Smoking on Work Place Grounds (outside)

[Night_on_Earth]

To Night on Earth:

Nope, can't drink in the office, but believe it or not, you can in the Parking Lot. At our business, you are in fact allowed to have two drinks/beers during lunch, just not in the building. As for cussing, I do not think that is tolerated INSIDE the building around others and in fact is against the law in most states. Understand I am not talking about INSIDE, I'm talking OUTSIDE away from the building (100feet) and away from sight or any entrances to the building. Me thinks, other then Breeze, the arguments are coming from smoke haters.

There's no real argument, there's an absolutly correct answer, which Belize gave several hours ago. The rest is just conversation. Like the question, why do you believe you have rights, but your employer doesn't?

 

[migs21]

Smoking

MR. Breeze:

Again, we do not smoke in the building. The current smoking area is 100ft away from any entrance to that building and out of site from any traffic, etc.. The only people that "inhale" others smoke are the people standing within 1-2 ft of the smoker and are smokers themselves. I am amazed that you can not understand that smoking in the building is not the issue here. So your argument about that issue is mute. I'll say it again, we are OUTSIDE already. Are you sure you smoke cigarettes? You sound like more of a smoker hater to me.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

MR. Breeze:

Again, we do not smoke in the building. The current smoking area is 100ft away from any entrance to that building and out of site from any traffic, etc.. The only people that "inhale" others smoke are the people standing within 1-2 ft of the smoker and are smokers themselves. I am amazed that you can not understand that smoking in the building is not the issue here. So your argument about that issue is mute. I'll say it again, we are OUTSIDE already. Are you sure you smoke cigarettes? You sound like more of a smoker hater to me.

And I never said you did smoke in the building did I? I am simply trying my damndest to put an end to this ridiculous discussion.

 

[migs21]

Smoking

Mr. Breeze:
Great, the best way to get off this subject is for you to find another place you can vent your anger at and let people with real honest answers join in, thank you very much.

 

[Night_on_Earth]

He gave the real answer in the first response to your post. That you don't like the answer doesn't make it less true.

 

[okamsrazor]

So your argument about that issue is mute.

I will assume you mean MOOT not mute. I am not sure what your argument is. The company does not have any legal obligation to oblige your habit of smoking. Why do you think companies are not required to provide "smoke" breaks?

The company can state that smoking is not permitted on its premises, the same way resturants can be "non-smoking" and public buildings can be "non-smoking". Smokers are not a protected class, nor is smoking recognized as function needed to support your life...such as eating.

 

[cmorris]

Think of it this way:

You go to a non-smoking friend's house. Do you light up on their property? If you did (hopefully you wouldn't) and s/he asked you to put it out, would you?

Now, pretend this friend's house and property belong to your employer.

You have received the correct answer over and over again. And before you accuse of me of being a "smoke-hater," consider I am a pack-a-day-smoker of 6 years.

 

[cbg]

Ditto to the above. I fully understand that we are not talking about smoking inside the building. I completely realize that we are talking about the employer banning smoking anywhere on the grounds.

The fact remains that you have been given the correct answer, which is that yes, the employer is well within his rights to enforce such a rule and fire anyone who does not comply.

But if you would prefer, by all means pay a local attorney for his advice. And by all means come back and tell us what he said.

And yes, I AM a smoke hater and proud of it.

 

[nextwife]

EVEN if the employer were OK with the smoking, if the building management has now established a NO SMOKING ON PREMISES rule, the employer would have no say in the matter.

I work downtown and in my business am in contact with many property owners/managers. MANY buildings now have totally prohibited any smoking on their premises.

Forget it. YOu have no grounds to fight this. Get used to it.

 

[annefan]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin.

Question: I work at a Health Care Insurance Company.
Smoking is not allowed in our building, which is fine. Smokers are regulated to the "loading dock" area, which is in the back of the building and not viewable from any entrance to the building by visitors/workers, etc. The Company now, is going to implement a policy of No Smoking and this will include the company grounds. In other words, no smoking anywhere around the building or on the companies property. Since "second-hand smoke is not the issue, the company has posted that because of "health care" costs. Considering that obesity is gaining on smoking related health costs, we smokers see this is a joke (they are not closing the elevators to those overweight who use them). They intend to punish those who violate this smoking ban by treating them as normal rule violators, to include termination. This takes people using a legal product (who use this product away from the population) and treats them as criminals. The same treatment as the person who may steal from the company, etc..even though they may have an excellent work record. Can this be "Wrongful Termination" and how far, legally, can the company go to enforce this rule?

I think the OP is concerned because the company is declaring No Smoking anywhere BECAUSE OF rising health care costs associated with smoking. And perhaps he's wondering if this is an infrigement on his rights. What their reason says to me is that they want to impose their rules on him because he's using a product that is partially the cause of rising health care costs. I don't think that corporations should have the right to impose such a thing for THAT reason. There is no argument that they are not well within their rights to dictate what behavior is allowed or not on their grounds. However, I believe that the corporation can have such regulations in place and the employee can decide whether or not he wants to work at a place with such restrictions. So, the OP can either abide by the regulation or work elsewhere. However, the only thing that concerns me in all of this is the direction this is going. Whittling away at the freedoms of citizens is very disconcerting to me. Yes, I smoke (2.5 pks a day, I have you beat Breeze )
and no, I do not smoke in my own car, or in any confined place where it will infringe on others.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Well, until our poster purchases the building and the business, he has no rights. Except to find another job.

Do I like to walk out in the rain to smoke? Of course not? Do I expect others to breath my smoke. Of course not. Is there a middle ground. Yes, the loading dock.

Even where airports have smoking rooms they are disgusting and I choke each and every time I enter them. And unfortunately, most smokers don't are enough to shield others from their nasty habit.

I wonder if our poster would protest as much if gay employees were relegated to the loading dock? Or people who enjoyed eating carrots? Or brown-eyed employees?

This really isn't a battle worth the effort.

 

[annefan]

And as I said, whittling away at the freedoms is very disconcerting. Personally, this thread ranks up there with the fact that I can't speak to my dad on my cell phone while driving to his house in NJ. Like your signature says, Breeze, 'argue for limitations and they shall be yours'.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And ann, I'm all for that law. In fact, I'd like to see each and every person who operates a cell phone while driving arrested. Or working on the computer, putting on makeup or reading a newspaper.

You have the freedom to pull over and speak on the cell phone. Or to install a cell system with hands-free or on-star or other options. Your freedom to use the cell phone is not hampered by law. Nor is your freedom to drive. However, your freedom to drive dangerously or 'distracted' is.

Or would you consider that a person over the age of 21 has the right to drink while driving. Both rights are allowed separately. However, when mixed, they infringe the rights of others to live.

Simple equation.

 

[annefan]

Absolutely. But my only dilemma is that if all distractions by law are removed, I wouldn't be able to have any passengers in my vehicle.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Which is already here. If you are seen driving while attending to rowdy children in your vehicle, or with adults who are distracting you, you CAN be stopped and given a ticket.

There should be NO distractions while driving. Yes, that's a fantasy I know. But it's also required for the driver to control the environment in which they operate a dangerous machine.

Just recently we had a family of 4 die because the driver was reaching around to control the children and ran off the road, hitting a tree head-on.

And again, if the condition inside the car is out of control, the driver still has the right to stop and bring it under control. It's all a matter of decision making, NOT rights or their abridgement.