36 replies to this topic

[Trog]

Quote

IF they push it then they may well have to "give me the push"

thats about it fight for you beliefs or dont.. some times its easier not to fight.. but you make the choice when it comes down to it..

i think the ignore but dont provoke is often the best way.. making rules is a lot easier than enforcing them..

you may have to give in but at least dont make it too easy for "them"..

legally i dont think they have a leg to stand on but without backing the situation would never go to law.. smoking in the work place is against the law.. e smoking isnt.. company policy is about what they can get away with.. what they can get away with is down to what the employees let them get away with..

be a nice obedient sheep or dont.. its your choice.. bah...

trog

Edited by Trog, 10 September 2011 - 10:30 AM.

[MIDIManNI]

Yes Trog you are right...

I firmly believe that it is better to ignore the comments and just carry on vaping (discretely if necessary).

The Company MAY decide to amend existing Company Regulations to include a statement to the effect that - "VAPING IS NOT PERMITTED ON COMPANY PREMISES" or "ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED" In this case, I would certainly adhere to Company Rules but until then I will just carry on because they really can't do much about it since it has not adversely affected my work, if anything it has reduced my workplace stress and increased my productivity..(as Rusty said).

I was in yesterday and Vaped openly in front of the Branch Manager and Regional Manager and there was nothing said - even though the "looks" said it all...!!!

Later...

[modifiedmind]

Requiring people to vape in smoking areas is a bit unethical seeing as they created those to keep the smoke away from non-smokers who didn't want to breathe it in - which your friend is. It's not illegal to vape in closed areas, and if it's not set in stone company policy then there's no reason not to. As long as your friend vapes away from managers etc he probably wouldn't find any trouble, no smell etc...

[Kenny]

MIDIManNI, on 10 September 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Yes Trog you are right...

I firmly believe that it is better to ignore the comments and just carry on vaping (discretely if necessary).

The Company MAY decide to amend existing Company Regulations to include a statement to the effect that - "VAPING IS NOT PERMITTED ON COMPANY PREMISES" or "ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED" In this case, I would certainly adhere to Company Rules but until then I will just carry on because they really can't do much about it since it has not adversely affected my work, if anything it has reduced my workplace stress and increased my productivity..(as Rusty said).

I was in yesterday and Vaped openly in front of the Branch Manager and Regional Manager and there was nothing said - even though the "looks" said it all...!!!

Later...

The looks said it all. Think you need to be careful here Mani. Manager's do remember and a job's a job at end of day.

[Neozero]

I'm counting myself lucky here, not just because the local manager (a smoker) is happy for me to vape at will, but also discovered a couple of days ago that the area manager is a vaper. Win-win for me . Good luck with your case though.

[acousticvillage]

googled, on 10 September 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I think the point here is do employers or businesses that host the public have carté blanche to create whatever rules they see fit? Could an employer ban farting or nose picking or pen sucking and would those be grounds for dismissal if the person refused to comply and how would that stand up in a tribunal ? Vaping is completely legal, if a member of the public was vaping on a bus and refused to stop then the driver would have to contact the police. Under what law could that person be arrested? Disturbing the peace is a huge stretch and would be pandering to ignorance. I can't think of another activity that is condoned, even encouraged(RyanAir) in some businesses and banned in others...with the exception of maybe strip joints.

I agree that this seems to be the central point. It is apparent in other areas too, such as preventing parents from photographing their children in a swimming pool in case they also snap other children...they will tell you that this is because of Child Protection. Health and Safety, Child Protection, Data Protection are but three examples where laziness, or an unwillingness by managers to think, make judgements or make decisions, are used as a convenient catch-all, where most of the public will quietly give in....some genuinely believing that there must be some sort of rule or law, because the staff quoted a legal-sounding bit of jargon.

Or, other, more discerning people will realise the game that is being played but simply don't have the energy or time to continually battle against this inertia.

[Lyneside]

Seems to me there is an issue you could take up here.

Second hand smoke

You have made a decision to vape not to smoke, with all the health implications that involves.

To then force you into the smoking section, potentially puts your health at risk.

( Love this approach because it throws all their scaremongering right back in their face and there aint a thing they can argue with )

Who else will be forced to stand in the smoking section next ? Farters, garlic eaters and people with BO ?

Edited by Lyneside, 12 September 2011 - 08:00 PM.

[steffijade]

googled, on 09 September 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

The reason given is because 'it looks like he's smoking'.

What a load of twaddle... sounds like someone is either jealous or a fervant anti smoker. If they are banning stuff because it 'looks like' something maybe they should ban uniforms while they're at it in case they make employees look like nazis? (those uniforms in on the buses made Blakey look like a nazi... gawky nazi with a dodgy tache, but still..)

Seriously though, I would ask for clarification. If they're afraid that others will think they can smoke anywhere because they see someone vaping, then what's wrong with them putting out a memo or signs that state smoking isn't permitted but vaping is? The distinction needs to be pointed out and the idea about being forced to inhale SHS after taking the trouble to switch to vaping needs to be pushed too.

This seems like victimisation to me, pure and simple.... and before anyone says it's not victimisation, the true motives behind implementing such a ban need to be exposed (like I said.. sounds like a jealous smoker/ ignorant anti smoking zealot). Saying it's because 'it looks like smoking' is very 'thin' as an excuse... if people are educated to know the difference then it needn't be an issue.

[Britannia]

googled, on 09 September 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

The reason given is because 'it looks like he's smoking'.

Following that logic the bus company should also ban their employees from drinking water because it may look as if they are drinking vodka.

[VapeAway]

Whilst this issue is going to run and run as more employers have to face vaping by their staff.


Firstly why have do people think we have the right to force 2nd hand vape on other people. Whether its safe or not does not really matter. We do know it contains nicotine.

Secondly employers do not force vapers in to smoking areas - It is our choice to vape and whilst good employers may choose to offer facilities many wont. I have known employers in the past that will not employ staff who smoke.

Thirdly a smoking area can't be a closed area (at least 60% open or something like that) - this is what the law determined as safe from secondary smoke as I understand it.

Forthly I have worked in an office where someone had bad BO and the employer was forced by staff to deal with it which they did.


Employers need to deal with anything that effects others - Either for legal, moral or morale reasons.

One place I worked they inforced a dress code after some one complained about one of the girls short skirt (us men were outraged)



I do hope employers will encourage vaping and maybe provide suitable areas where possible.

[Tommy2bad]

I duno what the legal situ is where you live but if you don't do as told by management you will be sacked. No leg to stand on.

I got sacked for having a beard, tried to object, even went as far as religious discrimination, no good. Policy is no beards so I shaved or went. I went and haven't regretted it, (shop assistant wasn't as glamorous as I thought it would be).

Unfair and unjust as any ruling based on ignorance and prejudice is, it's still their option. Fukc them if they can't take a joke and move on or ask yourself if vaping is worth a job.

Oh if they insist on you being in a smoking shelter tell em get lost, make them provide a vaping shelter.

[Trilly]

Ok, I'm new to all this, still waiting for my starter kit to arrive but in preperation to my new journey I decided to do some research of my own as to where I can vape at work.

After looking through my company's policies I was pleased to find out I can legally vape at my desk, my employers promote smoking alternitives within the company.... but, and here comes the but that has me, where a office spacce is not owned by the company employees must adhere to the policies of the landlords in regards to smoking.

When I looked into things in more detail regarding our lease I found, actually written into our contract that smoking and the use of e-cigarettes is prohibited with the building grounds, reasoning is that some electronic cigarettes can be mistaken as standard tobacco products and promote a poor image.

While I am not happy about this as it means that I will have to go off site to vape, same as I have to when smoking, I am going to grasp this opportunity to educate others, I have already chatted to a few others who are also showing an interest in switching so when more people see e-cigs it may spark an interest in them too. If more of us vape we could then approach and speak with the landlords, afterall, there would be better reasoning if there were more of us there may be a stronger argument. If however, they still say no then it may be better to respect their policy.

[acousticvillage]

Good for you.
In terms of "promoting a poor image" of the company, I would have thought that seeing a bunch of hunched-up-against-the-wind workers gathered outside the office building, leaving but-ends on the street etc presents a far poorer image of a company than an image of relaxed employees who can vape indoors and not sit stinking of stale smoke next to customers etc.

[Trilly]

acousticvillage, on 20 October 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

Good for you.
In terms of "promoting a poor image" of the company, I would have thought that seeing a bunch of hunched-up-against-the-wind workers gathered outside the office building, leaving but-ends on the street etc presents a far poorer image of a company than an image of relaxed employees who can vape indoors and not sit stinking of stale smoke next to customers etc.

Thanks Acousticvillage, the annoying thing is my employers do promote the use of e-cigs/pv's to it's employees, just the landlords being awkward but it is a shared building and they are the landlords.

[dasnk]

The fact is 'e-smoking' is just too bohemian and weird and people don't know what to make of it, it is just easier to lump you in with smokers and basically say.. any weird shit take it outside.

[gazeddy]

well i cocked up last week while i was on workshop control. was in middle of brew time and i was refilling one of my tanks one of the lads shouted me over to have a look at a rather strange find under a car bonnet (cat hiding from the cold and the cause of the drivers dificult gearselection) came back to find the service manager sat in "my" seat having a good nosey at my little collection. he asked me what it was and basically said because it looks nothing like a cig keep it discreet and do it wherever you like but if your caught by higher up management your on your own. now ive since had my monthly one-one with him and he noted my efficiency has gone up 10% in month with no change to what type of work i get (horrible jobs the bonus kings arent interested in) and asked why so i explained. he even went out and bought the two lowest achievers the tesco disposables for them to try with a bonus incentive to follow my lead. but this week we have an audit and im out side with the smokers as the auditor is a grade A a**hole not wanting to rock the boat and have the looks like "smoke" discussion with a guy who has already commented on my tassimo machine.

[vapedcrusader]

This is very interesting. Firstly, an employer owes an employee a duty of care, based on the principles of Donoghue vs Stevenson - the neighbour principle - we all owe a duty of care to those that might reasonably foreseeably be affected by our acts and omissions. So if I do something that will foreseeably cause you harm, and it does, I am liable and must pay you damages. So, if an employer makes any non-smoker share space with a smoker then he is, on the face of it, in trouble. Further, there are specific statutory duties that impose stricter restraints on the actions of an employer, like the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, the Factories Act, and a wealth of European Law that's overtaken these and updated them. This is before you look at the Occupiers Liability Act the most recent iteration of which (1984, but it may have been updated since) required occupiers of premises to take reasonable care even for the safety of trespassers and criminals.

All of the above is civil law - there's still a lot of excitement to be had with the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974 I think) and, again, the pile of Eurolaw to go on top that has superseded and improved on it. What about, I wonder, the Human RIghts Act?

Oh, one more thing - I wonder if our man could just leave and claim constructive dismissal - he is being asked to do something completely (?) unreasonable.

The point is that the employer is not acting reasonably or rationally. Am I to be prevented from picking my nose just because it looks like I am making a nuclear device? (A pretty strange one I grant!)

The dude should see his Union and kick some bottom. They will hopefully instruct lawyers. My guess is that a suitably-worded letter might do the trick... If not, a legal precedent looks on the cards - great fun for the lawyers - would the Union fund it I wonder?

Paul