shift by announcing, from this point on, smoking in this building will not be tolorated due to the new city ordinance. Managment didnt keep tabs on the new ordinance and presumed because were not a restaurant it doesnt apply here. Only a canopy can be used to shelter the smokers outdoors. I dont smoke and our building has or had non-smoking and smoking break rooms which has worked well for years for all. Alot of the smokers decided to go home "sick" in protest. All the non-smokers think it's funny how the smokers are bellyaching and this has created a divide in the workplace.
No smoking in the workplace
- Thread starter drive it forever
- Start date
- Status
You could go outside for a second hand smoke, and chat with the other workers.
At my wife's hospital where she works they actually ban smoking on hospital property (ie not outside). So the workers can only smoke in their cars or go offsite. At least they offer a free and excellent smoking cessation program for both themselves and the communitity at large.
Wow they banned smoking indoors here in like 1972 or something. No biggie, all the smokers will be dead in a few years so productivity will pop up.
Does the company offer free coffee?
If gov't didn't the legal dept would have.
What the company wanted was fewer hacking, wheezing and missing employees.....and lower cleaning and insurance costs.
regardless, the company screwed up bigtime by forcing the cold turkey method on their employees.
What the company wanted was fewer hacking, wheezing and missing employees.....and lower cleaning and insurance costs.
regardless, the company screwed up bigtime by forcing the cold turkey method on their employees.
Are you talking about cigarettes?
I can't believe this just happened there? Observe how the smokers become less productive as they disappear for cig breaks.
After this, they will become more defensive about the habit because they feel uncomfortable leaving their work post so often.
It's tough to watch an addict suffer like this.
After this, they will become more defensive about the habit because they feel uncomfortable leaving their work post so often.
It's tough to watch an addict suffer like this.
If it was company policy, fine. It is their business to run.
Govt. intrusion into every aspect of our lives and how we run our business is a bigger concern to me.
What's next? Do we ban coffee and say workers can only eat healthy salads and tofu?
I'm afraid the camel already has more than his nose under the tent.
The industry I worked in, you definitely didn't smoke. It was more of an immediate health hazard as in blow everyone up.
In NY, there is no smoking in restaurants and bars. It's great to be able to go out and have a nice dinner and drinks without coming home reeking of smoke.
Of course, I'm a non smoker. It wouldn't pain me in the least to see those things go away. But, people do have a right o kill them selves slowly if they wish. They just don't have the right to take me with them.
Of course, I'm a non smoker. It wouldn't pain me in the least to see those things go away. But, people do have a right o kill them selves slowly if they wish. They just don't have the right to take me with them.
25 years ago all interior walls were painted "nicotine yellow" at the aircraft companies where I worked. My first boss smoked a pipe that smelled like burning manure instead of tobacco. One of the older engineers never emptied his ashtray, so it was called the "volcano".
Having said that, the choice should be made by company management, not government.
Having said that, the choice should be made by company management, not government.
I understand how the cold turkey method is not cool, you giver at least a 3 months warning so people can switch job, quit smoking, or have a work around (group smoking via driving off property once every 2-3 hrs, etc).
My dad quit smoking by gradually reducing it, he did cold turkey once but it was sad to him suffer the first several weeks.
My dad quit smoking by gradually reducing it, he did cold turkey once but it was sad to him suffer the first several weeks.
I'm also surprised that this has just now happened. My employer and the company I contract to have banned indoor smoking for years now. They didn't need any government interference, either.
I'd actually take this to the next level and only hire non-smokers. Why would I want to employ a drug addict who can't put in a full days work? The obese need not apply either.
Oops, I was forgetting that these people are victims and it's not their fault. But, then why is the government discriminating against these nicotine victims? It's all vErY cOnFuSiNg.
Because the government knows what's best right? That's called socialism. Opposing such is NOT extremism
Geez Scooby, lighten up. I'm not an extremest. Your key word was "public" buildings. This was a private business with separate break rooms and it doesn't sound like the public was endangered in any way.
I referred to the salad and tofu because improper eating habits are hazardous to your health also and with fast food habits, the situation is not improving.
Oviously, you don't invade other's rights with second hand smoke, but in a controlled situation, I don't see how this would be analogous to seat belts on public roads.
If a private business allows smoking in a "controlled" environment, then I say govt. has no right to dictate.
I referred to the salad and tofu because improper eating habits are hazardous to your health also and with fast food habits, the situation is not improving.
Oviously, you don't invade other's rights with second hand smoke, but in a controlled situation, I don't see how this would be analogous to seat belts on public roads.
If a private business allows smoking in a "controlled" environment, then I say govt. has no right to dictate.
JHZR2
Staff member
How is it unfair to the smokers to have them not smoke in a building, but its not unfair for non-smokers to have to breathe in the smoke before these laws came to be?
Seems to me that smokers can walk away (at the expense of reduced productivity, etc., etc.) whereas workers IN the workplace cannot.
JMH
Seems to me that smokers can walk away (at the expense of reduced productivity, etc., etc.) whereas workers IN the workplace cannot.
JMH
I believe the original poster implied that seperate "controlled" breakrooms were provided and probably only at breaks and lunch, so no productivity is lost. Our workers lose the most productivity to chit-chat and personal calls on telephone abuse.
The company was probably trying to keep everyone safe and happy. Now they have safe and unhappy. The govt. knows how to run your business better than you. I'm ready to sell anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
