Can a mod please remove this message.
Thanks.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
SMOKING BAN how will it effect you?
Quote by Ms_minxie
I prefere to not have the smoke around but if I want the company of my drinking buddy I don't have the choise to sit with the smokers... She is a heavy smoker and can't imagine going anywhere without being able to have one... not even for me lol, she's too addicted lol, but I do sympathise with her... Maybe I need a new drinkin buddy!! lol
Which is of course entirely your right, i could not agree more that non smokers should have their right to not suffer second hand smoke respected and protected by law if necessary, however by the same token, smokers should be afforded the same respect no? Hence the two venue compromise....for those who wish not to suffer smoke, you have your own venues, completely smoke free, as far as i am concerned anyone who is impolite enough to smoke in a smoke free venue deserves everything they get. If however you have smoking friends and wish to enjoy their company, how is it fair to expect them to restrict their involvement in a perfectly legal habit? Smokers by smoking are not breaking any law at the moment, after the 1st of July, they will be, but why? Did it need a ban, or could legislation putting the onus onto the licensed trade to provide two types of venues have worked far better, been more enforceable and respected both groups right to enjoy themselves on their own terms? Please dont take this the wrong way but your post does read as though you are prepared to give up a close(?) friendship simply because your friend smokes.
"Please dont take this the wrong way but your post does read as though you are prepared to give up a close(?) friendship simply because your friend smokes."
Oh my god!!! your joking int ya!!! That was supposed to be a joke!!, I would NEVER ever give up my friend because she smokes, I cant believe you took that so litterally... :shock:
Ive had the choice of her company for many years so if I wanted to I could have changed that years ago!! I value my real friend and I respect their choices in life as my real friends do me. I know the Value of genuine friendship and I wont be throwing this one away for the sake of my own health..lol.
Is that clear enough this time hahahaha
Oh my god!!! your joking int ya!!! That was supposed to be a joke!!, I would NEVER ever give up my friend because she smokes, I cant believe you took that so litterally... :shock:
Ive had the choice of her company for many years so if I wanted to I could have changed that years ago!! I value my real friend and I respect their choices in life as my real friends do me. I know the Value of genuine friendship and I wont be throwing this one away for the sake of my own health..lol.
Is that clear enough this time hahahaha
Quote by Ms_minxie
"Please dont take this the wrong way but your post does read as though you are prepared to give up a close(?) friendship simply because your friend smokes."
Oh my god!!! your joking int ya!!! That was supposed to be a joke!!, I would NEVER ever give up my friend because she smokes, I cant believe you took that so litterally... :shock:
Ive had the choice of her company for many years so if I wanted to I could have changed that years ago!! I value my real friend and I respect their choices in life as my real friends do me. I know the Value of genuine friendship and I wont be throwing this one away for the sake of my own health..lol.
Is that clear enough this time hahahaha
Please accept my apologies for misreading the tone of your post. :rose:
In my defence, i understand this is an emotive issue, but as i have said i am an supporter of compromise being the only way to ensure everyones rights are respected.
Quote by staffcple
In my defence, i understand this is an emotive issue, but as i have said i am an supporter of compromise being the only way to ensure everyones rights are respected.
The rights of the worker have to be considered too. They needed a right to work in a place that does not have smoke. This legislation ensures it.
Choice is now given by this legislation. If you choose to smoke, then go somewhere where you can. Your choice to smoke, theirs not to breathe in the smokers second hand smoke.
Dave_Notts
Yep,
See your point entirely, surely a two venue solution solves that problem by giving employees an informed choice though?
If you choose not to work in a smoky environment work in a non smoking venue, if you dont mind, work in a smoking venue.
Its a bit like taking a job in a sewage plant and then complaining about the smell of effluent isnt it?
As i said, i believe legislation was the best way, but i do not agree in order to respect one groups rights you have to remove rights from another, barring of course those things that are outside the law.
See your point entirely, surely a two venue solution solves that problem by giving employees an informed choice though?
If you choose not to work in a smoky environment work in a non smoking venue, if you dont mind, work in a smoking venue.
Its a bit like taking a job in a sewage plant and then complaining about the smell of effluent isnt it?
As i said, i believe legislation was the best way, but i do not agree in order to respect one groups rights you have to remove rights from another, barring of course those things that are outside the law.
Quote by staffcple
Yep,
See your point entirely, surely a two venue solution solves that problem by giving employees an informed choice though?
If you choose not to work in a smoky environment work in a non smoking venue, if you dont mind, work in a smoking venue.
Its a bit like taking a job in a sewage plant and then complaining about the smell of effluent isnt it?
As i said, i believe legislation was the best way, but i do not agree in order to respect one groups rights you have to remove rights from another, barring of course those things that are outside the law.
In a perfect world ............yes.
In this world where you have to take the job that is sent to you by the job centre, or your benefits stop......no. There is no choice there. If you then walk out of your job then you are not entitled to any help for those silly things in life called essential food, shelter and clothing.
I can understand your point though......just don't agree with it
Dave_Notts
Come on Dave,
Sorry thats a spurious justification, really.
If a law is enacted with the purpose of protecting and enshrining the employee's right to not work in a smoke filled environment, how could anyone possibly justify stopping someones benefits for exercising that very choice?
Surely if someone on benefits (never having been there i don't know) can come up with a valid lawful reason why they should not take a job (and i'd suggest being forced to undertake employment liable to be hazardous to health is such a reason) how then can the same system which is responsible for such a law, ignore it?
The same rules can apply to someone who refuses to take a job because it pays less than minimum wage by that logic?
Sorry thats a spurious justification, really.
If a law is enacted with the purpose of protecting and enshrining the employee's right to not work in a smoke filled environment, how could anyone possibly justify stopping someones benefits for exercising that very choice?
Surely if someone on benefits (never having been there i don't know) can come up with a valid lawful reason why they should not take a job (and i'd suggest being forced to undertake employment liable to be hazardous to health is such a reason) how then can the same system which is responsible for such a law, ignore it?
The same rules can apply to someone who refuses to take a job because it pays less than minimum wage by that logic?
Quote by staffcple
Come on Dave,
Sorry thats a spurious justification, really.
If a law is enacted with the purpose of protecting and enshrining the employee's right to not work in a smoke filled environment, how could anyone possibly justify stopping someones benefits for exercising that very choice?
Surely if someone on benefits (never having been there i don't know) can come up with a valid lawful reason why they should not take a job (and i'd suggest being forced to undertake employment liable to be hazardous to health is such a reason) how then can the same system which is responsible for such a law, ignore it?
The same rules can apply to someone who refuses to take a job because it pays less than minimum wage by that logic?
There has been no legislation before now. H&S legislation has never been enforced in this area so there has been no action taken......until now. Not under H&S legislation but under the Health Act. Something seperate from HASWA 74.
Therefore, the employees have never had the right to walk out of their jobs for this reason and would not be able to appeal.
Dave_Notts
Hang on, im confuzzled.
I dont believe either of us were referring to existing H&S law but the imminent introduction of the no smoking legislation.
My point is simple.
If a system enacts a law, which enshrines the employee's rights to a particular subject, how can another part of that system then ignore that law?
Or how could the DWP force a non smoker to work in a smoking venue once this legislation enters the statute books?
Whether or not any law is acted upon, the law is still there for when it is needed and should be applied the same without fear or favour, no matter the claimant or defendant.
I absolutely dispute your assertion that the DWP can force anybody to take employment that is in clear breach of employment/health or H&S law.
I dont believe either of us were referring to existing H&S law but the imminent introduction of the no smoking legislation.
My point is simple.
If a system enacts a law, which enshrines the employee's rights to a particular subject, how can another part of that system then ignore that law?
Or how could the DWP force a non smoker to work in a smoking venue once this legislation enters the statute books?
Whether or not any law is acted upon, the law is still there for when it is needed and should be applied the same without fear or favour, no matter the claimant or defendant.
I absolutely dispute your assertion that the DWP can force anybody to take employment that is in clear breach of employment/health or H&S law.
But we are not talking about before are we?
This thread is about the forthcoming, soon to be non smoking legislation.
I was putting my case forward for what i thought the legislation should of been.
As it appears, my idea has far more reaching benefits that that the government has proposed including not only respecting everyones rights, but offering those who would be forced into health affecting employment a choice aswell.
This thread is about the forthcoming, soon to be non smoking legislation.
I was putting my case forward for what i thought the legislation should of been.
As it appears, my idea has far more reaching benefits that that the government has proposed including not only respecting everyones rights, but offering those who would be forced into health affecting employment a choice aswell.
Quote by Dave__Notts
Come on Dave,
Sorry thats a spurious justification, really.
If a law is enacted with the purpose of protecting and enshrining the employee's right to not work in a smoke filled environment, how could anyone possibly justify stopping someones benefits for exercising that very choice?
Surely if someone on benefits (never having been there i don't know) can come up with a valid lawful reason why they should not take a job (and i'd suggest being forced to undertake employment liable to be hazardous to health is such a reason) how then can the same system which is responsible for such a law, ignore it?
The same rules can apply to someone who refuses to take a job because it pays less than minimum wage by that logic?
There has been no legislation before now. H&S legislation has never been enforced in this area so there has been no action taken......until now. Not under H&S legislation but under the Health Act. Something seperate from HASWA 74.
Therefore, the employees have never had the right to walk out of their jobs for this reason and would not be able to appeal.
Dave_Notts
Let's face it, the law was enacted by all parties not just the government. A free vote. It is not to protect the smoker, but the non smoker. The smoker still has the right to smoke, but not to so do to the detriment of others health. Or in enclosed workplaces. There has always been recourse to common law for those who have sufficient money to waste. As for "walking out of the job"....not a good idea, there are procedures that have to be followed....written grievance notification, meetings etc etc....not following these would mean that you COULD NOT take your case to the employment courts and would probably not be able to claim any benefits. At the end of the day, smoking is a minority activity. It is unhealthy for the smoker and unpleasant for the non-smoker. The law was designed and passed to protect the NON smoker from the effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke. It IS a good law, even though it will be ignored by many. However, the penalties on the EMPLOYER for allowing smoking are high.... max for each offence upon conviction....no fixed penalty, a court appearance.
JTS,
Even as a smoker i can agree that everyone should have the right to be protected from those things they find unpleasant or are detrimental to the health of others.
The only concern i have with this legislation is the fact that the rights of the minority are not being offered the same in the way of equality. Yes of course you are correct with the non smoking majority, however the minority is still a sizeable one....somewhere in the region of 20 to 25% of the adult population.
Smokers will no longer have the choice to smoke inside a public venue, whether or not the majority who use that particular venue are smokers or not.
It begs the question, what other minority rights are we willing to give away? We have numerous valid minority rights enshrined in law, for very good reason, do we really want to be banning things out of hand and hope that one day we don't wake up to find free choice died and we never noticed?
Even as a smoker i can agree that everyone should have the right to be protected from those things they find unpleasant or are detrimental to the health of others.
The only concern i have with this legislation is the fact that the rights of the minority are not being offered the same in the way of equality. Yes of course you are correct with the non smoking majority, however the minority is still a sizeable one....somewhere in the region of 20 to 25% of the adult population.
Smokers will no longer have the choice to smoke inside a public venue, whether or not the majority who use that particular venue are smokers or not.
It begs the question, what other minority rights are we willing to give away? We have numerous valid minority rights enshrined in law, for very good reason, do we really want to be banning things out of hand and hope that one day we don't wake up to find free choice died and we never noticed?
Quote by Dave__Notts
Ahhhh got you
But that will be disqualifying people from work. Surely everyone has a right to work.
Dave_Notts
How?
It offers everyone the choice to take employment they choose dependent not on another's decision but of their own free will, as i have stated throughout this thread....two seperate types of venues.
At the moment non smokers have the choice to work in a smoking pub or a smoking pub....after July they will be offered the choice to work in a non smoking bar. What choice do smokers have?
To protect the rights of the majority you take away the right of a sizeable minority?
It bars no one from work, what it does do is not treat those who make a choice to work in a smoking venue like small children who are not capable of making their own decisions.
"We'll protect you whether or not you want us too."
If a non smoker chooses to work in a smoking venue, is that not their decision to make? Exactly the same as someone who takes a job in a non smoking workplace is making a decision not to smoke?
Absolutely agree with your sentiments about banning things.
The problem I see with your solution is that:
a) You will prevent people from entering into employment.
b) People all ready in work will be forced to work in an atmosphere that will harm them with no come back. They complain the hit the road
c) By only allowing x amount of pubs to be smoking ones will bring in a monopoly. Who has the right to run these pubs? The big business will grab them first and push out the free holder.
If the leisure business had put in pro-active controls in place in the 70's, 80's or 90's then we would not have been at this stage now. The industry has only itself to blame. The government allowed them to set up their own smoking/no smoking guidelines and then the leisure industry renegaded on them. That is who is to blame. If they hadn't looked at profits and set up an industry wide working compromise them it would have been ok. Instead they stuck two fingers up........and got them chopped off
Dave_Notts
The problem I see with your solution is that:
a) You will prevent people from entering into employment.
b) People all ready in work will be forced to work in an atmosphere that will harm them with no come back. They complain the hit the road
c) By only allowing x amount of pubs to be smoking ones will bring in a monopoly. Who has the right to run these pubs? The big business will grab them first and push out the free holder.
If the leisure business had put in pro-active controls in place in the 70's, 80's or 90's then we would not have been at this stage now. The industry has only itself to blame. The government allowed them to set up their own smoking/no smoking guidelines and then the leisure industry renegaded on them. That is who is to blame. If they hadn't looked at profits and set up an industry wide working compromise them it would have been ok. Instead they stuck two fingers up........and got them chopped off
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
Absolutely agree with your sentiments about banning things.
The problem I see with your solution is that:
a) You will prevent people from entering into employment.
b) People all ready in work will be forced to work in an atmosphere that will harm them with no come back. They complain the hit the road
c) By only allowing x amount of pubs to be smoking ones will bring in a monopoly. Who has the right to run these pubs? The big business will grab them first and push out the free holder.
If the leisure business had put in pro-active controls in place in the 70's, 80's or 90's then we would not have been at this stage now. The industry has only itself to blame. The government allowed them to set up their own smoking/no smoking guidelines and then the leisure industry renegaded on them. That is who is to blame. If they hadn't looked at profits and set up an industry wide working compromise them it would have been ok. Instead they stuck two fingers up........and got them chopped off
Dave_Notts
A)I do not see how, all it does is give people the right to make a free choice, where they work.
B) I am not for one second saying that non smokers who work in a smoking bar should not have measures taken to protect them, extraction, exclusion zones around the bar etc etc. But at the end of the day should the decision not be theirs as to whether they work there or not?
C) Again, only if the law is black and white, there are numerous ways to skin a feline, legislation can work, of that i have no doubt, but sometimes the path of least resistance is also the longest one. A simple addendum to the law stating that 50% of smoking venues if possible in a given area should be independent pubs would suffice.
I am not saying that 50% of all venues have to be smoking, but to reflect the minority 2 in 10 is a fair split. this of course would be liable to move down as the numbers of smokers decreases. In villages that only have one or two pubs, of course majority rules and they should be non smoking.
I could not agree more with your points about the licensed trade, it is they who are on the whole responsible for this new law, because as you rightly say they ignored the elephant in the room in favour of profit. By this token should the law then not fall on them to find and implement a compromise? I do think that no matter who runs the pubs, in the end the large chains will win out but this is down to things such as buying power, discounts offered etc, unfortunately customer loyalty comes a distant second to price these days.
Quote by staffcple
A)I do not see how, all it does is give people the right to make a free choice, where they work.
B) I am not for one second saying that non smokers who work in a smoking bar should not have measures taken to protect them, extraction, exclusion zones around the bar etc etc. But at the end of the day should the decision not be theirs as to whether they work there or not?
C) Again, only if the law is black and white, there are numerous ways to skin a feline, legislation can work, of that i have no doubt, but sometimes the path of least resistance is also the longest one. A simple addendum to the law stating that 50% of smoking venues if possible in a given area should be independent pubs would suffice.
I am not saying that 50% of all venues have to be smoking, but to reflect the minority 2 in 10 is a fair split. this of course would be liable to move down as the numbers of smokers decreases. In villages that only have one or two pubs, of course majority rules and they should be non smoking.
a & b) Most people have to work.......not want to work. Their choice is removed. My choice is not to work but I have to. This is what employers rely on to drive down wages. I have yet to find a £30,000 a year bar maid/man. People who have not been on the breadline or on benefits may find this hard to understand......but to feed and clothe the kids a parent will do anything, even if it is detrimental to the parents health. This compromise in law has been seen. When the working time directive came in.......most employers got their workers to sign a contract to opt out whether they wanted to or not. This is what will happen if this was employed.......sign or hit the road Jack.
c) Legislation should not be discriminatory for where you live. If you only live in a village then tough.......if you want a law then it has to be across the board. I just think it would be unworkable.
Dave_Notts
Quote by staffcple
Whilst understanding your points Dave, I feel it is time i backed away from this subject, i really cannot add anything more to it and we do seem to be monopolising it.....
All that is left for me is to mourn compromise and choice.
Cheers for a great debate.
Regards.
Staffys.
Oooooo I see what you mean about monopolising it
I too had better hide
Thanks for the chat bud :thumbup:
Dave_Notts
Quote by staffcple
JTS,
Even as a smoker i can agree that everyone should have the right to be protected from those things they find unpleasant or are detrimental to the health of others.
The only concern i have with this legislation is the fact that the rights of the minority are not being offered the same in the way of equality. Yes of course you are correct with the non smoking majority, however the minority is still a sizeable one....somewhere in the region of 20 to 25% of the adult population.
Smokers will no longer have the choice to smoke inside a public venue, whether or not the majority who use that particular venue are smokers or not.
It begs the question, what other minority rights are we willing to give away? We have numerous valid minority rights enshrined in law, for very good reason, do we really want to be banning things out of hand and hope that one day we don't wake up to find free choice died and we never noticed?
You're a bit late to worry about the loss of rights. But then, people only worry when their rights are being lost and not other peoples.
Go to and read the "266 ways people can invade your home" legally. Let's see, we have video surveillance everywhere we go (look UP next time you're in a big store clothing changing area)(the things with black domes on are CAMERAS) which is not reducing crime, just moving it. Soon we will have road pricing....which will enable the state (local and national gov) to know WHERE we are and WHEN we are/were there. Sleep-walking to a totalitarian government is one way of putting it. Oh, and one company (capita) had a turnover last tax year of billion from things like the london con charge....now, this company has access to the dvla database.....soon, with the advent of the NHS "spine" countless unknown public servants (and others) will have access to your confidential medical information.
Sleep walking ?
The walk of the zombie !
Quote by JTS
JTS,
Even as a smoker i can agree that everyone should have the right to be protected from those things they find unpleasant or are detrimental to the health of others.
The only concern i have with this legislation is the fact that the rights of the minority are not being offered the same in the way of equality. Yes of course you are correct with the non smoking majority, however the minority is still a sizeable one....somewhere in the region of 20 to 25% of the adult population.
Smokers will no longer have the choice to smoke inside a public venue, whether or not the majority who use that particular venue are smokers or not.
It begs the question, what other minority rights are we willing to give away? We have numerous valid minority rights enshrined in law, for very good reason, do we really want to be banning things out of hand and hope that one day we don't wake up to find free choice died and we never noticed?
You're a bit late to worry about the loss of rights. But then, people only worry when their rights are being lost and not other peoples.
Go to and read the "266 ways people can invade your home" legally. Let's see, we have video surveillance everywhere we go (look UP next time you're in a big store clothing changing area)(the things with black domes on are CAMERAS) which is not reducing crime, just moving it. Soon we will have road pricing....which will enable the state (local and national gov) to know WHERE we are and WHEN we are/were there. Sleep-walking to a totalitarian government is one way of putting it. Oh, and one company (capita) had a turnover last tax year of billion from things like the london con charge....now, this company has access to the dvla database.....soon, with the advent of the NHS "spine" countless unknown public servants (and others) will have access to your confidential medical information.
Sleep walking ?
The walk of the zombie !
Perhaps you'd like to explain how any of the things you mention are either prejudicial to me as an individual or remove my right to any legal activity? Perhaps that tinfoil hat may come in handy after all..... :shock: However just so you are aware, i have voiced my opposition to ID cards, DNA databases and third party access to any government computer record on other forums as and when the subject has been raised.
i dont smoke and never the rest of my family (mother,sister etc) do smoke.
For me if someone smokes then it is up to i go into a pub and its too smokey then its my choice to stay or is the word here to think all choose what to dictates how far we can go in relation to a ruling usually made by people who never live in the real world.
Smoking is a taxable pay tax on wages and most things everyday of every all pay into the nhs and of course smoking does have an impact on the services the nhs has to budget for but is smoking really that much of a smoking ban in public places i feel is a breach of a persons right to live i say as a can a govenment tax you for it and then tell you not to do it in public?.Someone will always get on the nhs cost bandwagon in an argument but dont drunk drivers and drug users cause just as much impact on the nhs as smokers do?.People knocked hell out of each other at the pub on saturday night it all adds then saying smoking causes cancer, well ok that maybe but so do power lines,mobile phones,microwaves and petrol stations if you listen to everything your told.
I just think people are screwed down everywhere,the shadowy figures checking your rubbish to see if they can fine you for not recycling,more fines and more taxes on using roads you already pay for.
If people want to smoke,put the price up but for gods sake let them be free and smoke.
For me if someone smokes then it is up to i go into a pub and its too smokey then its my choice to stay or is the word here to think all choose what to dictates how far we can go in relation to a ruling usually made by people who never live in the real world.
Smoking is a taxable pay tax on wages and most things everyday of every all pay into the nhs and of course smoking does have an impact on the services the nhs has to budget for but is smoking really that much of a smoking ban in public places i feel is a breach of a persons right to live i say as a can a govenment tax you for it and then tell you not to do it in public?.Someone will always get on the nhs cost bandwagon in an argument but dont drunk drivers and drug users cause just as much impact on the nhs as smokers do?.People knocked hell out of each other at the pub on saturday night it all adds then saying smoking causes cancer, well ok that maybe but so do power lines,mobile phones,microwaves and petrol stations if you listen to everything your told.
I just think people are screwed down everywhere,the shadowy figures checking your rubbish to see if they can fine you for not recycling,more fines and more taxes on using roads you already pay for.
If people want to smoke,put the price up but for gods sake let them be free and smoke.
Quote by tyracer
If people want to smoke,put the price up but for gods sake let them be free and smoke.
But people ARE free to smoke, they are only restricted as to WHERE they can smoke. If you had not noticed it, Smoking is restricted or banned on most forms of public transport in the UK (Responsibility for enforcing the policies rests with the individual transport companies) and the complaints about that are not evident....so far. No smoking on all airlines....complaints ? (yes, a few. But prison seems to focus attention).
Is the English ban unique ?
Probably. But not much.
Just so you know that the trend is worldwide, not just an English prejudice. Oh, and the local hospital is also no-smoking. ANYWHERE within the grounds of same. Some parents also don't smoke near their children. Sadly, many still do. As for it being legal at the moment, there has been a trend over the past 10 years for employees to claim compensation for breathing complaints due to having to inhale tobacco smoke at work. To date, the claims have been paid out-of-court. Obviously, if the smoking continues at workplaces, this trend will accelerate greatly. I await the impending prosecutions after 1/7 with interest......one pub has built a "smokers shelter" onto the side of the pub....with a roof and three walls....the side of the pub making the fourth wall. Unfortunately, this doesn't comply. So, if there are a dozen people in it smoking and the inspector calls....that will be X 12 plus a possible X 12 plus the inspectors broken nose, jaw and legs....
:shock:
I see this seems to have become a tit-for-tat thread or a 'who knows whats legal' thread lol. come on guys keep it simple haha.
Thanku for your apology from before, its accepted. Dont wanna start a fight :sparring: :lol:
Lets just agree that its all a matter of personal choice. But it will affect us all in different ways.. its not so simple to go smoking or non smoking when your circle of friends contain both.... not everyone can relax without having a ciggy with a drink and vise versa. But the work place is different cos your expected to 'work' there. Seems most places have required you to go outside for a while anyway, seems very common to see hoards of people puffin away at back doors of business...should have a room provided, looks gross at you pass lol
:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:
I see this seems to have become a tit-for-tat thread
or a 'who knows whats legal' thread lol. come on guys keep it simple haha.Thanku for your apology from before, its accepted. Dont wanna start a fight :sparring: :lol:
Lets just agree that its all a matter of personal choice. But it will affect us all in different ways.. its not so simple to go smoking or non smoking when your circle of friends contain both.... not everyone can relax without having a ciggy with a drink and vise versa. But the work place is different cos your expected to 'work' there. Seems most places have required you to go outside for a while anyway, seems very common to see hoards of people puffin away at back doors of business...should have a room provided, looks gross at you pass lol
:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:
Quote by Ms_minxie
:But the work place is different cos your expected to 'work' there. Seems most places have required you to go outside for a while anyway, seems very common to see hoards of people puffin away at back doors of business...should have a room provided, looks gross at you pass lol
:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:
Yes, the "outside smoker" is almost a fixture of many businesses now. We'll see how employers cope with the non-smoking employees standing around in offices/workshops for 10 minutes every hour while the smokers are outside shall we ?
So that's about 1 hour of every workday spent standing around chatting and smoking ?
So it would be ok for me to do the same then ?
If not, would that be workplace discrimination against me because I'm not a drug-addict ?
Thought not. But the unions think it would be, so there are going to be a number of employment court cases to test it....
Quote by JTS
Yes, the "outside smoker" is almost a fixture of many businesses now. We'll see how employers cope with the non-smoking employees standing around in offices/workshops for 10 minutes every hour while the smokers are outside shall we ?
So that's about 1 hour of every workday spent standing around chatting and smoking ?
So it would be ok for me to do the same then ?
If not, would that be workplace discrimination against me because I'm not a drug-addict ?
Thought not. But the unions think it would be, so there are going to be a number of employment court cases to test it....
Never have understood this about "if they do then so should we" argument.
Companies I have worked for have made it very simple. There are two different solutions that seem to have worked where I have been.
1) Have set breaks. No smoking outside of these.
2) Have flexible hours where if you smoke you take off the time and add to the end of the day.
What upset the non-smokers was when I pointed out that the tea/coffee making breaks take just as long as nipping outside for a ciggy. So the company included this on flexi-time sheets. They were mighty pissed off........but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
10 minutes in every hour smoking in company time? I have one before entering work and that will do until lunch time. Have one when official lunch begins and have one before the end of the official lunch time (i.e. one at 12pm and one just before 2pm, time takes approx 10 mins each but have to book 1/2 hour so company gets 10 mins free........never seen a non-smoker give 10 mins free at my place yet.) Nip out at approx 4pm and then add on 15 minute at the end of work to make up hours. So, at what time does this discriminate against the non-smoker? I fulfil my hours of contract, so whats the problem?
As for discrimaination, if I was the boss and I wanted to go outside and smoke with someone while the rest carried on working then that is what I can do.........it is called being the boss. Would you say the same if "the boss" kept taking one person from work to lunch all the time? Is that discriminatory? It could be, but wouldn't be defined in a court case and any judge would boot it out. The boss has privileges that us mere workers do not. Thats life. If you had a non-smoking boss......they would have privileges for non-smoking staff and not the smokers.
Dave_Notts
