Smoking on Work Place Grounds (outside)

[rmet4nzkx]

It's not a matter of losing rights, if anything there are a number of arguments that can be made that such a policy is in the service of public policy. Over time, changes in smoking policies have had a positive impact on public health and other areas such as employee productivity. Many things may be legal but not appropriate at work. What you frequently find is that people who smoke think they have more rights than non smokers. Who is doing their work or taking their calls when they are on their smoking break? It takes 9 minutes to take a smoke break, how often are these taken or doubled up on? Do the math. Smoke is not limited to the small area near the smokers, most are still exhaling smoke while entereing the building and still on their clothes.

 

[annefan]

I figured out the OPs legal answer. He can go ahead and smoke and defy the companies IMPOSITION that NO SMOKING BECAUSE OF RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS (not because of their RIGHT to BECAUSE it's their grounds) and he can quit his employment there or let them terminate him. Then he can sit back and file suit against the TOBACCO company for getting him into the habit to begin with, then if he wins, he won't have to work again, he can live off a settlement. There, that's the answer.

 

[nextwife]

I don't recall reading that they have restricted his freedom to smoke on his OWN time and off their premises. WE all have things we like to do.

That does not mean that our employer must make accomidation for us to do them while at work or while on their property..

 

[annefan]

I'm not arguing their right to prohibit smoking on their premises. I've got a problem with corporation who thinks they can dictate because of rising health care costs. It's ludicrous to use that reason.

 

[annefan]

It's not a matter of losing rights, if anything there are a number of arguments that can be made that such a policy is in the service of public policy. Over time, changes in smoking policies have had a positive impact on public health and other areas such as employee productivity. Many things may be legal but not appropriate at work. What you frequently find is that people who smoke think they have more rights than non smokers. Who is doing their work or taking their calls when they are on their smoking break? It takes 9 minutes to take a smoke break, how often are these taken or doubled up on? Do the math. Smoke is not limited to the small area near the smokers, most are still exhaling smoke while entereing the building and still on their clothes.

I know, I know. And next there will be restrictions on obese people because they eat too many cookies on their 9 minute breaks. I know the smoke smell on a smoker's clothing may be found offensive, but are you pro-restriction when it comes to a non-smoking person who refuses to bathe and wear clean clothes and that is found offensive to you?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I know, I know. And next there will be restrictions on obese people because they eat too many cookies on their 9 minute breaks. I know the smoke smell on a smoker's clothing may be found offensive, but are you pro-restriction when it comes to a non-smoking person who refuses to bathe and wear clean clothes and that is found offensive to you?

Actually ann, yes. Remember this "Your rights stop at my nose".

 

[annefan]

Oh, boy. We're all in trouble.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

OP's employment is in the health care insurance industry, that goes hand in hand with risk management, public policy and common sense. The relationship to health care costs is in addition to the employor's right to workplace policy and the right's of the nonsmokers who take up the brunt of the smoker's exercise of this additional privilege.

 

[annefan]

Sure, but it wasn't relayed that the employer was enforcing new policy because it was a reflection on their reputation, they were changing policy because of rising health care costs. In general? Give me a break. Then if the insurance industry wants to dictate all behavior, then look out, fudgelovers, cause obesity causes a myriad of maladies as well. Next thing you know, excessive restrictive laws are going to lead us straight into socialism or communism.

 

[annefan]

Geeze, politics and law are bedfellows.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I know, I know. And next there will be restrictions on obese people because they eat too many cookies on their 9 minute breaks. I know the smoke smell on a smoker's clothing may be found offensive, but are you pro-restriction when it comes to a non-smoking person who refuses to bathe and wear clean clothes and that is found offensive to you?

Who said obese people get 9 minutes breaks, the cause of their obesity or that nonsmokers don't bathe or wear dirty cloths? If anyone smells they might be asked to refrain from such behavior including wearing of strong fragrances even if they bathe daily and wear clean cloths, you are getting very bizarre in your tangents.
Smokers do not have a right to smoke without restriction.

 

[annefan]

But those strong fragrances might offend me. Remember, Breeze said "your rights end at the tip of my nose".
This is ridiculous.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

But those strong fragrances might offend me. Remember, Breeze said "your rights end at the tip of my nose".
This is ridiculous.

I said they could be asked to refrain from any type of strong fragrances, so what is your point? It still doesn't mean the company can't set a smoking policy.

 

[cbg]

The company has a right to restrict, limit, or prohibit smoking anywhere on their grounds. The reason they choose to make such a prohibition is irrelevant.

Or are you arguing, ann, that they only have the right to make such a limit if it's for a reason you approve of?

 

[annefan]

I'm not arguing anything cbg. I stated that it's Disconcerting to see the company using RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS as a reason for the change. Nobody argued that the company is not within its rights to deny smoking on their grounds. You see the difference? It is fine for the insurance company to refuse to insure those who intentionally use substances that harm the body. They do it every day. No one is crossed about that. I've offered an opinion, not an argument. I will repeat, it is within the rights of the employee to find work elsewhere if he doesn't like the regulation. However, it is still dangerous territory when smoking protesters want to anhilate smokers. The other poster's reasoning is foolish and THAT I took issue with. If anyone thinks that reversing laws to prohibit smoking by anyone is going to be enacted, they are foolish thinkers. The consequences of such a change would alter freedom. And it will NOT make people quit. If smoking were made illegal, people would still find a way to do it. It's just not all this simple.