BMA suggesting smoking to be banned in cars..
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Thats OK, would imagine you don't get much. On the rant, that was more to do with the traditional PH style of expressing your levels of pissed offishness. In this instance very. Nice of you to read my posts though and yes, tend to get a but uppity when someone is clearly being fecking stupid and persists in a clearly blinkered, uninformed or self righteous manner. To be honest, I have received my share of flaming after opening my mouth and letting my stomach rumble, all part and parcel.As for Derek, to honest normally agree with him and his posts are very concise, he did tend to go a tad holier than thou on this one though and I would greatly dispute his points on sickness as smoking is just one contributing factor to the issue.
As for not taking it, I clearly am. More than happy to kick back at any comments you care make. In fact I very much enjoy the sparring.
So just suck one on your carrot stick (keeping both hands on the wheel of course) and to quote "relax"
As a response to Derek and to show personal experiences vary, I once worked somewhere that without exception the smokers worked longer and harder than non smokers. Come 10pm when we needed to deliver, it would be 100% smokers in the office putting the work in.
The non smokers would always have something urgent which meant they needed to head home, leaving the smokers to take up the slack.
It was interesting to note that the non smokers all took many sick days off as well.
The non smokers would always have something urgent which meant they needed to head home, leaving the smokers to take up the slack.
It was interesting to note that the non smokers all took many sick days off as well.
Colonial said:
dickymint said:
So does anybody agree with the science provided by the BMA?
It's not science. Derek. I have one cig at lunch. The only break I take is to go to the toilet.
Apart from your own self righteousness, how does that make me a poor employee?
So if 7% of a significant number of people did A and 14% did B it is likely that, in similar circumstances, twice as many people in a statistically significant sample will opt for B than will A.
If out of a statisticaly significant group of people, those who smoke die 1.3 years earlier than the group as a whole then it does not prove that smoking is dangerous. Statistics on their own prove little apart from likelihood.
Statistics can, and are, used to support a scientific theory but are not really, on their own, 'science' as such.
Via colonial: I'm sorry if I came over as self righteous merely by repeating my experiences. If, as you say, you only have one cigar during a break whilst at work then you fall outside those whom I would describe as smokers. I'll say this though: my experience is that those who smoke take more breaks than those who don't.
My thoughts are quite clear on the subject: someone who smokes should not be allowed to take extra breaks. You don't you say so good for you. It is a shame that all smokers, or even most, do not follow your example.
The difficulty that we have with the positions taken by Colonial, Oa and Derek is that they cite specific examples, none of which are necessarily representative of the whole. And yes, statistics indicate trends, don't they - look at the climate change debate, for example 
It is important to try to separate statistics from propaganda, and we have had much of that for years on the smoking debate. I hear on the radio that some idiot at the BMA conference where this was discussed said that "smoking was as dangerous as discharging you car exhaust into the cabin"
Oh yes? Lets try an experimiment. I'll close all the windows in my car and smoke for 30 minutes. You put a pipe on the end of your exhaust, feed it into the car, close all the windows, start the engine and run it for 30 minutes. Then we'll see who dies first
You will find hard working smokers. You wil find conscientious smokers. You will find bone idle smokers.
You will find hard working non-smokers. You will find conscientious non-smokers. You will find bone idle non smokers.
You could say the same for racial or sexual groups, for religious or hobby groups. You simply cannot tar one section of the community with a particular brush just because they happen to do one thing like smoke.
I will pose a question directly to Derek. If you had a staff member whose performance consistently outshone that of their peers, if they were the one who always stayed to get the job done, if their work was always the most accurate and the most thorough, but they were also clearing off outside every half hour for a quick fag, would you stop them doing it and risk losing your best staff member?
If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
It is important to try to separate statistics from propaganda, and we have had much of that for years on the smoking debate. I hear on the radio that some idiot at the BMA conference where this was discussed said that "smoking was as dangerous as discharging you car exhaust into the cabin"
Oh yes? Lets try an experimiment. I'll close all the windows in my car and smoke for 30 minutes. You put a pipe on the end of your exhaust, feed it into the car, close all the windows, start the engine and run it for 30 minutes. Then we'll see who dies first
You will find hard working smokers. You wil find conscientious smokers. You will find bone idle smokers.
You will find hard working non-smokers. You will find conscientious non-smokers. You will find bone idle non smokers.
You could say the same for racial or sexual groups, for religious or hobby groups. You simply cannot tar one section of the community with a particular brush just because they happen to do one thing like smoke.
I will pose a question directly to Derek. If you had a staff member whose performance consistently outshone that of their peers, if they were the one who always stayed to get the job done, if their work was always the most accurate and the most thorough, but they were also clearing off outside every half hour for a quick fag, would you stop them doing it and risk losing your best staff member?
If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th November 18:00
rs1952 said:
I will pose a question directly to Derek. If you had a staff member whose performance consistently outshone that of their peers, if they were the one who always stayed to get the job done, if their work was always the most accurate and the most thorough, but they were also clearing off outside every half hour for a quick fag, would you stop them doing it and risk losing your best staff member?
If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
No conundrum as, I would suggest, the essence of this is something that every manager has to contend with as a matter of course: a good worker who sets a bad example.If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
The answer is to consdier a balance.
You do not give enough details. One would need to know whether the person is a team player or not, whether their excellent performance causes resentment or, hopefully, the desire to mimic it. Is their role one where, if they are absent for any time, other have to cover for them. Is continuity important, vital or of limited concern?
Your example is obviously extreme and unlikely but similar situations would have arisen for any department head any nubmer of times. If, for instance, you have a good worker who is disruptive, is unhygenic, has limited interpersonal skills, or perhaps goes against regs then one would, naturally, try and remedy the downside. In fact one would do that with every staff member.
The classic case is the person who has a terrible sickness record but when they do turn up for work perform at a high level. Any manager would address the absences.
So you set a problem then limit the answers to an either/or when there are many different resolutions to the problem. The one thing that I would rule out is do nothing.
The simple answer is to remedy the frequent absences if it is something that is important to the role. If it is not then there are other things to consider although it might be that there is no problem.
In 'my' case, the role was demand led. You sat at a machine and answered radio or telephone calls. So every time you vacate a seat for whatever reason someone else has to cover your position. Whilst you are away a major incident can occur - murders, hijacking, floods, fights, pursuits, accidents, nuclear leak, that sort of thing. So if this tremendous performer of yours was a controller of mine then it was extremely unlikely that he could, as you suggest, consistently outshine his peers as he would be elsewhere and unable to fulfill an vital part of the role So the balance there would be sorted quite quickly.
All such management problems are not, in my experience, that easy to solve and it is a question of experience, experiment and perhaps seeking others' help. That said, it is in essence a basic personnel problem and one that would be asked in many a management course.
Derek I will say it again it's down to the boss to allow or not allow fag breaks. Don't blame the smoker. In the past they would quite gladly sit there all day with an ash tray.
I know many companies that do not allow smoking on site whatsoever. One very large company in particular that the smokers can be seen outside the gates on a busy dual-carriageway puffing away on their official breaks. Either you like it or lump it.
I know many companies that do not allow smoking on site whatsoever. One very large company in particular that the smokers can be seen outside the gates on a busy dual-carriageway puffing away on their official breaks. Either you like it or lump it.
Dracoro said:
Stupid people smoke.
]
So all the captains of industry that enjoy a cigar are stupid.....?]
Hmmm. OK.
I have to say that I know many seriously successful people who smoke, and they're far from stupid. I smoke and it didn't make me poor - I don't feel stupid. it's a debate that's going nowhere.
Derek Smith said:
No conundrum as, I would suggest, the essence of this is something that every manager has to contend with as a matter of course: a good worker who sets a bad example.
The answer is to consdier a balance.
You do not give enough details. One would need to know whether the person is a team player or not, whether their excellent performance causes resentment or, hopefully, the desire to mimic it. Is their role one where, if they are absent for any time, other have to cover for them. Is continuity important, vital or of limited concern?
Your example is obviously extreme and unlikely but similar situations would have arisen for any department head any nubmer of times. If, for instance, you have a good worker who is disruptive, is unhygenic, has limited interpersonal skills, or perhaps goes against regs then one would, naturally, try and remedy the downside. In fact one would do that with every staff member.
The classic case is the person who has a terrible sickness record but when they do turn up for work perform at a high level. Any manager would address the absences.
So you set a problem then limit the answers to an either/or when there are many different resolutions to the problem. The one thing that I would rule out is do nothing.
The simple answer is to remedy the frequent absences if it is something that is important to the role. If it is not then there are other things to consider although it might be that there is no problem.
In 'my' case, the role was demand led. You sat at a machine and answered radio or telephone calls. So every time you vacate a seat for whatever reason someone else has to cover your position. Whilst you are away a major incident can occur - murders, hijacking, floods, fights, pursuits, accidents, nuclear leak, that sort of thing. So if this tremendous performer of yours was a controller of mine then it was extremely unlikely that he could, as you suggest, consistently outshine his peers as he would be elsewhere and unable to fulfill an vital part of the role So the balance there would be sorted quite quickly.
All such management problems are not, in my experience, that easy to solve and it is a question of experience, experiment and perhaps seeking others' help. That said, it is in essence a basic personnel problem and one that would be asked in many a management course.
Holly crap Derek, you remind me so much of an L3 I had not so long ago, if he could say anything in two sentances he would wrap you up in 40. I had switched off by the 1st paragraph as the majority of what he said, although very concise and detailed was in fact a load of nonsense. The guy worked long hours, followed the book etc etc. he was a bloomin nightmare though and we moved him out. Never actually accomplished very much, could not hold your attention and failed to get his message across as it got lost in the vast forests of words that he would create.The answer is to consdier a balance.
You do not give enough details. One would need to know whether the person is a team player or not, whether their excellent performance causes resentment or, hopefully, the desire to mimic it. Is their role one where, if they are absent for any time, other have to cover for them. Is continuity important, vital or of limited concern?
Your example is obviously extreme and unlikely but similar situations would have arisen for any department head any nubmer of times. If, for instance, you have a good worker who is disruptive, is unhygenic, has limited interpersonal skills, or perhaps goes against regs then one would, naturally, try and remedy the downside. In fact one would do that with every staff member.
The classic case is the person who has a terrible sickness record but when they do turn up for work perform at a high level. Any manager would address the absences.
So you set a problem then limit the answers to an either/or when there are many different resolutions to the problem. The one thing that I would rule out is do nothing.
The simple answer is to remedy the frequent absences if it is something that is important to the role. If it is not then there are other things to consider although it might be that there is no problem.
In 'my' case, the role was demand led. You sat at a machine and answered radio or telephone calls. So every time you vacate a seat for whatever reason someone else has to cover your position. Whilst you are away a major incident can occur - murders, hijacking, floods, fights, pursuits, accidents, nuclear leak, that sort of thing. So if this tremendous performer of yours was a controller of mine then it was extremely unlikely that he could, as you suggest, consistently outshine his peers as he would be elsewhere and unable to fulfill an vital part of the role So the balance there would be sorted quite quickly.
All such management problems are not, in my experience, that easy to solve and it is a question of experience, experiment and perhaps seeking others' help. That said, it is in essence a basic personnel problem and one that would be asked in many a management course.
You remind me of him so much. This in my world is an easy problem,I have a guy that works hard and delivers, he gets results and the job is done. I could not give a rats arse if he takes a break every 10 minutes to have a w
k, if he delivers, he stays. It's that simple.By the way, what the heck kind of work do you do that can result in in everything from fights to nuclear accidents if you happen to be away from your desk for a piss. The skill set on your CV must be absolute incredible if you are trained to deal with every natural disaster known to man.
Derek Smith said:
rs1952 said:
I will pose a question directly to Derek. If you had a staff member whose performance consistently outshone that of their peers, if they were the one who always stayed to get the job done, if their work was always the most accurate and the most thorough, but they were also clearing off outside every half hour for a quick fag, would you stop them doing it and risk losing your best staff member?
If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
No conundrum as, I would suggest, the essence of this is something that every manager has to contend with as a matter of course: a good worker who sets a bad example.If your answer is no, you'll undermine your whole argument. If your answer is yes, then it would appear to show that your attitude towards an ancillary matter is taking precedence over getting the job done. An interesting conundrum for you
The answer is to consdier a balance.
You do not give enough details. One would need to know whether the person is a team player or not, whether their excellent performance causes resentment or, hopefully, the desire to mimic it. Is their role one where, if they are absent for any time, other have to cover for them. Is continuity important, vital or of limited concern?
Your example is obviously extreme and unlikely but similar situations would have arisen for any department head any nubmer of times. If, for instance, you have a good worker who is disruptive, is unhygenic, has limited interpersonal skills, or perhaps goes against regs then one would, naturally, try and remedy the downside. In fact one would do that with every staff member.
The classic case is the person who has a terrible sickness record but when they do turn up for work perform at a high level. Any manager would address the absences.
So you set a problem then limit the answers to an either/or when there are many different resolutions to the problem. The one thing that I would rule out is do nothing.
The simple answer is to remedy the frequent absences if it is something that is important to the role. If it is not then there are other things to consider although it might be that there is no problem.
In 'my' case, the role was demand led. You sat at a machine and answered radio or telephone calls. So every time you vacate a seat for whatever reason someone else has to cover your position. Whilst you are away a major incident can occur - murders, hijacking, floods, fights, pursuits, accidents, nuclear leak, that sort of thing. So if this tremendous performer of yours was a controller of mine then it was extremely unlikely that he could, as you suggest, consistently outshine his peers as he would be elsewhere and unable to fulfill an vital part of the role So the balance there would be sorted quite quickly.
All such management problems are not, in my experience, that easy to solve and it is a question of experience, experiment and perhaps seeking others' help. That said, it is in essence a basic personnel problem and one that would be asked in many a management course.
"It all depends"
And that is the crux of the issue. You do not, you cannot, treat all people in the same way. You have to weigh up ALL the factors, not just one or two. And that's why I gave you an extreme example.
The smoking debate has been hijacked, and you probably have to agree with that from whatever side of the fence you are on. We are being fed nonsensical arguments that you could drive a coach and horses through.
"Its not safe to smoke and drive" - As others have said, by extension its not safe to play with the radio, to put a CD in, to blow your nose whilst driving. But we're not going to ban any of those because we haven't propagandised it yet. If you look at it another way, its not safe to drive at all - perhaps we ought to ban that.
"passive smoking kills your pasengers" Oh yes? Well, my mother never smoked in her life, but for her 84 years she was surrounded by people who did. Was dying at 84 a smoking related disease? No. Somehow she survived, the same as everybody else over pensionable age has done in this country since the days when virtually everybody smoked.
"Its bad for the children in your car" - So how come I and all my generation (which incudes Derek of course
) are still here after we all lived through it when we were kids. Even if your parents didn't smoke, then somebody in the family, or people down your street did. Anybody remember the blue fog that enveloped the staff room in school? I do"The stench of tobacco smoke is awful" - as I said in an earlier post, I always quite liked the smell of it (to any mon-smokers who've read this far, the smell is not the same as the taste) and, of course, there are many brands around with distictive smells (once you get into hand rollijg and pipe tobacco, that is). This one actually reminds me of the stupidity that, when I was a kid, surrounded the sound of bagpipes. There was nothing particulary wrong with the sound of bagpipes (even if a bit "squeaky" when compared to Northunbrian pipes) but the English had been programmed since the Jacobite uprising to think that the sound of bagpipes was awful. I think there's a similar progamming being embarked upon now with tobacco.
I've already dealt with the BMA idiot who thinks that smoking in the car is more dangerous than exhausting your car into the cabin, so I won't go there again
That lot was more or less on topic (sorry
) but I shall get back off topic to finish. Derek's answer I think proves a point. Initially we were told that he would stop smokers taking extra breaks. When asked to think about that from a managerial viewpoint, and to take the individual staff member and his/her worth to the organisation into account he seemed to have back-tracked a little. That might be only from "You will stop taking extra fag breaks" to "what are we going to do about you and your smoking when I've got a department to run?" Perhaps only a slight change of emphasis, but it starts to take into account the realities of a situation rather than the position of dogmatism.If we could all get away from dogmatism and pre-conceived pejudices, on both sides, we might have an entertaining debate.
chim said:
Holly crap Derek, you remind me so much of an L3 I had not so long ago, if he could say anything in two sentances he would wrap you up in 40. I had switched off by the 1st paragraph as the majority of what he said, although very concise and detailed was in fact a load of nonsense. The guy worked long hours, followed the book etc etc. he was a bloomin nightmare though and we moved him out. Never actually accomplished very much, could not hold your attention and failed to get his message across as it got lost in the vast forests of words that he would create.
You remind me of him so much. This in my world is an easy problem,I have a guy that works hard and delivers, he gets results and the job is done. I could not give a rats arse if he takes a break every 10 minutes to have a wk, if he delivers, he stays. It's that simple.
By the way, what the heck kind of work do you do that can result in in everything from fights to nuclear accidents if you happen to be away from your desk for a piss. The skill set on your CV must be absolute incredible if you are trained to deal with every natural disaster known to man.
My experience on Ph is that if you don't explain your reasoning then you leave yourself open to counter argument. To put it as shortly as I can, performance includes not disrupting the team. It is the total ouput that must be considered, not just that of the individual.You remind me of him so much. This in my world is an easy problem,I have a guy that works hard and delivers, he gets results and the job is done. I could not give a rats arse if he takes a break every 10 minutes to have a w
k, if he delivers, he stays. It's that simple.By the way, what the heck kind of work do you do that can result in in everything from fights to nuclear accidents if you happen to be away from your desk for a piss. The skill set on your CV must be absolute incredible if you are trained to deal with every natural disaster known to man.
I was i/c my force control room (Ops1) so was in charge of any incident that came along until it was possible to pass it off onto someone else. I would then have specific duties. On nights it took an hour or two to get a C/I or super to log on. The nuclear incident I was left to run on my own.
It was a real pressure job as you could not plan. I was, as I said, demand led. I've gone 8 hours without making an operational decision and then when running a murder by a hitman, I mad something like 30 critical decision in 90 seconds. It was tremendous fun but two years was long enough for me.
rs1952 said:
"It all depends"
I agree with your post on virtually every point, especially the first one, which I've quoted.Just to clarify, I have not suggested that the ban on smoking in cars is right. I have not said I support it. Indeed I don't. All I've given is my experience.
One more bit, which I can't justify as the figures are low, but those who smoked in the control room seemed to be those who had difficulty with the pressure. If I bring to mind those controllers I've taken to one side for a chat due to my, or others' concerns about how they are coping, they normally smoked. This might be as it seems on face value or that those who smoke appear more nervous.
I occasionally had a sergeant who smoked and he was as laid back as could be. Almost horizontal I thought, but wrongly. He flipped big time. His own inspector had absolutely no idea. I thought it was because, unlike other smokers, he did not seem nervous.
Derek Smith said:
chim said:
Holly crap Derek, you remind me so much of an L3 I had not so long ago, if he could say anything in two sentances he would wrap you up in 40. I had switched off by the 1st paragraph as the majority of what he said, although very concise and detailed was in fact a load of nonsense. The guy worked long hours, followed the book etc etc. he was a bloomin nightmare though and we moved him out. Never actually accomplished very much, could not hold your attention and failed to get his message across as it got lost in the vast forests of words that he would create.
You remind me of him so much. This in my world is an easy problem,I have a guy that works hard and delivers, he gets results and the job is done. I could not give a rats arse if he takes a break every 10 minutes to have a wk, if he delivers, he stays. It's that simple.
By the way, what the heck kind of work do you do that can result in in everything from fights to nuclear accidents if you happen to be away from your desk for a piss. The skill set on your CV must be absolute incredible if you are trained to deal with every natural disaster known to man.
My experience on Ph is that if you don't explain your reasoning then you leave yourself open to counter argument. To put it as shortly as I can, performance includes not disrupting the team. It is the total ouput that must be considered, not just that of the individual.You remind me of him so much. This in my world is an easy problem,I have a guy that works hard and delivers, he gets results and the job is done. I could not give a rats arse if he takes a break every 10 minutes to have a w
k, if he delivers, he stays. It's that simple.By the way, what the heck kind of work do you do that can result in in everything from fights to nuclear accidents if you happen to be away from your desk for a piss. The skill set on your CV must be absolute incredible if you are trained to deal with every natural disaster known to man.
I was i/c my force control room (Ops1) so was in charge of any incident that came along until it was possible to pass it off onto someone else. I would then have specific duties. On nights it took an hour or two to get a C/I or super to log on. The nuclear incident I was left to run on my own.
It was a real pressure job as you could not plan. I was, as I said, demand led. I've gone 8 hours without making an operational decision and then when running a murder by a hitman, I mad something like 30 critical decision in 90 seconds. It was tremendous fun but two years was long enough for me.
, in that type of situation (similar to call centres I suppose) it all about the stats, clock in to seat and clock out. In my experience of this though it's all about permitted breaks, all employees have the same amount of these breaks and even toilet time is calculated in. Smokers get no special treatment, if they want to use their break time for a fag it's up to them.Hard to comment on your place as it is highly specialist, this also reads as well out of the statistical norm though. To be honest I have never had a complaint about smokers getting more time or have never seen it highlighted by HR as an issue, in fact I would be very surprised if HR track the number of smokers, would be even more surprised if they where allowed to. This is where I also struggle with your argument though, it's based on a limited personal experience as there will be no official figures for this as no workplace would be allowed to discriminate and track in this way.
Ps, sorry for being s
ty at times on this one. As mentioned earlier, I really do enjoy your posts, this one just got my back up.Still think you would be a nightmare manager though
Edited by chim on Friday 18th November 21:51
chim said:
Still think you would be a nightmare manager though
I found it difficult to asses my own ability as a manager. My bosses never really saw me, my staff were aware that we worked in a disciplined environment so honest feedback was not the norm and my peers were, like me, generally more sympathetic to the occasional mistake at our level.I got on well with all my sergeants apart from one I thought was a bully. I've always found that to be a sign of a good manager but you never know.
I know I set high standards of performance but if anyone made a mistake and wanted to improve I always supported them rather than discipline, mind you mainly because I found it worked. Lazy b
ds, though, especially those who could have done but did not pull their weight got an interview at the very least. Very little worked with them though.I was task oriented, I know that. I found it very difficult to get that under control. It is not a disasterous fault for a bobby.
Derek Smith said:
chim said:
Still think you would be a nightmare manager though
I found it difficult to asses my own ability as a manager. My bosses never really saw me, my staff were aware that we worked in a disciplined environment so honest feedback was not the norm and my peers were, like me, generally more sympathetic to the occasional mistake at our level.I got on well with all my sergeants apart from one I thought was a bully. I've always found that to be a sign of a good manager but you never know.
I know I set high standards of performance but if anyone made a mistake and wanted to improve I always supported them rather than discipline, mind you mainly because I found it worked. Lazy b
ds, though, especially those who could have done but did not pull their weight got an interview at the very least. Very little worked with them though.I was task oriented, I know that. I found it very difficult to get that under control. It is not a disasterous fault for a bobby.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff