Employers and their Smokers?

Doodee

Just curious about this since i'm after getting soaked outside.

Are employers obliged to provide an area that is dry for their smoking employees?
Since smokers have been exciled to outside should they not have to receive the same treatement as other employees?
I.e. a sheltered area with a roof that would stop smokers being rained on to a degree?

I've been told its probably not but i find that to be somewhat unfair.
Also, is a company car park considered a place of work? Cause that would seem to be the only other alternative.

ferdi

just smoke somewhere where your smoke drifts into the building from outside.
all the snivelling hippie bitches will then complain and you will be provided with somewhere better to smoke....hopfully

kenmc

Wouldn't think so - why should they - it's their choice. I choose not to smoke, so I don't get wet. you have the same choice if you want to make it.... fact I think that companys should only provide an area which is wet - fire prevention....

landser

no compulsion on them to supply a sheltered area.

car park is a woking environment if it has people working in it. but if it is substantially open to the elements as mine is then it is not subject to the ban

ferdi

ferdi wrote:

snivelling hippie bitches

seamus

Doodee wrote:

Just curious about this since i'm after getting soaked outside.

Are employers obliged to provide an area that is dry for their smoking employees?
Since smokers have been exciled to outside should they not have to receive the same treatement as other employees?
I.e. a sheltered area with a roof that would stop smokers being rained on to a degree?

I've been told its probably not but i find that to be somewhat unfair.
Also, is a company car park considered a place of work? Cause that would seem to be the only other alternative.

Nobodies forcing you to smoke Doodee. You choose to smoke, you choose to get pissed on. I don't see why an employer should incur further losses from smoking employees.

A car park would be considered a place of work, if people worked in the car park. That wouldn't oblige the company to cover it though. The nature of their work would involve working outside.

koneko

Nope, they don't have to make arrangements for you. It's not like you're wheelchair-bound, or have a disability that requires extra amenities. You choose to smoke, nothing to do with your employer.

ferdi

http://www.ninjapirate.com/smoking.html

landser

seamus wrote:

Nobodies forcing you to smoke Doodee. You choose to smoke, you choose to get pissed on. I don't see why an employer should incur further losses from smoking employees.

jesus, lot of anti smoker sh*t going down here from seamus and kenmc. we're smokers not paedophiles.

p

koneko

It's not anti-smoker, it's common sense. Look at it from the company's POV, why should they pay just so you can smoke? Has nothing to do with being anti-smoker.

seamus

landser wrote:

jesus, lot of anti smoker sh*t going down here from seamus and kenmc. we're smokers not paedophiles.

There's no anti-smoker **** here. Smokers are being treated equally. If non-smokers choose to go outside, they'd get pissed on too. Where's the anti-smoker sentiment?

Doodee

Well just how equal is the treatment.

I mean, before the ban came in companies provided smoking rooms for smokers, however, now smokers must step outside to smoke. You can't discriminate against people with medical illnesses or other afflictions, but smoking is considered bad and taboo nowadays.

Here an example, people choose to be vegetarian, and so vegetarian options are made availible to them, should the same not apply to smokers?

seamus

Doodee wrote:

I mean, before the ban came in companies provided smoking rooms for smokers, however, now smokers must step outside to smoke. You can't discriminate against people with medical illnesses or other afflictions, but smoking is considered bad and taboo nowadays.

Smoking isn't a discriminatible(?) trait. Medical illnesses, etc are accomodated for because there's not a whole lot people can do about them. Choosing to smoke because you enjoy it isn't a good enough reason for smokers to be given any special treatment. You'd need to justify the expense to employers.

As for smoking rooms, that was a choice for the employers. Anywhere I worked before the ban made people go outside like they do now.

Here an example, people choose to be vegetarian, and so vegetarian options are made availible to them, should the same not apply to smokers?

Vegetarian options have far more benefit to being accomodated for than smokers. Not least of all that it's not only vegetarians who will make use of the vegetarians options. It's only smokers who would make use of smoking facilities.

I'll agree that smoking does get a lot of "AH DEVIL! BURN HIM, BUUURRRNNN HIM", but only because it's a completley unjustifiable choice.

Doodee

seamus wrote:

As for smoking rooms, that was a choice for the employers. Anywhere I worked before the ban made people go outside like they do now.
Vegetarian options have far more benefit to being accomodated for than smokers. Not least of all that it's not only vegetarians who will make use of the vegetarians options. It's only smokers who would make use of smoking facilities.

Thats by no means justifiable.
there are plenty of people who dont smoke yet choose to go outside with smokers, by that logic then these people could make use of the shelter aswell.

I take it your gonna persecute people who use bus lanes aswell, and those people with cars that emit far too many pollutants?

Smokers choose to smoke, yes, and they must face the health hazards. Suggesting that smokers must now face any other elements aswell makes it almost Nazi like in its execution, people can be jewish, they justn dont deserve the same rights as non jews.
Yes i know its a fairly bad example, but im flying between calls and replying to this. In all honesty, its not exactly going to break the employers bank balance to stick up some plastic roofing.

seamus

Doodee wrote:

Thats by no means justifiable.
there are plenty of people who dont smoke yet choose to go outside with smokers, by that logic then these people could make use of the shelter aswell.

I take it your gonna persecute people who use bus lanes aswell, and those people with cars that emit far too many poloutants?

Smokers choose to smoke, yes, and they must face the health hazards. suggesting that smokers must now face any other elements aswell makes it almost Nazi like in its execution, people can be jewish, they justn dont deserve the same rights as non jews.
Yes i know its a fairly bad example, but im flying between calls and replying to this. In all honesty, its not exactly going to break the employers bank balance to stick up some plastic roofing.

Yeah, but you're kind of missing the point here. Basically what you're saying is:

"Hello Mr. Employer. 3 or 4 times a day, I like to take 15 minutes from my work period. The law says that in order to do this, I must stand outside. Would you please erect a shelter so that I may be comfortable and dry while taking my paid, unsanctioned break?"

If standing outside to smoke is so horrible, stop smoking. Nobody's telling you that you can't smoke, just that you can't smoke in work. Similar to the way that you can't drink in work. Won't somebody please think of the alcoholics?!

kenmc

Doodee wrote:

Here an example, people choose to be vegetarian, and so vegetarian options are made availible to them, should the same not apply to smokers?

These are entirely different issues!!!
A) a vegetarian option in the canteen does not cost the company any money
meat eaters can choose to eat vegetarian food also, so both benefit from this. In fact some veggies eat fish, so it works both ways - gives a choice to both camps. How would I as a non smoker possibly benefit from your smoking shelter? Yet it would be coming out of my (and all the other non-smokers) bonus/share/dividend fund.
C) ever heard of a raincoat or an umbrella or your car???

Smokey wokey.... I love smoking and (thankfully) we have a sheltered area. But, what happens when (if) we go out for a smoke and get drenched and come down ill? Surely its in every company's interest to stop their workers from getting ill? If they were to provide an initial outlay, it would (probably) save money in the long run.

kenmc

it's not the companies' fault that you went out in the rain! I mean all the rest of the employees looked out, saw that it was raining, and didn't go out. why couldn't you do the same? I mean I love going for a walk after lunch. if it's raining like today I don't go....

amen

DooDee are you the Irish Rangers DooDee ?

I understand, but smoking IS an addiction. If a company knows they've employees who smoke it is in THEIR interest to facilitate that. And not forking out '000's on Sick Leave.

Gordon

There's no harm in asking your employer surely. Or are you angling at the legalities here?

I would imagine that since smoking is not allowed at the workplace then the company is not obliged to make allowances for smokers.

WhiteWashMan

oh dear god. i will not have a smoking argumnet on my forum!

you are all my bitches, and the law says that you are not allowed to smoke in a place of work. it is not a decision of the company. it is the law.

the law does not state that you have to be given a shelter or anything else.

if you decide to go out in the rain, then thats up to you. the same way if you decide to smoke, then thats up to you.

if you decide to wear womens underwear (aimed at the guys here) then that is also, your decision.

there is no other argument on whether or not it is fair, because we could all be here all day debating that one.

suffice to say that , no, there is nothing anywhere that says that a company must provide you with shelter.


by the way, previously when people had smoking rooms, these were allowed based on company decisions. there was no law on work place smoking. if a company doesnt want to keep you warm (and away from flu god bless your little cotton socks you big babies) while you poloute your bodies, then thats up to the company.

kenmc

Doodee wrote:

I mean, before the ban came in companies provided smoking rooms for smokers, however, now smokers must step outside to smoke. You can't discriminate against people with medical illnesses or other afflictions, but smoking is considered bad and taboo nowadays.

No - *some* companies provided smoking rooms for employees - not all. Hence this was a benefit provided by some companies - like a christmas bonus or free coffee. Then when the smoking ban came in they were not allowed to do so, so they had to restrict one of the benefits. They did not infringe on your rights. In my company, employees have always had to go outside to smoke - we never had a smoking room thankfully. so hence when the smoking ban came in there was no issue....

If you have enough smokers in your work... Just ask the boss. It wouldn't exactly costs millions.

Ardent

Doodee wrote:

Just curious about this since i'm after getting soaked outside.

Are employers obliged to provide an area that is dry for their smoking employees?
....
I.e. a sheltered area with a roof that would stop smokers being rained on to a degree?

Ever heard of an invention called the Umbrella?

WhiteWashMan

Papa Smut wrote:

I understand, but smoking IS an addiction. If a company knows they've employees who smoke it is in THEIR interest to facilitate that. And not forking out '000's on Sick Leave.

can you please give examples of how it is in the interests of the company to facilitate smokers?

surely there would be no sick leave if you didnt get wet?

and i also fail to see how that is the responsiblilty of the company, and quite frankly, i am likely to sack any of my staff who take an abnormal amount of sick leave on the grounds that the are not fulfilling their contract commitments.

so, again, if you get sick because you smoke, why should it cost the company?

Gurgle

seamus wrote:

"Hello Mr. Employer. 3 or 4 times a day, I like to take 15 minutes from my work period. The law says that in order to do this, I must stand outside. Would you please erect a shelter so that I may be comfortable and dry while taking my paid, unsanctioned break?"

What about sanctioned breaks, paid or otherwise?
And 15 minutes is long enough to smoke about 5 cigarettes.

Tbh, I think its only right that the employer provides somewhere sheltered to smoke, especially when (like where I work) you're not allowed to smoke in the car park, even in your own car.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

can you please give examples of how it is in the interests of the company to facilitate smokers?

Because it looks bad to see a pile of employees cold and wet out the front of your business.
Because they won't have to take 3 weeks off sick with pnuemonia.
Because they won't get pissed off and quit.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so, again, if you get sick because you smoke, why should it cost the company?

If you get hurt bungee jumping, why should it cost the company ?

I'm smoking for a long time and I have taken in total less than 2 weeks off sick in the 7 years I'm in my job. Thats a whole heap less than many of my non-smoking colleagues.

can you please give examples of how it is in the interests of the company to facilitate smokers?

We are still employees, and should be treated equally. An addiction is still an addiction. It was a choice we (possibly inadvertantly) made years ago.

surely there would be no sick leave if you didnt get wet?

Exactly

and i also fail to see how that is the responsiblilty of the company, and quite frankly, i am likely to sack any of my staff who take an abnormal amount of sick leave on the grounds that the are not fulfilling their contract commitments.

Who said anything about not fulfilling contract commitments? I agree with you there. I take an hour long break per day which gets divided into: 1/4 hour round 11, 1/2 hour between 12-2 (depending on how busy we are) and 1/4 hour round 3. That seems fair enough.

so, again, if you get sick because you smoke, why should it cost the company?

You must see it as the reponsibility of management to ensure staff don't fall ill? You are still legally obliged to pay up to 3 weeks sick leave a year per employee anyway.

Doodee

[Cut Big Rant] [/]

Awww, Eamo your no fun.

It was a simple question, im sure if it were researched that a better arguement could be established.
Just to not, this thread is alot like the ones that appeared on after hours, proves the Bill Hicks theory about non smokers

Swarfboy

Working in engineering (industrial) where the top engineers generally are
1) heavy smokers
2) alchoholics
3) divorced at least once...
These people are retained for the experience and their expertise regardless of whatever problems they have. Usually find some asleep on the desks in the morning...
If a company wants to hold onto it's staff and that quality of staff is rare then they will bend over backwards...
Not saying what's right or wrong unlike most of the righteous posters...

WhiteWashMan

Gurgle wrote:

Tbh, I think its only right that the employer provides somewhere sheltered to smoke, especially when (like where I work) you're not allowed to smoke in the car park, even in your own car..

tbh. i think its only fair that i get a pay rise every 2 weeks, a paid for escort service and a ferrari.
its not the law though is it?

by the way, having a habit which you refuse to give up (becuase if you did want to quit, you would) is not an excuse to go outside for a while and not work.

youre right, it doesnt take 15 minutes to smoke a cigarette, but you still take that and longer.

smoke breaks are at the employers disgression. what would you do if they banned those as well?

WhiteWashMan

to be honest, for every single argument for smoking, i can give you a useable objection.
personally i dont give a figs ass, but the law is the law, and it states you cannot ssmoke in a work enviroment, and its at the companies disgression as to whether or not you get a shelter.

papa smut. it is not the companies responsibilty to ensure its staff dont get sick. its your responsibilty. you get sick while out smoking, then its your own fault. end of storry. stop beating a dead horse for gods sake!

Gurgle

WhiteWashMan wrote:

tbh. i think its only fair that i get a pay rise every 2 weeks, a paid for escort service and a ferrari.
its not the law though is it?

Do you not get those benefits ?
Everybody gets them here, I thought it was a law. We even had to start paying benefit in kind for them a few months ago. Luckily my ferrari is 4 years old so its been depreciated for BIK purposes.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

by the way, having a habit which you refuse to give up (becuase if you did want to quit, you would) is not an excuse to go outside for a while and not work.

youre right, it doesnt take 15 minutes to smoke a cigarette, but you still take that and longer.

smoke breaks are at the employers disgression. what would you do if they banned those as well?

I get 2 paid 20 minute breaks a day and one unpaid 30 minute break, thats when I go outside and smoke. While I'm outside, the non-smokers are not working, they're drinking coffee inside. I'm usually back at my desk before them.
I do not get extra breaks to go and smoke between breaks.
Can I make that any clearer ?

My point WWM is simply that if you do get ill.... you get sick leave... which your employer pays for and productivity falls... so you could say...it IS in the companies interests to provide and facilitate.

seamus

Swarfboy wrote:

If a company wants to hold onto it's staff and that quality of staff is rare then they will bend over backwards...
Not saying what's right or wrong unlike most of the righteous posters...

Now you've got it.

Swarfboy

Swarfboy wrote:

Not saying what's right or wrong unlike most of the righteous posters...

Oops think I might fall in that category!

kenmc

Papa Smut wrote:

My point WWM is simply that if you do get ill.... you get sick leave... which your employer pays for and productivity falls... so you could say...it IS in the companies interests to provide and facilitate.

But non-smokers get sick too. How is your smoking shelter going to prevent them from getting sick? You can have the toastiest shelter in the world with sunlamps, heaters, anti-breeze machines, slippers and a dressing gown but yet you can still catch a cold on the way home from work.

A shelter for smokers is purely discrimination for non smokers. Since the companys' money would go into building it, then the employees who don't smoke will be losing out, and should start smoking to get the benefit of it. If the smokers want a nice warm toastie keep dry shelter, then they should stump up the cash themselves - simple! That way those that "benefit" pay for the benefit. Remember, it's a form of descrimination unless everyone can benefit from it.

seamus

Papa Smut wrote:

My point WWM is simply that if you do get ill.... you get sick leave... which your employer pays for and productivity falls... so you could say...it IS in the companies interests to provide and facilitate.

Or they could choose not to hire smokers.

Gordon

seamus wrote:

Or they could choose not to hire smokers.

Is that allowed? Interesting concept!

seamus

seamus wrote:

Or they could choose not to hire smokers.

That would be discrimination though, wouldn't it?

You can have the toastiest shelter in the world with sunlamps, heaters, anti-breeze machines, slippers and a dressing gown

Taht would be the dogs but I couldn't imagine much work being done..

A shelter for smokers is purely discrimination for non smokers. Since the companys' money would go into building it, then the employees who don't smoke will be losing out, and should start smoking to get the benefit of it. If the smokers want a nice warm toastie keep dry shelter, then they should stump up the cash themselves - simple! That way those that "benefit" pay for the benefit. Remember, it's a form of descrimination unless everyone can benefit from it.

I don't agree with that because if there was a nice area, (I'm not talking about a chrome unit with built in heaters etc. A simple wooden construction with a roof, so you don't get wet). It would be available if the non-smokers were crazy enough to come outside to get out of the office. As it is smokers are being trampled on by the Irish Society in general, so a bit of fair leeway is all we ask for. God knows we give the taxman enough money..

Doodee

kenmc wrote:

A shelter for smokers is purely discrimination for non smokers. Since the companys' money would go into building it, then the employees who don't smoke will be losing out, and should start smoking to get the benefit of it. If the smokers want a nice warm toastie keep dry shelter, then they should stump up the cash themselves - simple! That way those that "benefit" pay for the benefit. Remember, it's a form of descrimination unless everyone can benefit from it.

or better yet, let the government pay for it, since they abolished smoking in a place of work and also are taxing cigarettes so high.

Im sure those individuals that get carted off to A&E at weekends from over drinking or being involved with fights aren't at fault. But wait, they choose to drink and yet dont want to suffer the consequences.

At the end of the day the point can be argued out over and over but nothing shall come of it but insults flying around and people becoming stupidly sarcastic. It was a simply question.

Doodee wrote:

Just curious about this since i'm after getting soaked outside.

Are employers obliged to provide an area that is dry for their smoking employees?
Since smokers have been exciled to outside should they not have to receive the same treatement as other employees?
I.e. a sheltered area with a roof that would stop smokers being rained on to a degree?

I've been told its probably not but i find that to be somewhat unfair.
Also, is a company car park considered a place of work? Cause that would seem to be the only other alternative.

now i have my rough answer, but the chance to argue came about and i fell into it hook line and sinker.

also you can't not hire someone cause they smoke, you'll get cancer if you do.

WhiteWashMan

Papa Smut wrote:

That would be discrimination though, wouldn't it?

no i dont think so.
you could argue that the work environement would not suit the individual and they would end up leaving after a short time, ro that the individual would just not fit in with the other employees.


so it is in the interest of the company for its people not to be out sick, your health is still not the responsibility of the companies. again. stop saying the same thing in a differnt way.

however, every time you go for a smoke break outside of designated break times, i will give you a warning for not being at your work station, and it wouldnt take me very long to issue with your walking papers.

seamus

Papa Smut wrote:

That would be discrimination though, wouldn't it?

I don't believe so. If I interviewed someone who said that they needed a few paid breaks a day to enjoy a leisure activity, and then I rang their reference who told me that they tended to wind down for a few minutes and become sluggish until they had these breaks, would every so often become grumpy, irritable and unreliable (when they tried to quit), and who had a poor sense of hygience so as to have an odour that disturbed their colleagues, I think I'd refuse them work, and be happy to state my reason for it.

Smoking is a choice. Discrimination in general only applies to personal characteristics or beliefs. Now, if you can convince a court that you believe that smoking is the correct way to live your life, you may have a point. Otherwise, employers can indeed refuse to hire people who make poor choices. Just like they can refuse to hire drunks or criminals.

Doodee

seamus wrote:

I don't believe so. If I interviewed someone who said that they needed a few paid breaks a day to enjoy a leisure activity, and then I rang their reference who told me that they tended to wind down for a few minutes and become sluggish until they had these breaks, would every so often become grumpy, irritable and unreliable (when they tried to quit), and who had a poor sense of hygience so as to have an odour that disturbed their colleagues, I think I'd refuse them work, and be happy to state my reason for it.

Smoking is a choice. Discrimination in general only applies to personal characteristics or beliefs. Now, if you can convince a court that you believe that smoking is the correct way to live your life, you may have a point. Otherwise, employers can indeed refuse to hire people who make poor choices. Just like they can refuse to hire drunks or criminals.

Alcoholics become impaired from their addiction, criminals wave their rights by breaking the law.
If your going to fire someone based on hygiene especially odour then you would have to cull all employees with BO, or provide showers.
If someone was grumpy,irritable and unreliable then they are not skilled for the job, however, saying that they are unqualified just cause they choose to smoke would be discrimination.
By that logic the employer would have to exclude people who were addicted to cafiene or sugar/chocolate. you could even include homosexuals there, if you could convince a judge that they were upsetting other employees.

Now its time for me to have a smoke break. well deserved one too.

See you outside in 5 minutes

jd

kenmc wrote:

In fact some veggies eat fish,

No they don't...
Grrr. And I'm not a veggie.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Now its time for me to have a smoke break. well deserved one too.

what about non smokers? do they deserve breaks? or is it just smokers..

seamus

Doodee wrote:

Alcoholics become impaired from their addiction, criminals wave their rights by breaking the law.

Just like smokers become imparied by their addiction. Irritability, impaired motor function, imparied circulation (get cold easier).

If your going to fire someone based on hygiene especially odour then you would have to cull all employees with BO, or provide showers.

They can correct that problem though. Smokers, if they continue to smoke, cannot correct the problem of stinking every time they go for a cigarette.

If someone was grumpy,irritable and unreliable then they are not skilled for the job, however, saying that they are unqualified just cause they choose to smoke would be discrimination.

In these modern times, qualification for a job is more than just being able to do your job. It deals with attitude, people skills and all sorts of other HR bric-a-brac.

By that logic the employer would have to exclude people who were addicted to cafiene or sugar/chocolate.

Proving such addictions are next to impossible though.

you could even include homosexuals there, if you could convince a judge that they were upsetting other employees.

That would be discrimination. Gayness isn't a choice.

Flukey

Smoking is not being banned. You can still smoke as much as you want, but not in certain places, so it hasn't been banned. There are lots of lies around the smoking ban. They say smokers are being forced to go outside or not allowed in pubs. That is not true. A smoker can spend all day in the pub, but just not smoke there.

They say smokers are forced to go outside to smoke, which is not true either. Before or since the ban started, I have never seen anyone going up to anyone and say "You, get a packet of cigarettes, take one out and go outside and smoke it." Have you ever seen that happen? I doubt it. So no one is forcing them to go outside. It is purely their own choice. To say any different is pure fiction.

They say it is discriminating against smokers which is also not true. Nobody is allowed to smoke in the enclosed workplaces, so it applies to everyone. How can something that applies to everyone be called discriminatory?

They say places are not being provided for smokers. That also is not true. They can smoke outside. There is moving air there and they will get all sorts of different weathers, so they have a fully air-conditioned, all-weather smoking area. What more could they want?

They say it is not fair to send people outside in the cold and rain. As I said already, no one is forcing them to go outside, it is their own choice. Also, if they are not worried about lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases, a bit of pneumonia certainly isn't going to concern them. It would be a bit ironic if smokers complained about having to go outside on health grounds, now wouldn't it?

Don't forget too, that the law is being brought in primarily to help those that have to work in the previously smokey environments. As a bonus the customers in pubs or visitors to workplaces benefit too.

The law is not there to victimise smokers or launch some vendetta on them, as some people like to protray it. It is not there as a bigotted or intolerant measure aimed at smokers. It was not put in place because people smoke, but because of the hazards that environmental tobacco smoke has. It is designed to completely remove the smoke, not the smokers. Smokers are as welcome in pubs and other enclosed workplaces as they ever were. It is a health measure aimed at tackling the smoke, not the smokers. Smokers may be inconvenienced by it, but the common good, from which they too will benefit, comes first. That is the way things are in most societies. So it is not intolerant or bigotted.

So when you look at it, it is a very fair, non-discriminatory, healthy, free to choose law and everyone benefits from it. You can't say that about many laws.

WhiteWashMan

seamus wrote:

Gayness isn't a choice.

but what if you caught gay of someone in the workplace?