Smoking Bans in the Workplace

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BigguyZ
    Veteran Member
    • Jul 2006
    • 1818
    • Minneapolis, MN
    • Craftsman, older type w/ cast iron top

    Smoking Bans in the Workplace

    OK- I'll preface this by saying that while there are political parallels to draw here, this is NOT meant to be a political commentary about the government or anything like that.

    I just saw something in my work website that prompted a lot of dialog at work. However, I won't post there- and I still want to voive my frustrations about it. I think some others might find this interesting as well.

    Apparently our company is instituting a company-wide smoking ban in all locations. This means that for all sites for our corporate offices, our subsidiaries, and other sites, use of all tabacco products (including e-cigs) is not permitted on the premesis. Even if you're in your car, you will not be permitted to smoke. This apparently includes any contractor, vendor, or visitor.

    Stupidly enough, our company allows a comment feature on the post, and oh boy some people have definitely decided to throw their two cents in!

    Now I'm not a smoker. I will smoke- but it's not a habit or an urge I have (a cigar or two a year, and a cigarette or two if I'm out with a bunch of friends). However, I'm appalled at the non-smoker's responses on how great this decision is and how it's 100% correct. Some people act like people are currently smoking at their desks, and now we'll have a healthy workplace. Smoking is currently kept to desingated areas. Sure, some don't follow that- but for the most part it's contained. I haven't seen any issues with people not being able to avoid second hand smoke. So to me this seems like a PR move that won't do much of anything- other than force people to walk off the company property to satiate their habit.

    Now I think the hyperbolic responses on the other side are stupid as well. Ban Soda then! No chips in the vending machines! You're limiting my freedom to be an American! That's just as silly.

    But it does concern me that a company is doing more to regulate it's employee's legal actions. Some people have noted that there are employers who actually do drug testing for tobacco products, and they will not hire someone who uses tabacco- and employees can be fired for testing positive as well. While our company is not (currently) doing this- this kind of limitation/ control of a LEGAL habit is what gets me worried. I just think people are too self-absorbed and think "well if it's not me being affected, it's fine".

    What do you all think?
  • Cochese
    Veteran Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 1988

    #2
    I guess it depends on the workplace. An employer can dictate what kind of workplace they want, within limits. Here in GA, you can't smoke within so many feet of an entrance (door, window, air intake) of a government building by law. Many campuses have banned smoking completely.

    At my work, they've instituted a no tobacco policy. No smoking on campus, not in your car. If you want to smoke, you have to use your meal break and walk off campus - no getting paid. Frankly, I think it's a good idea, being an organization that means to promote health. We don't want you or your clothes to smell like smoke. Same goes for the patients and visitors. Ignore the rules, you're escorted off the premises.

    I once participated in a forum at school as part of the Student Government. While my personal views were (and still are) I wouldn't mind if smoking disappeared altogether, we had to try and come up with some sort of solution that all sides could agree to. Needless to say you can't.
    I have a little blog about my shop

    Comment

    • Daryl
      Senior Member
      • May 2004
      • 831
      • .

      #3
      The ban should be coupled with a good cessation program. My company doesn't allow smoking, but allows the filthy habit of dipping snuff.
      Sometimes the old man passed out and left the am radio on so I got to hear the oldie songs and current event kind of things

      Comment

      • sweensdv
        Veteran Member
        • Dec 2002
        • 2862
        • WI
        • Baileigh TS-1040P-50

        #4
        2The only way smokers will ever win is if the majority rules ratio is lowered down to 25%. Even at that percentage I doubt if they could ever get their way. I smoked for about 35 years before I quit and quite frankly I don't miss a single aspect of that habit. Every now and again if I get an urge to light up, I just grab a piece of my shirt and give it a smell, that kills the urge as we all know smoking stinks up everything.
        _________________________
        "Have a Great Day, unless you've made other plans"

        Comment

        • Black wallnut
          cycling to health
          • Jan 2003
          • 4715
          • Ellensburg, Wa, USA.
          • BT3k 1999

          #5
          I think this is a case of management stepping over the line. I also wonder if it is legal to change the conditions of employment in this way; I simply do not know. I do not use tobacco these days but I once did. AS far as the health effects on our nation diabetes which can be caused by chips and soda is more prevelant than lung or heart disease, although heart disease is linked to diabetes.

          If companies really carred they would reward employees that lead healthy lives. They would also do what they could to encourage healthy behaviour and create a healthy work environment. Which is a far cry from just banning a legal substance on their property.
          Donate to my Tour de Cure


          marK in WA and Ryobi Fanatic Association State President ©

          Head servant of the forum

          ©

          Comment

          • Cochese
            Veteran Member
            • Jun 2010
            • 1988

            #6
            Originally posted by Black wallnut
            I think this is a case of management stepping over the line. I also wonder if it is legal to change the conditions of employment in this way; I simply do not know. I do not use tobacco these days but I once did. AS far as the health effects on our nation diabetes which can be caused by chips and soda is more prevelant than lung or heart disease, although heart disease is linked to diabetes.

            If companies really carred they would reward employees that lead healthy lives. They would also do what they could to encourage healthy behaviour and create a healthy work environment. Which is a far cry from just banning a legal substance on their property.
            It's less a personal health issue as it is a community health issue within the workplace. Being fat doesn't cause someone else to have allergic attacks.
            I have a little blog about my shop

            Comment

            • LCHIEN
              Internet Fact Checker
              • Dec 2002
              • 20914
              • Katy, TX, USA.
              • BT3000 vintage 1999

              #7
              Originally posted by CocheseUGA
              It's less a personal health issue as it is a community health issue within the workplace. Being fat doesn't cause someone else to have allergic attacks.
              Agree with this assessment 100%. Its the effect on others involuntarily exposed that is the overriding concern. Smoking has been banned in the companies I've worked for for probably 20 or more years. The OPs company is behind the times.

              Gus are banned too. Secondhand smoke and First-hand bullets are bad for your health.
              Last edited by LCHIEN; 09-07-2012, 01:08 PM.
              Loring in Katy, TX USA
              If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
              BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questions

              Comment

              • Black wallnut
                cycling to health
                • Jan 2003
                • 4715
                • Ellensburg, Wa, USA.
                • BT3k 1999

                #8
                How is your co-worker smoking in his car or dipping snuff a community health issue?

                Don't get me wrong I detest the smell of cigarette smoke but I also detest the smell of Frito corn chips, unless I also happen to be eating them. It is a sensitive nose thing. Do these companies also ban diesel pick-up trucks? Because I submit their exhaust when cold is just as bad if not worse than a single cigarette.
                Donate to my Tour de Cure


                marK in WA and Ryobi Fanatic Association State President ©

                Head servant of the forum

                ©

                Comment

                • BigguyZ
                  Veteran Member
                  • Jul 2006
                  • 1818
                  • Minneapolis, MN
                  • Craftsman, older type w/ cast iron top

                  #9
                  Banning smoking in the buildings/ within a certain distance from the entrance is one thing. And that's already done. But saying that anything on the premesis is not allowed is rediculous. You'll just force the smokers to walk to non-company property, which I think will cause more issues than not.

                  I've never had an issue with having to walk through second hand smoke, because I don't walk through or hang aroung the designated smoking areas.

                  On a side note- the new/ extreme policy even bans smokeless tobacco- which has no second-hand effects- and e-cigarettes. So to me, it's little about the affect on other people, and more about the employer dictating employee behavior. Most likely to reduce their healthcare costs at the expense of the employee's choices.

                  I remember the outcry of people when Wal-Mart was persuing a policy of not hiring fat people. Well not hiring tobacco users of any kind (in the most extreme examples- not what my company is doing yet) is jst as bad. We don't want to discriminate against people who are overweight, but we feel fine discriminating about people who are participating in another legal activity.

                  I wonder if the people on this board who are for this type of policy are also for the requirement of the Saw-Stop technology on TSs. To me, there's a huge parallel. Smoking is bad, as are TS acidents caused by hands being flung into the blade. But mandating behavior or technology and limiting choice under the guise of "it's what's good for you" is always bad- IMO.
                  Last edited by BigguyZ; 09-07-2012, 01:58 PM.

                  Comment

                  • dbhost
                    Slow and steady
                    • Apr 2008
                    • 9209
                    • League City, Texas
                    • Ryobi BT3100

                    #10
                    Okay several disclaimers here.

                    #1. I am a former smoker. I picked up the habit in Jr. High School (they had cigarette vending machines in every public restroom, hotel lobby, laundromat etc... back then). I quit in 2002 when my ex wife told me I couldn't. I wasn't going to let her be right (bad indicator of where that was going but I digress...)

                    #2. I do still on RARE occasion smoke a cigar. I had way too many at my bachelor party, but then again, I had way too much Jaeger as well... but since, I have smoked maybe 2 cigars in 5 years...

                    #3. I enjoy the smell of a GOOD cigar, or pipe tobacco.

                    #4. I detest the smell of cheap, low grade cigars, cigarettes, or pipes. And yes, there IS a BIG difference...

                    Private property is just that, private property. Unless your employer is a public sector employer, they have every right to regulate the environment on their property within reason. That includes smoking bans. Which if I were an active smoker would annoy me, but it IS their property.

                    What I have a problem with is things like drug testing for tobacco use. I am a free man, and not the property of another individual or organization. What I do with and to myself is the business of my family and I. No one else.

                    Likewise, with smoking bans on the property, well. If they make the work environment unpleasant for you, as a free person you are free to take your skills to a competing employer that will provide a more accomodating environment.
                    Please like and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Please check out and subscribe to my Workshop Blog.

                    Comment

                    • JimD
                      Veteran Member
                      • Feb 2003
                      • 4187
                      • Lexington, SC.

                      #11
                      I am not a smoker and never have been. I have smoked maybe 5 cigars and about as many cigarettes in my life. I only smoked cigarettes walking to Jr. High if somebody gave me one. Almost never happened. It was also a long, long, time ago. Cigars was back when I and my peers were having kids. Maybe in a few years when grandkids start showing up (hopefully).

                      I think cigarette smokers are just the designated persecuted minority. There are many minorities that you cannot pick on without huge backlash. You cannot even say true things about health risks without huge outcry. But you can say and do nearly anything you want to smokers. I don't really care for that at all. I don't think we should have protected and persecuted groups.

                      Where I work, there are designated smoking areas that are outside where nobody has to go there that doesn't want to. I cannot see how that hurts non-smokers. I go to the "smoking shack" occasionally to find somebody. I cannot see how a few minutes of second hand smoke is going to change my life. (I like the fact I don't have it drifting into my office all day, however.)

                      Jim

                      Comment

                      • All Thumbs
                        Established Member
                        • Oct 2009
                        • 322
                        • Penn Hills, PA
                        • BT3K/Saw-Stop

                        #12
                        I could care less about the 2nd hand smoke, quite frankly. I also suspect a lot of people that claim some sort of allergy are just using a convenient excuse because they dislike the smoke, not from any genuine sensitivity to it. Certainly we're all sensitive to it, to a degree. Some people act like they're going to need to go to the E/R, though. A lot of drama, IMHO.

                        Some of the people for whom I have the greatest respect are smokers. And I cringe every time I hear them coughing. I cringe because it is a stark reminder of what the cigarettes are doing to their bodies.

                        I'm not sure we don't all rely on one crutch or another. Some people smoke, others drink too much, still others eat too much. There are gamblers, habitual shoppers, habitual shoplifters, etc.

                        I'm not ready to single-out the smokers for action.

                        I have seen the argument made by some companies that smoking cuts into employee productivity. The smokers I know are pretty darn productive, though. They DO make up for the time they are puffing those cigarettes.

                        Comment

                        • Cochese
                          Veteran Member
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 1988

                          #13
                          Originally posted by BigguyZ
                          Banning smoking in the buildings/ within a certain distance from the entrance is one thing. And that's already done. But saying that anything on the premesis is not allowed is rediculous. You'll just force the smokers to walk to non-company property, which I think will cause more issues than not.

                          I've never had an issue with having to walk through second hand smoke, because I don't walk through or hang aroung the designated smoking areas.

                          On a side note- the new/ extreme policy even bans smokeless tobacco- which has no second-hand effects- and e-cigarettes. So to me, it's little about the affect on other people, and more about the employer dictating employee behavior. Most likely to reduce their healthcare costs at the expense of the employee's choices.

                          I remember the outcry of people when Wal-Mart was persuing a policy of not hiring fat people. Well not hiring tobacco users of any kind (in the most extreme examples- not what my company is doing yet) is jst as bad. We don't want to discriminate against people who are overweight, but we feel fine discriminating about people who are participating in another legal activity.

                          I wonder if the people on this board who are for this type of policy are also for the requirement of the Saw-Stop technology on TSs. To me, there's a huge parallel. Smoking is bad, as are TS acidents caused by hands being flung into the blade. But mandating behavior or technology and limiting choice under the guise of "it's what's good for you" is always bad- IMO.
                          You've hit upon the answer. It can be a substantial amount, from what I've heard. That's why some hiring processes employ nicotine tests, which if you use e-cigs may or may not disqualify you depending if it has it in or not.

                          It's funny (but it isn't) how a parent will be shocked when they find out that their smoking (which they never do inside, and wear a jacket when they do) is still causing their kid to exacerbate their kid's asthma. They've destroyed their sense of smell, so they don't realize how much and how long it lingers.

                          As for smokers, do what you want, as long as I don't have to be around the stench.
                          I have a little blog about my shop

                          Comment

                          • BigguyZ
                            Veteran Member
                            • Jul 2006
                            • 1818
                            • Minneapolis, MN
                            • Craftsman, older type w/ cast iron top

                            #14
                            Originally posted by CocheseUGA
                            You've hit upon the answer. It can be a substantial amount, from what I've heard. That's why some hiring processes employ nicotine tests, which if you use e-cigs may or may not disqualify you depending if it has it in or not.
                            And that's my personal worry. Why can we descriminate people who partake in a LEGAL habit? What about discriminating against people who are fat? Whether it's genetics or gluttony, being heavier is considered the greater health risk over tabacco.

                            Do we want to take a step back regarding how much control companies have over their worker's lives? Do we want to example who they are allowed to discriminate against? We don't allow discrimination against pregant women. Obviously they're different than smokers (or smokeless tobacco users). BUT- they do cost companies money when they take a 30-60 day maternity leave. What about ugly people? Or handicapped people? If you work in an office and it takes you 2 minutes to grab a copy from your printer- or if you need more ergonimic accomodations- that costs the company money.

                            I know I'm being hyperbolic- but it's to prove a point. It just seems arbitrary to me to limit worker's freedoms on some things, but not others (even if they legally can do so- which they absolutely can).

                            Comment

                            • JSUPreston
                              Veteran Member
                              • Dec 2005
                              • 1189
                              • Montgomery, AL.
                              • Delta 36-979 w/Biesemyere fence kit making it a 36-982. Previous saw was BT3100-1.

                              #15
                              Originally posted by BigguyZ
                              Banning smoking in the buildings/ within a certain distance from the entrance is one thing. And that's already done. But saying that anything on the premesis is not allowed is rediculous. You'll just force the smokers to walk to non-company property, which I think will cause more issues than not.

                              I've never had an issue with having to walk through second hand smoke, because I don't walk through or hang aroung the designated smoking areas.

                              On a side note- the new/ extreme policy even bans smokeless tobacco- which has no second-hand effects- and e-cigarettes. So to me, it's little about the affect on other people, and more about the employer dictating employee behavior. Most likely to reduce their healthcare costs at the expense of the employee's choices.

                              I remember the outcry of people when Wal-Mart was persuing a policy of not hiring fat people. Well not hiring tobacco users of any kind (in the most extreme examples- not what my company is doing yet) is jst as bad. We don't want to discriminate against people who are overweight, but we feel fine discriminating about people who are participating in another legal activity.

                              I wonder if the people on this board who are for this type of policy are also for the requirement of the Saw-Stop technology on TSs. To me, there's a huge parallel. Smoking is bad, as are TS acidents caused by hands being flung into the blade. But mandating behavior or technology and limiting choice under the guise of "it's what's good for you" is always bad- IMO.
                              Up until about 2 years ago, I worked for a government agency that is the health insurance provider for state employees. We implemented a $25/month surcharge for all tobacco users because the folks higher up the food chain noticed that health care costs were starting to sky rocket due to complications caused by tobacco usage. By the same token, we also implemented a $25/month surcharge for employees who either don't have annual physicals or wouldn't attend workplace wellness checkups. This was because costs were also going through the roof due to people becoming over weight or having health issues develop that could/should be caught if having regular checkups.

                              I'm personally guilty of being overweight and not getting the annual physical. However, due to a scare back in January, I've lost around 40 lbs. and am now on a low sugar/low carb diet, since I in effect became type 2 diabetic. Fortunately, mine can be regulated by diet and exercise, and other than the occasional script for blood sugar checking supplies, I cost the insurance very little.

                              I can see both sides of the issue. Personally, I don't care for the smell of cigarette smoke, but I do find the smell of a good pipe or cigar appealing... on occasion. However, I am one of those that will get a migraine if exposed to smoke for more than just a couple of seconds. I've even gotten migraines from just smelling the smoke on a person (I guess some may have "wafted" in). That being said, if you want to smoke in a designated place or in you car, I think that should be okay. To outright ban it on the facility grounds at all seems to be draconian, with the exception of doctors' offices or hospitals.
                              "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear."- Norm (from Cheers)

                              Eat beef-because the west wasn't won on salad.

                              Comment

                              Working...