Reporting smoking in the workplace
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
blindswelledrat said:
Yes of course. Smoking is exactly the same as racism. Incredible analogy
Is this a wind up or are you really this thick? Ignoring current employment law is the same as ignoring current employment law. Smoking, racism, sexual discrimination, unlocking fire exits, etc etc. They are there for people's protection.That's like trying to argue that murder is the same as speeding because they are both against the law
blindswelledrat said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
blindswelledrat said:
Yes of course. Smoking is exactly the same as racism. Incredible analogy
Is this a wind up or are you really this thick? Ignoring current employment law is the same as ignoring current employment law. Smoking, racism, sexual discrimination, unlocking fire exits, etc etc. They are there for people's protection.That's like trying to argue that murder is the same as speeding because they are both against the law
The law says that we are to be protected from a number of things in the workplace. One example is discrimination. Another is passive smoking.
If you think the law is misguided then argue that point.
You're just being a troll.
kev b said:
Three pages and someone has ruined the thread, PH Lounge back on form then.
Meh, 3 or 4 posts does not a thread make.In reality his post wasn't that much further off whack than yellowjack's, except the one has the weight of reality and the other of legislation.
As a smoker I feel sorry for the OP's situation. They are, IMO right about smoking indoors. I don't even do so at home, although leaning out the top of the stable door was known in the depths of Winter if the wind was blowing the smoke away from the house.
In reality though if you have raised the issue with the management and the culprits and they are doing nothing about it the only option you have to stop it, or try to, is to 'get legal on their ass.' You don't need it spelled out for you what they will do for your prospects at that company or in the local area. Sure there is potentially legislation to protect you but I don't know enough about that to comment on if it will in the legal world, although in the real I strongly expect that it's a damp squib unless you are Mr 100% perfect by the book and the model employee according to the staff handbook.
I don't envy your position and suspect that the 'easiest' option for you is to look for a more 21st century employer as I can't see this ending well. Once you are out the door then it is your call if you want to cause ructions but again, other than making it crystal clear that that is why you are leaving, there is little mileage in it for you.
blindswelledrat said:
Tlj you really do come across as a whiny tantrumming crybaby.
You take a job at a place that has been doing the same thing for 50? Years and expect everyone to change because you don't like it. Presumably if it is that rife you could clearly tell before you started work there?. You are one of those "I demand my rights" people who don't give a f
k about anyone else.
Now you have the law on your side I can imagine you walking around with your excited smoking erections screaming "it isn't fair. It's my right"
I don't smoke by the way
You take a job at a place that has been doing the same thing for 50? Years and expect everyone to change because you don't like it. Presumably if it is that rife you could clearly tell before you started work there?. You are one of those "I demand my rights" people who don't give a f
k about anyone else.Now you have the law on your side I can imagine you walking around with your excited smoking erections screaming "it isn't fair. It's my right"
I don't smoke by the way
Kiltie said:
He didn't say anything like that at all and you know it.
The law says that we are to be protected from a number of things in the workplace. One example is discrimination. Another is passive smoking.
If you think the law is misguided then argue that point.
You're just being a troll.
I read his point as being laws are broken all the time, which is true. This is just another law, and there are lots of workplaces' that have ignored it.The law says that we are to be protected from a number of things in the workplace. One example is discrimination. Another is passive smoking.
If you think the law is misguided then argue that point.
You're just being a troll.
Locked fire exits are proven to kill, where as passive smoking hasn't been.
I've never smoked as I've burried too many relatives who did. But given the hysterical levels of hype over passive smoking, I can see why some places ignore the ban.
blindswelledrat said:
Yes of course i am the thick one when it's you who thinks that racism is identical to unlocking fire exits , even leaving aside the fact that fire exits are supposed to be unlocked
We've had our fire exits locked for 50 yrs. Bloody cry babies like you come along and demanding they are suddenly unlocked. Demanding your rights! Pah.How does the smoke even get near you in a workshop with the high roof and massive doors open all day?
Couple of lads in my garage smoke I don't even notice it unless they're over giving me a hand and right in my face with it but that's rare.
Are they smoking in the office or canteen areas?
Couple of lads in my garage smoke I don't even notice it unless they're over giving me a hand and right in my face with it but that's rare.
Are they smoking in the office or canteen areas?
LucreLout said:
I read his point as being laws are broken all the time, which is true. This is just another law, and there are lots of workplaces' that have ignored it.
Locked fire exits are proven to kill, where as passive smoking hasn't been.
I've never smoked as I've burried too many relatives who did. But given the hysterical levels of hype over passive smoking, I can see why some places ignore the ban.
I don't think anyone (employers, employees, colleagues or customers) has the right to pick and choose which laws are valid and which can be disregarded.Locked fire exits are proven to kill, where as passive smoking hasn't been.
I've never smoked as I've burried too many relatives who did. But given the hysterical levels of hype over passive smoking, I can see why some places ignore the ban.
LucreLout said:
Link please.
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smo...
WHO findings. Independent as you can get.
What are the Effects of SHS on adults' health?
Carcinogenic effects of SHS
In June 2002, a scientific working group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, Lyon, France, reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active and involuntary. Its conclusions confirmed the cancer-causing effects of active smoking. It also concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking and classified second-hand smoke as carcinogenic to humans.
There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker. Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer. The risk of presenting lung cancer increases with the degree of exposure. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) estimates that SHS causes 3000 deaths each year due to lung cancer in non-smokers.
Vaud - As a smoker I try to be considerate. I also do not think that SHS can be regarded as 100% clean air and not of any health concern at all.
It does interest me though that (so far as I can discern) EVERY lung cancer death in a smoker is considered to be 'caused by or smoking related'. I have trouble as a non medical man in working out how there is a percentage of the population who never smoke and are hardly ever subjected to SHS who die of Lung Cancer, yet ever smoker who dies of it has always contracted this as a result of their smoking...
Based on this I find it hard to take even the most eminent of medical papers on face value on the subject, but do not dispute that smoking is not good for you in the slightest when netted down.
It does interest me though that (so far as I can discern) EVERY lung cancer death in a smoker is considered to be 'caused by or smoking related'. I have trouble as a non medical man in working out how there is a percentage of the population who never smoke and are hardly ever subjected to SHS who die of Lung Cancer, yet ever smoker who dies of it has always contracted this as a result of their smoking...
Based on this I find it hard to take even the most eminent of medical papers on face value on the subject, but do not dispute that smoking is not good for you in the slightest when netted down.
Have you reported it yet?
Some of the replies are comical but it wouldn't be The Lounge without them.
As many have said you shouldn't have to deal with others smoking around you in the workplace, sometimes the suggestion of appropriate signage is all it will take.
I presume working in and around HGVs whilst smoking isn't going to be the most sensible thing given the amount of flammables...
Some of the replies are comical but it wouldn't be The Lounge without them.
As many have said you shouldn't have to deal with others smoking around you in the workplace, sometimes the suggestion of appropriate signage is all it will take.
I presume working in and around HGVs whilst smoking isn't going to be the most sensible thing given the amount of flammables...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff