Smoking Area FAILURE....typically Ireland

Da Shins Kelly

MrStuffins wrote: »

this thread is not about whether smokers think they're immortal.

In fairness, you started it by bringing up the fact that Bill Hicks is dead, and linking it to his smoking habit..

Chuck Stone

Funny how most folk run to the trenches and start firing at each other instead of digesting the OP properly.

For those who missed it here's the OP's primary concern (as a bar manager?).

I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????





.

MrStuffins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Funny how most folk run to the trenches and start firing at each other instead of digesting the OP properly.

For those who missed it here's the OP's primary concern.

I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????

The place the OP describes sounds like it doesn't even qualify as being "outside". And certainly wouldn't fit the criteria to qualify as a "Smoking Area".

In this case, it should be illegal to smoke there if there are people working!

who the fug

phasers wrote: »

ah so what, the smokers can sit in their area and smoke, and non smokers can sit in the lovely non smoking area. Everyone wins.

No the non smokers keep stalking us

Dudess

Being an atheist, being a non smoker - two things that automatically render a person "smug" apparently...

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

Being an atheist, being a non smoker - two things that automatically render a person "smug" apparently...

You forgot being from Cork!:D

Edit : Smoking ban info....http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/health_and_safety/ban_on_smoking_in_the_workplace_in_ireland.html

OP, why not report the place if they are breaking the law?

Da Shins Kelly

who the fug wrote: »

No the non smokers keep stalking us

They secretly want to smoke, but are too ashamed to admit it so they just bombard us with all their anti-smoking rhetoric while hanging around us in the smoking area to make themselves feel better as they inhale our secondary smoke.

Chuck Stone

Smokers gonna smoke. I think it's the bar owner/lease holder who is responsible here (for the health of his employees).

If I was working there I'd call the the guy who does the smoking room check ups incognito so the matter could be brought to the attn of my employer.

MrStuffins

Dudess wrote: »

Being an atheist, being a non smoker - two things that automatically render a person "smug" apparently...

Indeed. Someone who doesnt smoke doesnt like breathing other peoples' smoke, it's a fault of their own.

However, people don't like a guy punching them in the face, and it's the puncher's fault!

Little Acorn

Just because food was being served there doesn't mean it wasn't also the designated smoking area.
Infact nearly all outdoor dining areas I see also have ashtrays on some of the tables, and more if requested, simply because it is their only smoking area.
So I don't see how it is correct to say "god damn smokers, not smoking where they are meant to be smoking", if they are infact smoking in a smoking area that was provided by the establishment.
If the smoking area does not conform to the smoking area rules and how it affects employees etc., then that is an issue for the management to fix, and is not the fault of people who happen to be just using the smoking area that was provided to them.

goodgolfer64

MrStuffins wrote: »

The place the OP describes sounds like it doesn't even qualify as being "outside". And certainly wouldn't fit the criteria to qualify as a "Smoking Area".

In this case, it should be illegal to smoke there if there are people working!

look i was shocked to see it too....its coats cafe (i think its called) across from supervalue in donabate.....its not outside...like an extended conservatory added at back.....

FrancieBrady

This was a 'smoking area'.
I am a smoker and I have no idea what defines a 'smoking area'. I just ask where the 'smoking area' is when I enter a premises or I follow the signs, safe in the knowledge that only the illiterate or challenged non smokers will be able to figure out where the SMOKING AREA is too. But even the illiterate and challenged will generally know what that area is, what with the delicious smell of nicotine hanging around in whitish wisps and the white stick like things in people mouths.
In my life, if I don't like what somebody is doing, I move away from them, I don't seek them out or confront them. People with no joy in their lives generally shorten my life so I move away from them to. Must always avoid anything that shortens my life.

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

Being an atheist, being a non smoker - two things that automatically render a person "smug" apparently...

The 'evangelical' ones are insufferable bastards in fairness.

I say this as an atheist and ex-smoker.

MrStuffins

Little Acorn wrote: »

Just because food was being served there doesn't mean it wasn't also the designated smoking area.
Infact nearly all outdoor dining areas I see also have ashtrays on some of the tables, and more if requested, simply because it is their only smoking area.
So I don't see how it is correct to say "god damn smokers, not smoking where they are meant to be smoking", if they are infact smoking in a smoking area that was provided by the establishment.
If the smoking area does not conform to the smoking area rules and how it affects employees etc., then that is an issue for the management to fix, and is not the fault of people who happen to be just using the smoking area that was provided to them.

Just because the management are the enforcers here.............

The owner, manager or person in charge of the workplace is legally responsible for ensuring that the ban on smoking in the workplace is complied with...

does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law

Any person found guilty of breaching the ban on smoking in the workplace may be subject to a fine of up to €3,000.

bleg

Report them and add an extra expense to a business that is struggling through a depression.

who the fug

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The 'evangelical' ones are insufferable bastards in fairness.

I say this as an atheist and ex-smoker.

but are u teetotal

Logical Fallacy

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because the management are the enforcers here.............

does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law

But, no offence to the OP, if people are willing to witness the law being broken but not inform the proper authorities...well, it renders their arguments practically moot.

"Why won't every but me take steps to solve this social issue????"

Chuck Stone

who the fug wrote: »

but are u teetotal

Nope. Love my beer.

Trying to 'work off' the results of my love actually - too much love is a bad thing

MrStuffins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But, no offence to the OP, if people are willing to witness the law being broken but not inform the proper authorities...well, it renders their arguments practically moot.

"Why won't every but me take steps to solve this social issue????"

It's not as easy as that though.

"I saw someone stealing a bike today but didnt report it" doesnt equal "It's grand if we all steal bikes!"

Logical Fallacy

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's not as easy as that though.

"I saw someone stealing a bike today but didnt report it" doesnt equal "It's grand if we all steal bikes!"

Of course it is, you only need to worry about yourself and what your own words and actions endorse. That's it.

All the OP has to do is ring the right people and say "There is a place of business with a "smoking area" that contravenes the definition of such that needs to be investigated."

The right person shows up the check it out, decides if the law has been breached and hands out the relevant fines etc.

End of story.

El Weirdo

Jesus Christ, why are some non-smokers such sanctimonious wankers?

For Forks Sake

El Weirdo wrote: »

Jesus Christ, why are some non-smokers such sanctimonious wankers?

And some non-wankers sanctimonious smokers? :eek:

MrStuffins

El Weirdo wrote: »

Jesus Christ, why are some non-smokers such sanctimonious wankers?

So angry, relax the cacks and have a smoke.

Now the answer, it's because if smoking just harmed the smoker, then fine! Do what you want! But it doesn't. therefore, the non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer just because some people are so stupid to take up such a ridiculous habit as smoking!

it's pretty obvious if you think about it no?

Little Acorn

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because the management are the enforcers here.............

does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law

But are the customers breaking the law, if they are just abiding by the law that the management have enforced?

If the management are the main enforcers of this law, they set up the smoking areas in their establishment, they tell their customers "you are allowed to smoke here", and the customers in good faith follow the management's rules, then I don't see how they are breaking the law.
They are following the laws that are given to them by the legal enforcers for that business, ie. the managers/owners, so if there is a fault it lies with the management not the customer.

If the management has an outdoor smoking area, and I breach their rules by smoking inside in the bathroom or hallway, then yes -then I would be breaking the laws and would get a fine, but if I am obeying the rules that are set out by management of the establishment, and the management turns out to be the ones breaking the law, the it would be them and not the smoker who is following the rules, who are at fault.

strobe

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because the management are the enforcers here.............


Any person found guilty of breaching the ban on smoking in the workplace may be subject to a fine of up to €3,000.


does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law

May be... How do you think a Judge may view a situation where someone walks into an establishment, asks where the smoking area is, is directed by a staff member to an area with ashtrays and other people smoking and is told "right there, smoke away"? Judges are there to interpret the law, something tells me a Judge may not view that that person is guilty of an offense.

Much in the same way as if a person were to walk into a computer store and browse around, then be instructed that the store was having a special giveaway by a staff member and as that person was their 15th customer that day, they were free to take away the new computer with the 'free to 15th customer' sticker on it would be guilty of the crime of theft as a Judge would more than likely interpret the law. The fact the staff member was lying or mistaken would be a mitigating factor, yes?

Logical Fallacy

Little Acorn wrote: »

But are the customers breaking the law, if they are just abiding by the law that the management have enforced?

If the management are the main enforcers of this law, they set up the smoking areas in their establishment, they tell their customers "you are allowed to smoke here", and the customers in good faith follow the management's rules, then I don't see how they are breaking the law.
They are following the laws that are given to them by the legal enforcers for that business, ie. the managers/owners, so if there is a fault it lies with the management not the customer.

If the management has an outdoor smoking area, and I breach their rules by smoking inside in the bathroom or hallway, then yes -then I would be breaking the laws and would get a fine, but if I am obeying the rules that are set out by management of the establishment, and the management turns out to be the ones breaking the law, the it would be them and not the smoker who is following the rules, who are at fault.

Exactly.

When i was working in pubs and clubs and **** it was specifically implied by management that part of the remit of the role was to ensure people were not smoking in designated non smoking areas.

If management have given customer license to break the law on their property, that is to say by serving them food as they smoke in plain sight without asking them to desist, then they need to accept the consequences of what that implies.

drkpower

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now the answer, it's because if smoking just harmed the smoker, then fine! Do what you want! But it doesn't. therefore, the non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer just because some people are so stupid to take up such a ridiculous habit as smoking!

Many activities harm others. It does not necessarily follow that one should not be able to engage in those activities. And that decision has clearly been reached vis-a-vis smoking.

You need to do better than that.

MrStuffins

Little Acorn wrote: »

But are the customers breaking the law, if they are just abiding by the law that the management have enforced?

If the management are the main enforcers of this law, they set up the smoking areas in their establishment, they tell their customers "you are allowed to smoke here", and the customers in good faith follow the management's rules, then I don't see how they are breaking the law.
They are following the laws that are given to them by the legal enforcers for that business, ie. the managers/owners, so if there is a fault it lies with the management not the customer.

If the management has an outdoor smoking area, and I breach their rules by smoking inside in the bathroom or hallway, then yes -then I would be breaking the laws and would get a fine, but if I am obeying the rules that are set out by management of the establishment, and the management turns out to be the ones breaking the law, the it would be them and not the smoker who is following the rules, who are at fault.

it doesnt matter what the management say though. You should be aware of the law, ignorance has never been an excuse for breaking the law!

There is nothing in the OP to suggest this was a smoking area, they just said "Outoor dining area". if there are employees serving food there and it is an enclosed space, the customer should know that it's illegal to smoke there, whether the management tell them otherwise or not.

Dudess

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The 'evangelical' ones are insufferable bastards in fairness.

Well yeah, but you get geniuses calling anyone who merely says they hate smoking preachy etc. No, they find cigarette smoke unpleasant and they can't help that - they're not trying to spoil people's fun.

Marty McFly

MrStuffins wrote: »

So angry, relax the cacks and have a smoke.

Now the answer, it's because if smoking just harmed the smoker, then fine! Do what you want! But it doesn't. therefore, the non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer just because some people are so stupid to take up such a ridiculous habit as smoking!

it's pretty obvious if you think about it no?

So angry relax, hmm maybe you using the word stupid to describe smokers is whats enflaming the anger of people towards you? I supposse you have no unhealthy habits.

Plus if non smokers dont want to breathe in second hand smoke the solution is fairly obvious no? Get out of the smoking area, or is just that smokers sharing the same oxegen as you what you find offensive?