Smoking

[brian john]

Has anyone had any issues with employee smoking?

I recently got a call from a long customer, his boss happened to show up on a job and saw my men outside smoking he asked him if my men were on T&M (they were). He was upset because the last time he saw my men two weeks previously on another job they were outside smoking.

I do not smoke and wish my men did not I have paid for in the past any method they choose to use to quit and have given financial incentives added vacation and hourly pay increases all but two quit smoking.

[bmac71]

First let me start by stating I have no experience with this but I thought I would share my opinion.

After reading your post I got to thinking. I would try to investigate this and try to come up with a solution. Some states require a break for employees 1 before and 1 after lunce (not sure if your state does). If this is the case, I would find out if my crew was out around the same time that your customers boss showed up at both locations (some people keep their smoke schedule, I work with a guy you can set your watch by, he smokes at the same time everyday unless something is happening he cannot walk away from). Then this may be a coincedence??? If not I would find out how many were out on break and how many were not. If the majority was out, I would talk to my crew and ask them to only go out and smoke/break in pairs or some mutual common sense way. This way will give the customer the impression progress is not stopping for a smoke.

Another thought, does your customers boss just loaths people who smoke, this could also be a issue. Never know, just a thought.

I am not a smoker, but I believe everyone needs a break at some point and if people want to take that 15 mins or whatever to smoke, that is up to them. I am sure not everyone has the same opinion.

[jeff43222]

I'm pretty sure you aren't legally required to allow smoking breaks beyond whatever normal breaks are required for hourly workers. Let them know that any additional smoking breaks are off the clock. This is reasonable. After all, you're paying them to work, not stand around and smoke.

If it becomes a real problem, you could just fire them. I know there are some companies that have fired people just for being smokers, even if they only smoked when they were away from work. Apparently it's legal to fire someone just for being a smoker.

[brian john]

The smoking off the clock may seem resonable. But one thing I have learned after 36 years in the trade is you take away a 1 minute it cost you 15.


We are required to give them breaks and it varies from location to location (we work in 4 states and the District) and the guys always take the most liberal.

The customer is very reasonable and respects my work but wants 8 for 8, which is seldom possible even without smoking.

[charlie b]

I don’t think you should give an advantage or benefit to one worker that you do not also give to other workers, especially if that benefit (i.e., smoke break) is based on a personal choice (i.e., the decision to smoke). The author of the Dilbert comics gave us a funny twist on this topic several years ago. The character Wally, a non-smoker, wanting to get equal break time as the smokers, insisted that he be allowed to go outside at the same time periods as the smoke breaks. To be certain the break time was the same, he would light a cigarette and hold it in his ear. That way he didn’t have to inhale the smoke, but the break would be over when the cigarette burned down, just as it would for the smokers. He called it an “ear-garette.”

The simplest policy to enact is to require smokers to take smoke breaks “off the clock.” But it may be difficult to enforce. For example, if you have two workers sharing a truck at the same site, and one is a smoker, are you going to make the non-smoker stay on-site (paid or unpaid is not the issue) an extra 20 minutes, simply because the smoker has to make up the 20 minutes of smoke breaks taken earlier in the day?

Another possible policy is to forbid smoking at the job site. But will that mean that the non-smoker sharing a truck with a smoker will have to put up with smoking in the truck on the way to the next assignment? Or will you forbid smoking in the truck also? Neither would be fair to anybody.

[Rockyd]

Only once had an issue with smoking. We all were on a job at Valdez Terminal (end of the Alaska pipeline, all Class I, div,I or II, inside or outside except in designated areas). Half the crew smoked, half didn't. We were on a 7/10 schedule. The smokers were taking four more "smoke breaks" than anybody else!

So on the third day, when the smokers decided to use the truck to go to the smoking area, all of us non smokers followed into the truck. The smokers wanted to know what this was all about? We informed them that we were "addicted to coffee". So then they wanted to know what this was really about? We then informed them that they were working at least an hour less than anyone else in the field, and that they needed to smoke on given break times only, not inbetween breaks.They toughed it out for the month long job, but cranky about it.

No sympathy for them. They knew we were going to an oil facility, and that smoking wasn't allowed except in designated areas. It's disruptive to production to make anyone on the crew "special".

Back in real world, if it's not offensive to the client, or workers in the area, then it's their call.

[Dennis Alwon]

I have always had a different approach to smokers. I don't hire them. But that is probably why I mostly work alone.

[brian john]

Dennis I have 20 people 4 are smokers, one of the smokers quit for 5 years and was rewarded for his quitting after 6 months. He recently went through family problems and now smokes worse than ever.

1-smoker is the secretary she seldoms smokes then it is a quick outside and then back.

2-are electricians the same that got this thread going.

1-is my business partner, I do not allow him to smoke in the office.

An additional 4 of my employees smoked and quit with me paying for the quit smoking method of their choice and with vacation or a raise as an added incentive.

In our trade it is hard to find electricians that do not smoke, and not sure if by law we could discriminate.

[barbeer]

AS A NON SMOKER i USUALLY LET THE SMOKERS GO GET MATERIAL OUT OF THE TRUCK, SEEMED ONLY FAIR. SOMETIME WHILE SITTING AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT THE GROUND NEAR THE MEDIAN AND ALL THE NON-BIODEGRADEABLE MATERIAL WE WILL BE FORCED TO DEAL WITH SOON ENOUGH.(BUTTS)

[celtic]

AS A NON SMOKER .....

Why are you you yelling at us?

http://www.onliner.by/news/17.08.2006/11.25/017559.jpg

Make that light go off.

[iwire]

There is no reason you have to let anyone smoke while on your clock. I usually try to be accommodating but that would change if the customer was upset.

The facility I am working at now is a Division of Johnson & Johnson, they have a strict policy that is posted at the parking lot entrance.

"Use of any Tobacco products is prohibited on the premises"

This includes the entire property, no smoking outside, no smoking in your truck as long as it is on the property.

[ryan_618]

I am a pack and a half a day smoker. I smoke a cigaretter in about 4 minutes.

I can guarantee that each one of you screws around for at least 20 minutes per day (the time it would take me to smoke 5 cigarettes). I personally don't see the issue.

[iwire]

Pack and half a day.

30 cigarettes

16 hours awake each day

or about 2 smokes per hour

Walk to smoking area 1 minute

Smoke 4 minutes.

Return from smoking area and become productive 2 minutes.

7 minutes lost each half hour.

But lets call it 'only' 5 minutes, thats 80 minutes a day lost time.

[stickboy1375]

I used to smoke, quit for my family, and I know the time I wasted on the clock smoking, now I just waste time...:grin: just kidding...

[shockme77]

I quit smoking 2 years ago. It feels great and I am far more productive now than when I was a smoker. There's not enough time in the day for a smoke break, but if the guys going out to get material from the truck or whatever, I don't think its that big of a deal. Deliberately stopping what you're doing to go have a smoke, is. I'd be pissed too if I was a customer paying T&M and the guys were going out for a smoke every hour or so.

[ryan_618]

Pack and half a day.

30 cigarettes

16 hours awake each day

or about 2 smokes per hour

Walk to smoking area 1 minute

Smoke 4 minutes.

Return from smoking area and become productive 2 minutes.

7 minutes lost each half hour.

But lets call it 'only' 5 minutes, thats 80 minutes a day lost time.

I smoke a lot more at home. :) But, when I was installing, I still ran circles around my guys. :)

Edit for spelling.

[Pierre C Belarge]

Ryan
It is the perception the other workers have when you or someone goes out to take a cigarette BREAK - break emphasized.

[JohnJ0906]

I agree, there is a perception with seeing someone standing around not working. I try to grab my smokes while doing outside work, going to the van to get material or tools, going to spot-a-pot, etc. When on a T&M job, I am particuarly careful.
I can't even smoke in my appartment! I thought for sure I would quit when I had to go outside in the winter-3rd winter here and still at it...

[Smart $]

Pack and half a day.

30 cigarettes

16 hours awake each day

or about 2 smokes per hour

Walk to smoking area 1 minute

Smoke 4 minutes.

Return from smoking area and become productive 2 minutes.

7 minutes lost each half hour.

But lets call it 'only' 5 minutes, thats 80 minutes a day lost time.
It's only lost time when you non-smokers make it so. I can work, in most cases, while I smoke. And what about the non-smoking, idle talkers? What about their lost time? Actually it is getting that bad. I've heard of electricians getting fired because they were idle talking. Get real: I work to live, not the other way around.

[roger]

Like Iwire, most hospitals and factory's we work at are "non tobacco" facilities. If an employee of the hospital or a contractors employee is caught using tobacco (even in their own car) on the property they are made to leave immediately, the second time they are banned for one week, the third time they are banned permanently.

The hospitals actually offered help for those wanting to quit.

Some of the factory's are as tough.

One hospital has a policy of no writing on clothing unless it is a company logo, I like this too.

These facilities make it easy for us.

BTW, I smoked for 32 years and quit 4 years ago, I still drink coffee and beer which I thought was going to be impossible without a cigarette. :wink:

Roger

[growler]

Short Story: There once was this morally superior little fellow that didn't drink or smoke ( thought it gave him some advantage ) by the name of Adolph that tried to overwhelm the fat, cigar smoking , whiskey drinking old Winston. The rest is history, WWII.

By the way all the allied leaders were smokers. Who will fight the fascist now?

[roger]

The rest is history, WWII.

By the way all the allied leaders were smokers. Who will fight the fascist now?

The healthier non smokers and it wouldn't have taken them as long. :D ;)

Roger

[Shockedby277v]

I am a pack and a half a day smoker. I smoke a cigaretter in about 4 minutes.

I can guarantee that each one of you screws around for at least 20 minutes per day (the time it would take me to smoke 5 cigarettes). I personally don't see the issue.

Same here. I have been known to smoke up to 3 packs. Then again I drink atleast 4 monsters a day, so I usually run around like a mad man a bit. I make up for my smoking habit, with my energy drink habit. LMAO

Pack and half a day.

30 cigarettes

16 hours awake each day

or about 2 smokes per hour

Walk to smoking area 1 minute

Smoke 4 minutes.

Return from smoking area and become productive 2 minutes.

7 minutes lost each half hour.

But lets call it 'only' 5 minutes, thats 80 minutes a day lost time.

Yes the numbers add up but that would be if they were averaged out through out the day. If I'm working somewhere that smoking is prohibited, I don't. Towards the end of a job when smoking is prohibited inside the building, I will smoke only on break unless I am majorly stressed over something. I feel as Ryan, I may smoke but I make up for it in other ways. I'm not a big talker. Rarely will you catch me chatting with someone. I have seen guys talk for 45 minutes.

[Shockedby277v]

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2005/12/22/business/101637.txt

Here's one companys approach.

[George Stolz]

This topic is one I feel strongly about in many different ways, too many ways to go into, really.

Some folks here think I am a pretty smart guy - those folks are going to be staring at their monitors, slack-jawed in disbelief when I share this little revelation: I started smoking at age 18 to get a break. To date, it is about the stupidest reason I have yet come across for someone to start smoking.

Back in high school, my first job was Wendy's. Being upward-bound, I decided to go through the management training when I graduated. Hourly employees got their scheduled breaks as required by law, but managers really couldn't take a break at the time. The smokers could wander out back and grab a cigarette, but if you didn't smoke you didn't have a reason to stand around out back.

After about a month of managing, I started smoking. It was fairly harmless at first, but now I smoke a pack a day.

As much as I resent having certain liberties stripped from me (Colorado recently adopted a statewide smoking ban, I think it's illegal to smoke within 20' of any public door, or something like that), I also recognize that I would benefit greatly by quitting.

As far as smoking in the field goes, if I am permitted to smoke while working, I do. Once drywall is up and the air isn't flowing as freely, I stop smoking indoors. I quietly worry when guys light up after paint - just because I don't smoke inside doesn't mean I leave them in the car, and the last thing I want is to be blamed for the smell when I didn't contribute to it.

I now work for a company that does schools and hospitals, and when push comes to shove I comply with the rules - I am smart enough to know that my job is more valuable than a cigarette. I find it a little ironic that I can't smoke inside a porta-potty on school grounds, when all sorts of other foul activities are encouraged there, but irony does not undo a rule.

I have lost one friend and one aunt to smoking, and my wife doesn't smoke. Every once in a while, I have a pain taking a breath. Heck, I have a chronic sinus infection that probably would go away if I were to quit. I have plenty of reasons to quit, just no willpower. I look forward to the day. FWIW, I nearly quit when working at the school, so a non-smoking jobsite might just be the kick in the pants several folks need.

Please do not quote this post and respond, I'm just sharing a viewpoint.

[Bob NH]

If there were a lot more heavy smokers it would contribute to solving the Social Security deficit. Greater longevity is the biggest factor in that problem. It would also help Medicare (but to a lesser extent) because people with lung cancer don't live long and fatal heart attacks average lower cost to the economy than Alzheimer's disease.

Smoking and the lottery have some similar characteristics. People who buy tickets and people who smoke contribute more so I have to pay less.

[peter d]

Please do not quote this post and respond, I'm just sharing a viewpoint.

OK. I won't. I promise.

[e57]

I too am at about a pack and a half.... I keep telling people that when the wife gets knocked up I have to quit. The immediate replies are "Please give some warning..." And I am also a 64oz coffee drinker, and strictly buisiness, a bit intense, and a slam dance artist. I used to run a crew of 12, barking orders and teething on an unlit smoke, and intermediatley swilling coffee. I would only smoke at my office (the side door of the van) which doubles as a plan table. And the back door of the office, (my van again) which doulbles as a work bench. Work got done, while at the van...

Now I sort of work by myself, and occssionaly head out to the van to grab some mat's, or to look something up on the computer... Slip in a smoke... Stuff still gets done...

But if I had to have somebody take my little pacifiers away I would be either institutionable, or disfunctional...

I need to quit! But I feel for anyone near me at the time.... It's gonna be rough....

Back to OP.... Does this customer monitor bath-room breaks too? If he's taking notes, thats next! He'll be sitting there with a stop-watch timing someone taking a dump.

Bob NH if you think "Sin Taxes" are saving you anything, you are mistaken. The cost of a pack of smokes ~1$ +300%-500% tax rates. Not much different with booze in most states. And each lottery, all money going to fund your state. The Feds tax not of those items, so it's not doing anything for social security - If people all of the sudden quit smokin' drinkin' and playing lotto, your property taxes would shoot throught the roof.

FYI Im trying to quit.....

[peter d]

I work for a large company (the same one as Iwire.) When you use his numbers and multiply it by dozens of employees, that adds up to a huge amount of lost time and money per year.

[Shockedby277v]

I work for a company with about 60 men in the field. I see more time wasted with other things like horseplay, cell phones, chatting, bathroom breaks, people showing up late, plain slow people with no ambition.... to be singled out as a smoker for profit loss on a yearly basis .... that would be a case by case scenerio IMHO. 3/4 of our apprentices dont make it through the company for their journeyman's. I think it should be judged upon performance, as most things. If a guy is punching out his work, let him smoke.

On the other hand, if you are in a facility where smoking is prohibited, no smoking, bottom line.

[JohnJ0906]

What about personal cell phones? I see a lot of time wasted by people talking to their buddies on the clock.

[brian john]

All my employees have company cell phones and pagers, we have asked them not to carry personal cell phones and I pay for their service. That way I\we (actually my partner) can monitor calls, if their off hours call exceed a limit we bill them for the overage, if their on hour calls are high and we do not reconize the number, we have a talk.


I had a talk with the smokers and they swear they only go outside when they need a trip to the truck, let me see first I'll get the amp clamp, next trip the multi-meter, then the....

Chatter and BS'ing are a prevelant as smoking I sure, but no one gets 8 for 8, 5 days a week. I have had one complaint about BS'ing in 22 years, I have had several about smoking. Fact is: Smoking is expensive, dirty, dangerous from fires, bad for you, possibly bad for others around you and in todays market looked down upon as a disgusting habit. Sooner or later a non smoker will die of lung cancer and his family will sue his employeer for wrongful death from smokers.

E:

I recently had a massive heart attack (my words not the doctors medeical term), I am very healthy (OK was), have worked out all my adult life, non smoker, non drinker, perfect LDL and HDL, perfect blood pressure, vergetarian most my life. What happened, bad genes and stress and the doctor said the stress and long hours was a major contributor.

The fact is while I love my job I have tried to relieve the stress some ( I now have 2 assisants) and TRY not to let the little things bother me. Like Smoking, OH YEAH

[Dennis Alwon]

Brian John

It appears to me that you are a wonderful boss. The things that you offer your employees are the exception not the rule. I would hope that your employees see this and respect your wishes. Of course, the urge to smoke is a difficult struggle for the smoker and it does waste some time. I am sure you have done all you could to help them. It is their turn to help you and respect your needs. If you tell them they need to be more discreet about the smoking then they need to do it.

A plumber friend of mine has about 20 employees and some are slackers. He knows this but he says the bottom line is he is making money, the business is growing and he keeps getting call backs. He tries to put the slackers on jobs were that isn't a big issue. Contract jobs cost you not the owner so maybe putting the smokers on the contract jobs not the T&M jobs. If they are still making you money then there is no damage done. Meanwhile keep doing what you are doing, I would be happy to have a boss as tolerant and concerned as you. I wish I were more like that.

[kspifldorf]

Wow this is get is getting interesting. Be right back, I need a Smoke.

[iwire]

Wow this is get is getting interesting. Be right back, I need a Smoke.

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/deadat30.gifhttp://www.fadzter.com/smilies/deadat30.gifhttp://www.fadzter.com/smilies/deadat30.gifhttp://www.fadzter.com/smilies/deadat30.gif


.................

[kbsparky]

I used to have several smokers on the payroll. The issue of smoke breaks can and does come up when doing a T&M job, and the customer is there watching the activity.

I've had to reduce the labor hours billed on more than one occasion when confronted with complaints from the owners about the number and duration of observed smoke breaks. This cuts into the bottom line, pure and simple.

My policy now is non-smoking help only. My vans don't get stunk up, and there is no longer any issue about cigarette butts flung all over the place, or unauthorized breaks, etc.

[romexking]

It seems that some (most)of the smokers have the mentality that either: 1. other people waste money in other ways, so I can by smoking, and 2. I work faster than most people even when I take smoke breaks all day long.

Sure, we all know that there are idle talkers, and slow walkers (to get material), cell phone use, and many other ways to waste money, but lets take a look at this one issue...smoking. First, it is against OSHA rules to smoke inside on a construction site. (enacted to guard against fires I think). It is also against OSHA (or at least MOSHA) rules to smoke in work vehicles where you are alone or not. Second, as a business owner, I see it as stealing. No different that taking tools or material. You have an agreement to work for X amount of dollars per hour. And by taking 30 or 40 min a day in extra breaks is not abiding by your agreement. "Smoke breaks" account for a substantial amount of time, which could add up to thousands of dollars a year per employee. Third, if you claim that you can work circles around everyone else even with your breaks, without your breaks you would be even better. It is sad that you believe that it is ok to give only 80% effort when you you are getting paid for 100%. You can make excuses and justifications for it all day long, but along with all of the other time (money) wasters, it is just wrong. And lastly, if you can look at the big picture, what ever can be done to make te company more money, allow the company to increase your pay and benefits. But, perhaps you don't really want that, now do you?

As a side note, my employees are not allowed to smoke during working hours because of lost $, the perception of costing the client money, and that fact that it stinks, and my clients don't need that in their builings and homes.


Rich

[allenwayne]

This whole thread is the biggest crock of bull I have ever read.A happy worker is the best worker.If they smoke do you think that by telling them they can`t smoke on your job or in your truck that you will get the best that they can do from hour to hour ??? I have a big problem with personal cell phones that guys bring on the job.When that phone rings they stop what they are doing and just talk.But when they want a smoke as long as they can do it as they work they keep right on working.

[iwire]

Just a heads up.

This is a primely an electrical contracting forum.

Lets try to limit this conversation to how employee smoking is affecting electrical contractors. :)

[don_resqcapt19]

A happy worker is the best worker.If they smoke do you think that by telling them they can`t smoke on your job or in your truck that you will get the best that they can do from hour to hour ???
And what about me, the unhappy co-worker breathing secondhand smoke? If I was forced to work in an area where my co-workers smoked, I would file a safety complaint demanding that my employeer provides me with a safe working enviroment.
Don

[roger]

This whole thread is the biggest crock of bull I have ever read.A happy worker is the best worker.If they smoke do you think that by telling them they can`t smoke on your job or in your truck that you will get the best that they can do from hour to hour ???


Allen, when a facility that pays us millions of dollars a year has a policy of no tobacco our employees will abide by the rules or be fired, this is non negotiable.

If an employee gets a "not happy" attitude about working in one of these facilities and decides to slow down productivity just to "show us", they will be fired, this is also non negotiable.

When a person is off the clock they can do as they please, but they will abide by our rules for the 480 minutes a day we are paying them, this is also non negotiable.

The simple fact is, a contractors customer is the life of the business and we will cater to them.

The contractor also has the right to set his rules.

We have a situation at our shop as we speak about people smoking in the warehouse and others complaining about it, the solution is going to be to make the warehouse a non smoking area and it will be implemented soon.


Roger

[emahler]

I smoke a lot more at home. :) But, when I was installing, I still ran circles around my guys. :)

Edit for spelling.

funny part is, your guys used to complain that you never got anything done, and just spent the day running in circles around them. slowing them down in the process:)

[Smart $]

... it is against OSHA rules to smoke inside on a construction site. (enacted to guard against fires I think). It is also against OSHA (or at least MOSHA) rules to smoke in work vehicles where you are alone or not.
Are you certain your statements quoted above are in fact true? If so, can you please direct me to the appropriate OSHA regulation?

TTBOMK, there is only one OSHA regulation which bans smoking indoors, and that is when asbestos has been detected in the environmental air of the building. Another ban is localized to areas which flammable vapors are known or likely to be present. Elsewhere, please read this OSHA interpretation (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602).

[iwire]

I can not think of a single GC we work for that allows smoking on the inside of a construction site.

[Smart $]

I can not think of a single GC we work for that allows smoking on the inside of a construction site.
That's a matter of policy, not OSHA regulation. In some states, such a policy is illegal. Unfortunately, as a so-called "heavy smoker", it is not illegal in the State of Ohio, where I reside and generally work.

[dduffee260]

Wow what a thread ! I personally do not smoke, my wife smokes quite a bit. That is my thoughts though and she thinks she hardly smokes. My wife is a licensed master electrician in Texas. She put in her time just like everyone else. She just finished a 50,000 sq ft hotel. At first she smoked, then when the signs went up she respected that.
I have had one complaint in 15 years from a homeowner about an electrician who smoked in her house. Honestly I think she would have complained about anything, she was a naggy woman.
I honestly hope that someday the government weens out tobacco. Why is it they outlaw something that may kill 8 people out of several million, such as ephedra or however that stuff was spelled, but tobacco kills millions, but they allow you to make the choice?
I remember a sticker a while back that read : " Smoking cigarettes is you pleasure, the residue from your pleasure is smoke. Smoke gets into my clothes, my hair, and in my eyes. Drinking beer is my pleasure. The residue from my pleasure is pee. How you you like it if I peed on your clothes, in your hair and in your eyes?" The actual word was not peed but I had to clean it up a little. But you get the picture.
Being that I really do not care if an employee smokes, as long as they perform. If they don't perform, smoker or not, they are history.
Guys, please don't tell my wife that I spend time on this forum. She thinks I am actually at work most of the time.

[iwire]

That's a matter of policy, not OSHA regulation.

I never said or implied OSHA had anything to do with this topic.

In some states, such a policy is illegal.

Are you suggesting that there are states that would prohibit a GC from banning job site smoking?

If so could you provide a reference?

[George Stolz]

Bob, Rich brought OSHA into the discussion on the last page.
First, it is against OSHA rules to smoke inside on a construction site. (enacted to guard against fires I think).
Edit: I didn't notice Smart quoted you in his post, sorry. :D

We have a situation at our shop as we speak about people smoking in the warehouse and others complaining about it, the solution is going to be to make the warehouse a non smoking area and it will be implemented soon.
I have to admit, it startled me a bit to see guys smoking in the warehouse at the shop at my new job. Obviously, as a smoker I wasn't offended, but I smoke outside in my own house, it seemed a little odd to be smoking indoors at work.

That said, there's something comfortably old-fashioned about the occasional case of beer or crowd of fellas puffing away in the warehouse. :)

[iwire]

At our shop / office the official smoking area is outside on the warehouse loading dock.

In some ways it's good, the electricians get to meet the office folks as they freeze in the cold having a smoke. ;)

[Smart $]

Are you suggesting that there are states that would prohibit a GC from banning job site smoking?

If so could you provide a reference?
Perhaps I misstated...

As I don't believe there to be any state which actively persues discrimination in company policies, there are states in which terminating an employee for violating a smoking ban policy is illegal...

A quick search turned up the following:

http://www.cmht.com/investigation_smokers.php

http://slati.lungusa.org/appendixf.asp

I did not perform a thorough search and investigation. I am not going to persue the issue, as I know the situation in Ohio, where I reside and generally work. If you want to know more facts, I suggest you conduct a thorough investigation of the state laws affecting where you reside and work.

[bkludecke]

I smoked 2+ packs a day for 18 years & quit 23 years ago. (God I still miss it!!) I have several employees who smoke and have the same problems with it as have been expressed ad nauseam in this thread.

In CA it is illegal to smoke within 20' of the entrance to a public building, you can't smoke in a company vehicle unless all occupants agree to it, and you can't smoke inside in a workplace.

If you work for me you can't smoke in my office (makes me jealous), and you can't smoke within the footprint of a projects building(s) even @ roughin. This last one is because of the homeowners who just can't stand smoking and are turned off by it. And you must pick up after yourself ('cause I can't stand seeing the butts all over the ground).

Personally I think that the whole "second hand smoke can kill you" thing is crap and is not backed up by any REPUTABLE studies that I'm aware of. I think people who are annoyed by smoking like to hide behind that one.

I'm also not as scared of global warming as alot of folks seem to be.

[iwire]

Perhaps I misstated...

Perhaps (and I will make note of this day ;) )

If you want to know more facts, I suggest you conduct a thorough investigation of the state laws affecting where you reside and work.

LOL

[roger]

smart, you need to read your links closely, the first is pertaining to employees on their own time.

Now, from the best I can tell, the actual Ohio actions on this matter can be found here (http://slati.lungusa.org/state-teml.asp?id=35) and contradicts your claims.

Excerpt;
Private Workplaces
Smoking is prohibited and no proprietor shall permit smoking in places of employment. “Place of employment” is defined as an enclosed area under the direct or indirect control of an employer that the employer’s employees use for work or any other purpose, including but not limited to, offices, meeting rooms, sales, production and storage areas, restrooms, stairways, hallways, warehouses, garages, and vehicles. An enclosed area as described herein is a place of employment without regard to the time of day or the presence of employees. Smoking is still allowed in home-based businesses except during the hours of operation as a business by a person other than a person residing in the
OHIO REV. CODE ANN §§ 3794.01 to 3794.09 (2006).

Roger

[petersonra]

If I were one of the non-smoking employees, I would be offended that smokers got preferential treatment in regards to extra breaks.

OTOH, I am more interested in how well things get done, rather than how many breaks are taken. Many people learned early on to look busy while accomplishing very little, and others can get a lot done while appearing to not be all that diligent.

Unless you are in a union, government, or large company environment, it is best to try and let these things sort themselves out. You should have a good idea how long it should take to get something done. People who regularly take longer should be talked to.

[peter d]

At our shop / office the official smoking area is outside on the warehouse loading dock.



And you would never know that's the spot from the 10,000 butts littering the ground. ;)

[Smart $]

smart, you need to read your links closely, the first is pertaining to employees on their own time.
I was aware of that, which is the very reason I included the second link...

Now, from the best I can tell, the actual Ohio actions on this matter can be found here (http://slati.lungusa.org/state-teml.asp?id=35) and contradicts your claims.

Excerpt;

Roger
The only claims I made regarding Ohio other than being aware of the situation was it is not illegal to have a no-smoking policy. Perhaps you should read exactly what I wrote, rather than what you think I wrote.

As I originally stated, "In some states, such a policy is illegal." in response to iwire's comment, "I can not think of a single GC we work for that allows smoking on the inside of a construction site."

I modified that statement in a later post to, "As I don't believe there to be any state which actively persues discrimination in company policies, there are states in which terminating an employee for violating a smoking ban policy is illegal...", which is the very thread to which you have responded.

I do not care to persue the issue because Ohio is not among the 30 states that have so-called "Lifestyle" laws, some of which make it illegal to fire someone for using a tobacco product on or off the job. For instance...

Califormia Labor Code Excerpt:
No person shall discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises. An aggrieved individual shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by such acts of the employer. This does not apply to a collective bargaining agreement or contract that protects an employer against any conduct that is actually in direct conflict with the essential enterprise-related interests of the employer and where breach of that contract would actually constitute a material and substantial disruption of the employer's operation; and a firefighter against any disease that is presumed to arise in the course and scope of employment, by limiting his or her consumption of tobacco products on and off the job.

CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6

Living and working in Ohio, I cannot use California law to protect my rights in Ohio. Therefore I suggest(ed) readers investigate the state laws that affect them on their own.

[memyselfandI]

I smoked for 23 years and quit. It was one of the hardest things I did. The thing that smokers forget is that every time they light up, they take approximately 10-15 min to smoke. Multiply that by say7-8 cigs ad day at work, that is anywhere from 80-120 min of time waisted. I agree it should be off the clock, and the work day should be extended for those who chose to smoke to compensate for the time lost on them. There are plenty of people out there looking for a job who don't smoke, give them the chance. Do what you want to off the clock, but when you are on the clock, I want you working not smoking.
California labor laws are not the standard for the rest of the country, they were enacted by the people of CA for the people of CA ( and Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, etc.) and should not be used as a guidline on what you should do. Check your state to see what you can do and you will find out that there isn't much you can do.

[romexking]

As I said, it is smoking is banned on construction sites because of the fire hazard.

1926.151(a)(3)

Smoking shall be prohibited at or in the vicinity of operations which constitute a fire hazard, and shall be conspicuously posted: "No Smoking or Open Flame."

That constitutes most indoor construction sites. Many of the GC we work for have been fined for not having the signs posted.

[Minuteman]

The reason given for discharging an employee, and the actual reason, can be entirely different.

[Smart $]

As I said, it is smoking is banned on construction sites because of the fire hazard.

1926.151(a)(3)

Smoking shall be prohibited at or in the vicinity of operations which constitute a fire hazard, and shall be conspicuously posted: "No Smoking or Open Flame."

That constitutes most indoor construction sites. Many of the GC we work for have been fined for not having the signs posted.
That is taken out of context. The following helps to put it back in context...

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 1926 Subpart F

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Overview for Subpart F
Fire Protection and Prevention

F-1 What are the serious most frequently cited fire hazard violations in descending order?

Transporting or handling flammable liquids in non-approved containers [1926.152(a)(1)].
Failure to have a class 2-A rated fire extinguisher within a 100 feet (30.4 m) of an area where class A fire hazards exist within a building [1926.150(c)(1)(I)]. Another frequent violation related to this one is not having at least one class 2-A rated fire extinguisher on each floor of a multistory building located near the stairway [1926.150(c)(1)(iv)].
Failure of the employer to develop and implement a fire protection program for all phases of work involving employees on the job site [1926.150(a)(1)].
Failure to inspect and maintain portable fire extinguishers to keep them in serviceable condition [1926.150(c)(1)(iii)].
Lack of posting of "no smoking" signs where refueling operations are conducted [1926.152(g)(9)], and where operations which constitute a fire hazard, which commonly will include flammable liquids and flammable gases [1926.151(a)(3)].


Next I suppose you're going to tell me welding, torch-cutting, and arc-producing electric-powered tool operations are permitted to take place in these areas!

[iwire]

I am not seeing your point smart.

[Smart $]

The reason given for discharging an employee, and the actual reason, can be entirely different.
Ain't that the truth.

[Smart $]

I am not seeing your point smart.
Of course you wouldn't, given your disposition.

Your attitude toward any comment I make is that it is sheer conjecture, so I leave you to determine the point yourself.

[iwire]

Of course you wouldn't, given your disposition.

Your attitude toward any comment I make is that it is sheer conjecture, so I leave you to determine the point yourself.

My disposition is I let the coworkers smoke when I can, if it upsets the customer or is against the customers rules then I don't.

I just thought your would be able to explain your post with the OSHA references because at it stands it makes no sense.

[romexking]

As I said, I have been on numerous job sites during an OSHA inspection. I am one of the few contractors that do not pack up and leave when the inspector announces his/her visit. I used to see a lot of violations for not having the "no smoking" sign posted. Over past few years, this has been strictly enforced and now the GC pay are paying attention. The sign must be posted at the jmain jobsite, and at each contractor's trailer, or enclosed area.

[Davis9]

Risking persecution here I found this quickly.



http://medicolegal.tripod.com/hallorder.htm


I don't smoke , but grew up in a house of smokers.

Tom

[George Stolz]

Wow, Tom, you think you could have found a more slightly biased source? http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/eek.gif

Cigarettes contain and emit toxic chemicals. Additionally, cigarettes have a record of being contaminated by a poisonous additive, coumarin, used for rat poison. Wherefore, by definition, cigarette emissions are "ultrahazardous" and so are illegal everywhere, including on-the-job.

As smoking (spewing poisons, garbage, onto others) is always unlawful, the...
http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/eww.gif
http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/laughabove.gif http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif

[Smart $]

My disposition is I let the coworkers smoke when I can, if it upsets the customer or is against the customers rules then I don't.

I just thought your would be able to explain your post with the OSHA references because at it stands it makes no sense.
OK, let me clue you in a little bit...

1926.151(a)(3) is in Subpart F under the heading Fire Prevention, subheading Ignition Hazards. The majority of Subpart F is regarding flammable liquids and gases.

1926.151(a)(3) says at or in the vicinity of operations which constitute a fire hazard. Operations as used in this context mean the handling and transfer of flammable material as described within Subpart F.

The OSHA representative which instituted fines for missing signs may have been justified, but contractors, rather than develop a true, full-fledged safety program feel placing blanket signs will "CYA". This may, and most likely will be satisfactory for any OSHA rep that is a smoke-free workplace advocate, but in truth is fineable if the signs at not placed at or in the vicinity of the aforementioned operations.

However, what really ticks me off is that so-called "hot-work" will be permitted within the "signage" area. The sign is supposed to read "no smoking or open flame" (it should be "no open ignition sources permitted" followed by examples such as no smoking, open flame, etc... think Class I, Disivision 1). A cutting torch is an open flame, molten steel from said cutting operation is also an ignition source; welding is an ignition source (which btw the result smoke is a graver health threat than tobacco smoke); the arc from brushes in an electric-powered tool is an ignition source. All of these ignition sources are many times hotter than a lit cigarette. With a full-fledged safety program in place, such work could not take place prior to an inspection immediately before commencing, which includes testing for the presence of flammable vapors, a fire watch, etc. etc.

[iwire]

but contractors, rather than develop a true, full-fledged safety program feel placing blanket signs will "CYA".

That is their right to do that, you do not have to work for them.

It's great having freedom of choice. :grin:

This may, and most likely will be satisfactory for any OSHA rep that is a smoke-free workplace advocate, but in truth is fineable because the signs at not placed at or in the vicinity of the aforementioned operations..

Now that is a real stretch, I agree there is a remote possibility of that but in my experience any of those areas will have signage.

These GCs are not afraid of posting more signs than necessary.

Your stuck with the idea that your comfort is an issue for the job site to care about.

Why would any employer risk a rightful or wrongful OSHA fine just so you can smoke on their time. It defies logic.

I have worked on job sites that food is not allowed, break and lunch must be taken off site or in your personal vehicle.

Is this eroding my rights?

[Smart $]

Wow, Tom, you think you could have found a more slightly biased source?
Ditto!

This past November Ohioans passed a statewide smoking ban. I was working at a power plant at the time it was enacted, December 8th. Standing outside the facility where I was previously permitted to smoke, I look up at the smoke stack pouring out tons of pollutants and wonder what cloud the people that voted for the ban where on. This is also a jobsite where some of the work required wearing half-face respirators with toxic vapor filters ...outside... not in confined areas. Do people really believe they do not have to breath this stuff in their smug little environments. I guess it follows the old adage, "out of site, out of mind". Rather than continue this rant, I ask any one that's followed to this point to visit this webpage (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-18-06.asp).

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/pics11/coalplant.jpg (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-18-06.asp)

[iwire]

Standing outside the facility where I was previously permitted to smoke, I look up at the smoke stack pouring out tons of pollutants and wonder what cloud the people that voted for the ban where on.

So the basic message is because the power plant pollutes to provide electricity for the masses that means I have to breath smokers pollution?

The difference I see is this.

A power plant is necessary for our society.

Your having a butt at work is not.

I will back off as I can tell you are very passionate about this and are well beyond listing to anyone.

I don't really care much one way or the other, they are hundreds of toxins I am exposed to every day. What gets me is the smokers attitude that seems to be that they have a right to blow smoke my way.

The fact is for better or worse smoking will be confined more and more, the State of CT and a City in ME just made it illegal to smoke in your own car if there are children in the car.

[Smart $]

While we're on the subject of [tobacco] smoking, I thought I would mention some things that non-smokers seem to be ignorant of... at least in more detail. The following is a list of... well it's heading covers that. What non-smokers don't realize is that these symptoms occur daily when a smoker is forced to not smoke on a job site. In other words, disregard the Duaration aspect, because a smoker will be back at smoking in off work hours.

Symptoms That Occur After Quitting Smoking

Symptom
Cause
Duration
Relief

Craving for cigarette
nicotine craving
first week can linger for months
distract yourself with other activity

Irritability, impatience
nicotine craving
2 to 4 weeks
Exercise, relaxation techniques, avoid caffeine

Insomnia
nicotine craving temporarily reduces deep sleep
2 to 4 weeks
Avoid caffeine after 6 PM relaxation techniques; exercise

Fatigue
lack of nicotine stimulation
2 to 4 weeks
Nap

Lack of concentration
lack of nicotine stimulation
A few weeks
Reduce workload; avoid stress

Hunger
cigarettes craving confused hunger pangs
Up to several weeks
Drink water or low calorie drinks; eat low-calorie snacks

Coughing, dry throat, nasal drip
Body ridding itself of mucus in lungs and airways
Several weeks
Drink plenty of fluids; use cough drops

Constipation, gas
Intestinal movement decreases with lack of nicotine
1 to 2 weeks
Drink plenty of fluids; add fiber to diet; exercise

There is one item which I would like to stress in the above listing, and that is "Lack of Concentration". This puts the smoker at a higher risk of being involved in or causing an accident. Is this worth not letting the smoker take a few minutes to light up? I was a victim of my own lack of concentration, but didn't realize it until afterwards when I did the research!

[yanici]

One place I did work in has a no smoking policy. Outside on the building a sign says, "No smoking within 25' of this building." This was not a volatile/flammable area, just office space. Guys had to cross the street to smoke. Sure hope the people across the street don't post their 25' rule or the smokers will wander aimlessly looking for a place to smoke.:grin: :grin:

[iwire]

There is one item which I would like to stress in the above listing, and that is "Lack of Concentration". This puts the smoker at a higher risk of being involved in or causing an accident. Is this worth not letting the smoker take a few minutes to light up? I was a victim of my own lack of concentration, but didn't realize it until afterwards when I did the research!

That is all the more reason not to hire smokers in the first place.

BTW just so you know I think it is entirely wrong that in some areas a employee can be fired for smoking cigarettes on their own time.

[roger]

There is one item which I would like to stress in the above listing, and that is "Lack of Concentration". This puts the smoker at a higher risk of being involved in or causing an accident. Is this worth not letting the smoker take a few minutes to light up? I was a victim of my own lack of concentration, but didn't realize it until afterwards when I did the research!

And unfortunately for the smoker this a good reason for his/her termination if it is noticeable.

Whatever the reason for "Lack of Concentration" is, an employer doesn't have to put up with it.


Roger

[George Stolz]

Yanici: LMAO - because I've been there. :D

Smart: If an alcoholic person can't concentate because they're looking forward to beer-thirty, does that mean we should allow the alcoholic to drink on the clock? Would you want that guy driving a backhoe around you?

Just food for thought. I don't think the side-effects of nicotine withdrawl make for a very compelling case. I could be unique, but when I'm working my tail off, I tend to not notice how much time has passed since my last smoke. Idle hands are the devil's playground. :)

[Smart $]

So the basic message is because the power plant pollutes to provide electricity for the masses that means I have to breath smokers pollution?

The difference I see is this.

A power plant is necessary for our society.
Are you trying to say smokers do not contribute anything [other than smoke] to our society? Ha!

Your having a butt at work is not.
Matter of opinion. Unfortunately for myself and other smokers, we are of the minority and will therefore lose this battle, and some of our individual rights in the process.

I will back off as I can tell you are very passionate about this and are well beyond listing to anyone.
Not true... the beyond listening to anyone part, that is. I'll listen to anyone that talks truthfully with an open mind, provided I am afforded the same. You may well be guilty of your own accusation.

I don't really care much one way or the other, they are hundreds of toxins I am exposed to every day. What gets me is the smokers attitude that seems to be that they have a right to blow smoke my way.
Not me! If I am in your presence, I would respectfully remove myself from your presence to satisfy both our desires. But allow me the dignity of doing so. I smoke in my own home, but because other non-smokers are present, I do so in the bathroom with the exhaust fan running, or under the range hood with [outside] exhaust fan running, or outside. I do this out of courtesy for anyone. Why am I not afforded the same courtesy?

The fact is for better or worse smoking will be confined more and more...
This I believe, too! Sad, sad days ahead for individual rights.

[iwire]

Are you trying to say smokers do not contribute anything [other than smoke] to our society? Ha!

You know that is not what I said or implied.

The cigarette in you hand contributes nothing to society in the way a power plant does.

Your having a butt at work is not.


Matter of opinion.

No, that is a fact.

It is not necessary for a electrician to smoke a cigarette to perform their job. You may feel it is necessary for your comfort but that is another story.

You may well be guilty of your own accusation.

Maybe, but I don't think so.

I also have some vices but I don't force those vices on my employer or coworkers.


Not me! If I am in your presence, I would respectfully remove myself from your presence to satisfy both our desires. But allow me the dignity of doing so. I smoke in my own home, but because other non-smokers are present, I do so in the bathroom with the exhaust fan running, or under the range hood with [outside] exhaust fan running, or outside. I do this out of courtesy for anyone. Why am I not afforded the same courtesy?

Cool, that is very courteous.

So how does this happen on the job?

Please smoke all you want in your home, it is your home. :)


This I believe, too! Sad, sad days ahead for individual rights.

We have sad days ahead that will make this smoking thing seem like a day at the beach. :(

[Smart $]

And unfortunately for the smoker this a good reason for his/her termination if it is noticeable.

Whatever the reason for "Lack of Concentration" is, an employer doesn't have to put up with it.


Roger
They may in court if they caused it.

Of course your going to say all the more reason not to hire a smoker. A few years ago that was you. You are hardly the voice of reason here.

I'm glad for you in that you quit, but only if you did it because you wanted to quit and not under duress to do so.

[roger]

They may in court if they caused it.

Oh I'm sure someone has tested this before but I don't recall ever seeing where a smoker has come out victorious in not being able to smoke at work, have you?

We know that a smoker has no rights or protection in Ohio so it's not there.


Roger

[Rockyd]

This I believe, too! Sad, sad days ahead for individual rights.


We have sad days ahead that will make this smoking thing seem like a day at the beach. :(

Unfortunately, true words about the future. Are these tattle tale signs of over population in "the best regions" of the country?

[Davis9]

[QUOTE=georgestolz]Wow, Tom, you think you could have found a more slightly biased source? http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/eek.gif



I aim to please. I said quickly didn't I?LOL The court decision, means nothing I guess.

Tom:roll:

[Smart $]

Oh I'm sure someone has tested this before but I don't recall ever seeing where a smoker has come out victorious in not being able to smoke at work, have you?
I don't know if it has in fact been tested let alone the outcome... but testing is part of the reason for posting the information :grin:

The accident I was involved in was settled out of court without the issue even being suggested.

We know that a smoker has no rights or protection in Ohio so it's not there.
Time will tell here. The state-wide smoking ban was just voted on this past November, and enacted on December 8. Whatever body concocted the code was quite thorough on most of it, but has placed the burden of enforcement on the Health Department. They say it will be a year before they are set up to "prosecute" violators.

[Smart $]

You know that is not what I said or implied.
Perhaps not exactly what you were meaning to say but you certainly did imply it.

The cigarette in you hand contributes nothing to society in the way a power plant does.
Here you are implying the same thing.

A power plant contributes pollution and a service. I contribute pollution and a service :grin:

For some reason you believe the smoking is separate from the person. I am what I am, and part of that is a smoker. Restricted from smoking, I HAVE TO BE a person that I am not.

No, that is a fact.
No, it IS a matter of opinion.

It is not necessary for a electrician to smoke a cigarette to perform their job. You may feel it is necessary for your comfort but that is another story.
Nope! Same story

Maybe, but I don't think so.
Guilty (in my opinion).

I also have some vices but I don't force those vices on my employer or coworkers.
Are you certain to an absolute degree?

Cool, that is very courteous.

So how does this happen on the job?
Pretty much the same way... I believe that's what got this whole thing started :D

However, the difference is when I'm restricted to not smoking indoors, I have to purchase and wear nicotine patches. I can manage fairly easy only one cigarette between breaks/lunch. But having to manage anything less than that is extremely difficult. What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

[iwire]

Perhaps not exactly what you were meaning to say but you certainly did imply it.

That is simply untrue no matter how you try to twist it.

Here is exactly what I said.

A power plant is necessary for our society.

Your having a butt at work is not.

It is not necessary to society that you smoke a cigarette on the job.

Your worth to society is not at the least at issue.

I can manage fairly easy only one cigarette between breaks/lunch. But having to manage anything less than that is extremely difficult. What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

[roger]

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

smart, I'm currious of your answers to these questions as well.


Roger

[growler]

If an alcoholic person can't concentate because they're looking forward to beer-thirty, does that mean we should allow the alcoholic to drink on the clock?

First it's no smoking and now it's no drinking either. Can't you people see how this thing is spreading. Soon you won't be allowed to have sex on your desk at the office. It's a police state I tell you!


Seinfeld ( George ) " I've worked for a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time ".

[George Stolz]

Dale, LMAO

Is that a cashmere sweater? :D

[Smart $]

That is simply untrue no matter how you try to twist it.
OK, so we now have the direct meaning of your statements as, "Smokers contribute to society." From there it continues to, "A burning cigarette does not contribute to society" therefore it stands to logic that, "Smokers need not smoke to contribute to society", and then "Smokers need not smoke."

The fallacy of that premise is the result is a different society, which is exactly what is intended.

Here is exactly what I said.

"A power plant is necessary for our society.

Your having a butt at work is not."
Again a matter of opinion. Society existed long before power plants. Continuation of our society is not dependent on coal and other fossil-fuel-burning power plants. They exist simply because they have an economical advantage over other forms of power generation. Yes, without them it wouldn't be the same, but other sources can be used which do not contribute anywhere near the pollution they put in the air... but you don't see anyone making a major issue about them. Why? Because for one, most everyone, including smokers, also desire the convenience they provide. Two, they are, for the most part, "out of sight and out of mind".

On the smoking issue, it is simply the majority and influential members of society imposing their preferred lifestyle on a minority portion of society. That's the whole issue in a nut shell.

It is not necessary to society that you smoke a cigarette on the job.
A basic misconception. A society is determied by the actions and beliefs of all its members. Restricting smokers to not smoke on the job is imposing the will of only a portion of society, thereby altering said society to be more what the majority and influential desire.

Your worth to society is not at the least at issue.
Yes, it is. As long as I continue to be a smoker, you and your kind are berating my worth and contribution to society.

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?
Provided I can smoke as I desire, I have no handicap in this regard and desire no special treatment. Restrict my desire to smoke and you have inflicted a known, well documented medical condition on me, which thus requires special treatment! You are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

Smart: If an alcoholic person can't concentate because they're looking forward to beer-thirty, does that mean we should allow the alcoholic to drink on the clock? Would you want that guy driving a backhoe around you?
In the case of an alcoholic, defined as one who will continue to drink alcoholic beverages not just to a mild state of intoxication, but to the point of complete inebriation, then no. In this instance, the person's ability to perform adequately is impaired both before and after. Whereas with a deprived smoker, the impairment totally disappears upon satisfaction of the urge to smoke.

As to working around a backhoe, proper safety practice is to stay out of the swing area and pinch zones... period. Doesn't matter who the operator is.

[iwire]

Provided I can smoke as I desire, I have no handicap in this regard and desire no special treatment. Restrict my desire to smoke and you have inflicted a known, well documented medical condition on me, which thus requires special treatment! You are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Yeah OK.:rolleyes:

What happened to your personal responsibility's?

Smart go back and read your posts, they sound like the same old excuses anyone that is addicted to any substance would say.

Enjoy your smokes.

[Smart $]

What happened to your personal responsibility's?
I have many personal responsibilities. Which are you referring to?

Smart go back and read your posts, they sound like the same old excuses anyone that is addicted to any substance would say.
I don't deny addiction. But don't even begin to assume that I want to be unaddicted :grin: I will make that decision when I want, seeking the help of others as a last resort.

Enjoy your smokes.
Thanks, I do and will, even more so now :smile:

[hardworkingstiff]

What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

Oh boy is that true. I smoked for 10-years, was a 2.5 pack a day smoker (quit in 1981). The psychological addiction is just as hard to overcome as the physical addiction. I don't have any cravings now, but it was years before they went away.

[brian john]

I smoked from the age of 13-26, I decided to quit, so I set the day it came and went several times, finally in the middle of the day I threw the pack away, never gave it another thought, no mental, no physical issues.


But Then, I always was a quitter.


I am not an anti smoker, not a reformed going to convert you non smoker, I just do not want your habit to interfere with me and my business.

[growler]

I am not an anti smoker, not a reformed going to convert you non smoker, I just do not want your habit to interfere with me and my business.

The answer is simple. Make a break with your business partner ( a smoker ) and run a non-smoking shop. I believe you have this right. This is a personal choice.

I am a smoker and if I quite I want it to be a personal choice. If enough customers complain I quess I'll have to but as of yet I haven't had any complaints. Life is to short to worry about what other people are doing so do whatever makes you happy. In the end we all end up as compost anyway.

[LarryFine]

In the end we all end up as compost anyway.
At least we'll be well grounded at some point. :wink:

[George Stolz]

Larry, but to qualify as an electrode you will need a more expensive casket.

As for us smokers, if every cigarette were a nail in our coffin, we would automatically qualify under 250.52(A)(7).

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/dizzy.gif

[LarryFine]

Larry, but to qualify as an electrode you will need a more expensive casket.
Nah, just hand me a hunk of #4 and put me in the concrete. 8-)

[brian john]

Growler:

I have been in business with my partner for 22 years and worked with him 8 years before that, on many occasions I have wanted to kill him, maim him and fire him, but for 22 years it has worked he is approaching 60 I am tolerant enough to take another two years. His is one of the best in his line of work, and it benefits me and the company (at least for now). Oh and he feels the same about me (I HOPE).

That does not gaive him as pass on smoking lead by example, if the employees see him in the office or on the job taking a smoke break they are sure to hop on board.

[lectricwind]

i have an ex boyfriend that is a non smoker. they were working in a commercial building, it was half finished, no smoking, eating, or drinking allowed. the smokers all went outside every hour for 10 minutes to smoke. it took about 3 or 4 minutes to walk outside, and come back. so thats 14 minutes every hour of production loss. 140 minutes unused production a week. or, 2.34 hours a DAY of NON WORK.

sounds like a lot, doesnt it?

[allenwayne]

Do you really think the time frame you brought up is correct????If it takes 14 min to go on a smoke break, it is really allot more than that.Once you stop to take the break you have to unstrap your tool belt and go on the break.Then once over you have to strap the tools back on and get back into what you were doing.This is in addition to walking smoking etc.So the 14 min walk,smoke, return is probably more like 30 min of lost productivity.

Now i too am a smoker and when I am in a job that says no lighting up I grin and bear it and get peeved when anyone else that smokes starts to belly ache.If i have to deal so do the others.

[benaround]

I started smoking at 9 years old, to be cool, now I'm 57 and I just don't

feel the cool !!

Anyway I always say "My folks didn't raise no quitters"

[bikeindy]

While we're on the subject of [tobacco] smoking, I thought I would mention some things that non-smokers seem to be ignorant of... at least in more detail. The following is a list of... well it's heading covers that. What non-smokers don't realize is that these symptoms occur daily when a smoker is forced to not smoke on a job site. In other words, disregard the Duaration aspect, because a smoker will be back at smoking in off work hours.

Symptoms That Occur After Quitting Smoking

Symptom
Cause
Duration
Relief

Craving for cigarette
nicotine craving
first week can linger for months
distract yourself with other activity

Irritability, impatience
nicotine craving
2 to 4 weeks
Exercise, relaxation techniques, avoid caffeine

Insomnia
nicotine craving temporarily reduces deep sleep
2 to 4 weeks
Avoid caffeine after 6 PM relaxation techniques; exercise

Fatigue
lack of nicotine stimulation
2 to 4 weeks
Nap

Lack of concentration
lack of nicotine stimulation
A few weeks
Reduce workload; avoid stress

Hunger
cigarettes craving confused hunger pangs
Up to several weeks
Drink water or low calorie drinks; eat low-calorie snacks

Coughing, dry throat, nasal drip
Body ridding itself of mucus in lungs and airways
Several weeks
Drink plenty of fluids; use cough drops

Constipation, gas
Intestinal movement decreases with lack of nicotine
1 to 2 weeks
Drink plenty of fluids; add fiber to diet; exercise

There is one item which I would like to stress in the above listing, and that is "Lack of Concentration". This puts the smoker at a higher risk of being involved in or causing an accident. Is this worth not letting the smoker take a few minutes to light up? I was a victim of my own lack of concentration, but didn't realize it until afterwards when I did the research!



ALL brought on by yourself by beginning to smoke at all. You forgot how many smokers have been killed in cars as they first burned themself then trying to put themself out they drive into an innocent non smoker killing them too. I don't care if you smoke but there is one simple truth to it... it is ignorant and stopping is not that hard for most people who have just a wee bit of self control. I love how smokers try to tell people how productive they are there is no smoker in the world who can make up all the time lost by going on break after break after break to slowly kill themselves. I wonder if you wear seatbelts? Or wear PPE while at work? You know some people like meth and have the same excusses you have for not quitting.

I think you should smoke before you reply so that you have plenty of concentration.

[jem.nola]

In my opinion, from my experience of industrial, commercial, marine and residential electrical, is that it all depends on the structure of the job. In industrial with 200 or 300 electricians or large commercial with 20 or 30 or so electricians, rules are much more strict than a small commercial or residential job where one would have a little more leanacy. It all depends on the job, but one thing for certain is to have priorities in tact and have the rules laid out from day one. Smoke or not smoke, smoke yes, but where, when.

I feel that following the rules of the contractor and or journeyman is just as much a part of the job as in making sure the wires are the right size. I was a smoker once but quit 3 years ago, and not smoking was an easy one. If one doesn't get paid then how would they pay for them.

As for T&M, I try to explain to others (especially apprentices) a scenario that they can relate to. How many times do we bring our vehicles to the mechanics shop to have repairs done to them and they charge the usual 40 to 60 dollars an hour to do the work. After a few hours and the clock running we stop by and see the mechanic standing outside the garage smoking a cigarette, we wouldn't like to see our money coming out of pockets like that and neither do the customers who are paying the tab. That at times put things into perspective and the point gets across.

Is smoking that important that it becomes more like an entitlement than a privelage?

[jaylectricity]

I haven't always been a non-smoker. I am now. Don't remember how long it's been.
Before I made my way into the business of electricity I climbed the ladder at restaurants. Our rules usually allowed an employee to smoke on his/her break. Most of the time we allowed them an extra 5 minutes here and there to have a smoke break between regualr breaks; depending on how busy it was or how quickly they completed their duties. The catch was, they had to smoke out of sight from our customers. Who wants to watch their food being handled by a kid fresh off a smoke break?
Since I quit smoking I do my best to discourage my peers from smoking while trying to avoid sounding like one of those Cigarette Nazi's that most new non-smokers turn into.
Meanwhile I had business cards made up that specifically said I was a "Non-Smoking Contractor" because I work for myself and don't have any employees. Therefore it was a statement I could make and a promise I could keep.
Although I fully support the freedoms of individuals I realize that there are some customers out there that would appreciate hiring a contractor that wouldn't waste time smoking or throwing his butts in the homeowner's garden.
In Massachusetts most contractors have no qualms with polluting their customers yard because most customers will simply put up with it.
Since I don't employ anybody, obviously I am not employing any smokers. Therefore I can hold true to my non-smoking claim. Unfortunately if I want to hire somebody I have to hire a non-smoker (and risk discrimination issues) or discontinue claiming to be a non-smoking contractor since my very reason for announcing it will dissipate if I have an employee who smokes.

[Smart $]

ALL brought on by yourself by beginning to smoke at all.
It was my choice to start. It is my choice to continue. It will be my choice when to quit... if I'm that lucky, the way things are going. AND no the symptoms mentioned are not brought upon by myself. I don't have those symptoms when I can smoke. I will only bring the symptoms on myself when I choose to quit. Until then, it is someone else bringing it on, and they need to step up and take responsibility for their actions.

"Hey! Take one for the team... it's better for you in the long run." Yeah, right. You're barking up the wrong tree... I'd rather have a shorter, more enjoyable lifespan than live a longer, more miserable one for the likes of others.

You forgot how many smokers have been killed in cars as they first burned themself then trying to put themself out they drive into an innocent non smoker killing them too.
Well I have to admit, it is not at the forefront of my thoughts :grin: but now that you've mentioned it, I also have to admit I have thought about it on occasion. Offhand I'd say the mortality rate from such an event probably comes in somewhere after deaths caused by a driver falling asleep at the wheel.

Sometimes the bearing of facts have to be put in proper context before their meaningfulness can truly be recognized. Anti-smoking hype uses the same out-of-context tactic to sway popular opinion... and it is quite successful because of the ignorance of non-smokers to ALL the facts.

I don't care if you smoke but there is one simple truth to it... it is ignorant and stopping is not that hard for most people who have just a wee bit of self control.
There is not one thing ignorant about me smoking. I'm quite educated on the matter. Yes quitting does take some self control. However, making the decision to do so has to come first. I have yet to make that decision.

I love how smokers try to tell people how productive they are there is no smoker in the world who can make up all the time lost by going on break after break after break to slowly kill themselves.
I believe most smokers take smoke breaks because they are not permitted to smoke where the work is. I'd be willing to bet most smokers would not take such breaks if they could smoke where they are working. If y'all are so worried about the lost time from smokers taking smoke breaks, why don't you just stand up for smoker's rights and get back to work :grin:

As for killing oneself slowly, we all (as in non-smokers, too) do that in one form or another, whether you like to admit it or not. Some by overeating. Some by what they choose to eat. Some by not getting enough excercise. Some do just with their attitude. There are other forms of killing oneself slowly... and combinations of methods to kill oneself slowly. It's a fact from the point of conception that you will die one day. What's your poison? I like to put happiness at the top of my list.

My sister is an in-home health care professional (btw, she smokes, too). One of her smoking clients just died recently. "He smoked like a chimney", she said. He killed himself so slowly he lived to be 106 years of age at death.

I wonder if you wear seatbelts? Or wear PPE while at work?
Well, you can quit wondering because I do... and I've worked in environments that no amount of PPE would protect me if a catastrophic accident should occur. I wouldn't even have had time to kiss my butt goodbye. But if I wanted to be totally safe, I would have stayed at home. Nonetheless, injury at and for work, especially for the financial gains of someone not taking the physical risk, is not on my list of how I want to die.

You know some people like meth and have the same excusses you have for not quitting.
That's why it's called an addiction. Doesn't matter whether it is induced by a narcotic or simply self-will, or both, it's still an addiction. But society tends to assign different words to the severity of the addiction. Let's see, we have a good habit vs just a habit vs a bad habit... to the newest "dependency" and beyond. Mind and/or body, it's an addiction regardless of what you call it. You like a certain genre of music, it's an addiction. Overeating is an addiction (another one I have :grin: )... but you don't see any "no overeating" signs at your favorite buffet...

I think you should smoke before you reply so that you have plenty of concentration.
Thank you for being so considerate...!

[Smart $]

After a few hours and the clock running we stop by and see the mechanic standing outside the garage smoking a cigarette, we wouldn't like to see our money coming out of pockets like that and neither do the customers who are paying the tab. That at times put things into perspective and the point gets across.
I find it amazingly entertaining, yet frustrating that people put the blame on the smoker breaking for a smoke rather than those causing them to do so in the first place.

[iwire]

I find it amazingly entertaining, yet frustrating that people put the blame on the smoker breaking for a smoke rather than those causing them to do so in the first place.

So we should blame the rules not the person.

Intresting...:roll:

Monday I will wear sneakers instead of boots.

Hey Boss it's not my fault your rules require boots.

[roger]

So we should blame the rules not the person.

Intresting...:roll:

Monday I will wear sneakers instead of boots.

Hey Boss it's not my fault your rules require boots.

I guess a car hijacker could use the defense, "It's not fair, I wouldn't be in trouble for shooting somebody and taking their car if it wasn't against the law" It's the lawmakers fault.;)

Roger

[Smart $]

So we should blame the rules not the person.
No, not the rule... blame the person or persons that made the [so-called] rule.

Monday I will wear sneakers instead of boots.

Hey Boss it's not my fault your rules require boots.
That don't even compare. Though I'm not advising you to do so, should you really, really want to sneakers to work, you'd be facing the same dilemma, but only in part, that I face going to work for an employer that has a no-smoking policy. Now if you are willing to wear boots for the sake of employment, no problemo. If you aren't willing...

[FrancisDoody]

I work for a large company with thousands of employees all over the world. The policy at Lockheed Martin is no smoking at all. Not in your car parked in the parking lot. Not on any property owned or leased by LM. No exceptions. No excuses. You must decide just how important smoking is to you. Do you need the job? You can always find work somewhere else if you like to smoke. Just not here at Lockheed.

[Smart $]

I guess a car hijacker could use the defense, "It's not fair, I wouldn't be in trouble for shooting somebody and taking their car if it wasn't against the law" It's the lawmakers fault.;)

Roger
So, am I to surmise you have never driven faster than the speed limit?

[tallgirl]

So, am I to surmise you have never driven faster than the speed limit?

Is this the "Breaking the law is okay because the laws get in the way of my life" defense?

Look -- your excuses are bordering on comical. You really can quit any time you want, put up with all the those horrible symptoms for about 2 or 3 weeks, and then be done with it for the rest of your life.

[iwire]

No, not the rule... blame the person or persons that made the [so-called] rule.

Well this is America and right now the majority (or maybe the loud minority) seems to want these anti smoking rules or laws. As long as they are in place we all must follow them or accept personal responsibility for the consequences of breaking them.

That don't even compare.

Sure they do.

The work boots are required for my safety and health. Reduced accidents saves the employer money. Your not smoking on their time also saves them money.

Smart$, you are 'smart' enough to be able to read the signs, the smokers have lost this issue for the foreseeable future.

Your ability to smoke where you want, when you want, is for better or worse going to disappear.

[iwire]

Look -- your excuses are bordering on comical.

Look at that...Julie and I agree on something. :D

[Smart $]

Is this the "Breaking the law is okay because the laws get in the way of my life" defense?
Did I mention anything about me breaking the law?

Look -- your excuses are bordering on comical.
I don't make excuses. I provide reasons. If it is not what you want to hear that's your problem. I'm glad you and iwire both can get a good chuckle out of my discontent, you inconsiderate #$^@_*&$

You really can quit any time you want, put up with all the those horrible symptoms for about 2 or 3 weeks, and then be done with it for the rest of your life.
...And you can say that after having smoked for how many years?

I have never said I could not quit. I have have made it plainly clear that I do not want to quit.

Don't even bother "talking" to me until you can do so with a true voice of wisdom, or at the very least identical experience... and to have smoked for 30 years would not do it.

[roger]

So, am I to surmise you have never driven faster than the speed limit?

Heck no, sure I have, but you won't find me whining and sniffling about laws and rules that I'm required to follow even if I am held accountable when I break one.

You also won't find me blaming the majority for making rules and laws because I think I am special and should be allowed the right to offend or endanger others.

Now, don't go using the "I make it a point to not offend others with my smoking, I go outside blah, blah, blah." you will be talking to one that used the same argument.

The truth is you stink when you walk into a room, I knew it when I smoked and now I see how bad from a non-smokers clean sense of smell when smokers walk into a meeting room or my office.

Julie, Look -- your excuses are bordering on comical. I also agree. :grin:

Roger

[iwire]

Don't even bother "talking" to me until you can do so with a true voice of wisdom,

And you have the true voice of wisdom?

Call them reasons, call them excuses either way your posts in this thread, compared to the normal well thought out and hard to dispute posts you normally make on this forum are lame.

[don_resqcapt19]

There are some companies that will not employ a person that smokes. Not even on their own time at home. In return their cost to provide health insurance is reduced. Their random drug tests include screening for smoking and multiple failures result in job loss. The first to do this were some large fire department as under the work comp laws for fire fighters, all heart and lung problems are classified as work related. It is slowly spreading to other employers.
Don

[roger]

Did I mention anything about me breaking the law?

Why did you bring speeding to the table then?


I don't make excuses.

I guess this is another case of the majority here seeing it different than you do.

I provide reasons. Of course you think that is the case, defending ones self is always going anything but excuses.


If it is not what you want to hear that's your problem. I'm glad you and iwire both can get a good chuckle out of my discontent, you inconsiderate #$^@_*&$ So now you are going to start calling others names.


...And you can say that after having smoked for how many years? In my case 32.

I have never said I could not quit. I have have made it plainly clear that I do not want to quit. Yeah, I always said that too.

Don't even bother "talking" to me until you can do so with a true voice of wisdom, or at the very least identical experience... and to have smoked for 30 years would not do it. Read my last two sentences.

Roger

[Smart $]

That don't even compare.
Sure they do.

The work boots are required for my safety and health. Reduced accidents saves the employer money. Your not smoking on their time also saves them money.
Permitting me to smoke where I work would have the same effect. Wearing sneakers where you work would not.

So an employer has a no-smoking on the job policy is looking out for my interests in what way? And you want me to concern myself with their bottom line? Yeah, like that's gonna happen :roll:

Smart$, you are 'smart' enough to be able to read the signs, the smokers have lost this issue for the foreseeable future.

Your ability to smoke where you want, when you want, is for better or worse going to disappear.
Most likely so. Time will tell...

[iwire]

So an employer has a no-smoking on the job policy is looking out for my interests in what way?

No they are looking out for their own interests just as every rule in place is in the end for their protection.

Forcing me to wear boots keep the workers comp payments down and avoids possible OSHA fines.

Forcing you to not smoke while on the clock prevents potential laws suits from fellow employees, possible lost customers do to the customers smoking polices, possible fines from OSHA.

Now maybe you are all that you say, maybe your smoking does not reduce your production level.

However that would be unusual and company rules are made for the majority not the unusual.

[George Stolz]

This is starting to sound like a broken record, I'd like to close this thread in 48 hours. There has not been a new concept brought to the discussion in over five pages, that I can tell.

And I'm aware that this discussion is not going to overhaul Smart's life any more than it is mine, that I know. :D

So, if anybody's got some profound twist to bring to this, by all means, bring it. ;)

[Smart $]

Did I mention anything about me breaking the law?Why did you bring speeding to the table then?
Ummm... still I did not say anything about me breaking the law. I brought up speeding because you brought up car jacking... and the last time I checked (not) car jacking is breaking the law. So is speeding. You took my meaning to an extreme, and I was trying to bring it a bit closer to the issue, without avoiding the legal versus policy issue altogether.

So answer the question, truthfully?

...
Yawn.. Ho Hum...
I wasn't "talking" to you.

In my case 32.

Yeah, I always said that too.

Read my last two sentences.

Roger
But now that I am "talking to you, you never did tell me the circumstances under which you quit....?

[roger]

Ummm... still I did not say anything about me breaking the law. I brought up speeding because you brought up car jacking... and the last time I checked (not) car jacking is breaking the law. So is speeding. You took my meaning to an extreme, and I was trying to bring it a bit closer to the issue, without avoiding the legal versus policy issue altogether.

So answer the question, truthfully?

I did, go back and read it again, it must be the smoke in your eyes. ;)

I said "laws and rules "


Yawn.. Ho Hum...
I wasn't "talking" to you.

Doesn't matter.


But now that I am "talking to you, you never did tell me the circumstances under which you quit....?

Got tired of stinking, waking up with a pain and wondering if it was cancer, coughing and wondering if it was cancer, going outside in the winter to smoke, offending others yet pretending I wasn't, telling myself I was as productive as the non-smokers etc...

Now, I think you owe Julie an apology.

Roger

[Smart $]

So an employer has a no-smoking on the job policy is looking out for my interests in what way?
No they are looking out for their own interests...
Exactly. And somewhere along the line, it turns into what's good for the company is good for me. I've heard all the rhetoric before (BS, included).

Now maybe you are all that you say, maybe your smoking does not reduce your production level.

However that would be unusual and company rules are made for the majority not the unusual.
...and that translates to a lose, lose situation in my case.

[iwire]

This is starting to sound like a broken record, I'd like to close this thread in 48 hours. There has not been a new concept brought to the discussion in over five pages, that I can tell.

And I'm aware that this discussion is not going to overhaul Smart's life any more than it is mine, that I know. :D

So, if anybody's got some profound twist to bring to this, by all means, bring it. ;)

George brings up some good points. 8-)

So there it is, the 48 hour countdown begins.

[Smart $]

I did, go back and read it again, it must be the smoke in your eyes. ;)
Sorry, I missed it. And no it wasn't the smoke in my eyes. I left the smoke outside.

Got tired of stinking, waking up with a pain and wondering if it was cancer, coughing and wondering if it was cancer, going outside in the winter to smoke, offending others yet pretending I wasn't, telling myself I was as productive as the non-smokers etc...
I'm glad that is why you quit, i.e. a personal decision and in no way coerced into doing so directly by others. So why don't y'all just back off, get back into your cozy little routines, and let me decide for myself?

Now, I think you owe Julie an apology.
...and your comments have exonerated Julie how?

[Smart $]

George brings up some good points. 8-)

So there it is, the 48 hour countdown begins.
You can close it now for all I care.

[roger]

...and your comments have exonerated Julie how?

Why do you think Julie needs to be exonerated or that any of my comments were meant to do so?

Calling people names (even if only insinuated) is the issue.

Roger

[Smart $]

Why do you think Julie needs to be exonerated or that any of my comments were meant to do so?

Calling people names (even if only insinuated) is the issue.

Roger
...and...
Look -- your excuses are bordering on comical.
...is not to be taken personally? ...further compounded by both iwire and you?

Actually, I didn't catch your remark in time or you would have been included. Consider yourself included.

If you feel I should not take such a remark personally, I think you need to re-evaluate you sense of common courtesy.

[roger]

Sorry, but Julies comment is true.

If you could actually go back and read your posts in an unbiased frame of mind you would agree.


Read

[Rockyd]

48 hour shut off...hmmm. Let me offer a couple of items up.

If you smoke, and are part of a health group, it increases cost as a whole, to everyone under the umbrella.

My mother smoked for twenty seven years and quit at 52, she lived to be 87. Passed on from Leukemia.

My father smoked for 45 years before the doctor told him he had to quit. He developed COPD at 67. The Emphesema robbed years off his life, and had him bed ridden the last two years of his life. He died at 78, from smoking.

I have a sister who has emphasema really bad right now, from smoking for over 35 years, only quit when the doctor told she had too. She's probably only has a few months left. She can barely make it from the bedroom, to the kitchen table. It takes everything she has to dress herself. Even with Oxygen at 3 Litres/minute, the simplest physical tasks take here at least 15 minutes to recover from. I will probably lose my youngest sister at 66, to COPD.

It's a good arguement for smoking, get to retirement age, have the doctor tell you that you must quit smoking, that you've knocked years of your life.

Ooh sure, there is the smoker that makes it to 90+, now and then but shows no symptoms of poor health, but they are the rare exception. Most likely, it won't be you. So argue for smoking all you want, I just want to make sure you consider all the factors, and how much potential it has to shorten your life. Not to mention hospital stays, and inconvienence it places on others.

Sure, it's a freedom arguement, and you can smoke at your home, and car,and where it doesn't matter. I'd just like to see you enjoy as much time on the planet as possible, without shaving years off your life. Why let something steal years off your life here? It's all about choice, I would hope you choose wisely.

[George Stolz]

48 hour shut off...hmmm. Let me offer a couple of items up.
Well, at the rate things are going, this thread's life span will be reduced from the prediction - oddly fitting, considering the topic. :D

[Smart $]

Sorry, but Julies comment is true.

If you could actually go back and read your posts in an unbiased frame of mind you would agree.
I don't believe anyone participating in this discussion can read any of the posts from an unbiased frame of mind.

I could care less if you think my posts are comical. Thinking it and saying it are not the same. Speaking my mind and from my heart, and your idea of being courteous is "kick a guy when he's down". Really tells me what y'all are made of...

All the same, you three are inconsiderate. I do not give a rat's a-hole about what you believe to be true. Short of an apology from all of three of you, none of you will get one from me.

[roger]

I don't believe anyone participating in this discussion can read any of the posts from an unbiased frame of mind.

I could care less if you think my posts are comical. Thinking it and saying it are not the same. Speaking my mind and from my heart, and your idea of being courteous is "kick a guy when he's down". Really tells me what y'all are made of...

All the same, you three are inconsiderate. I do not give a rat's a-hole about what you believe to be true. Short of an apology from all of three of you, none of you will get one from me.

So be it. :grin:

Roger

[tallgirl]

I don't believe anyone participating in this discussion can read any of the posts from an unbiased frame of mind.

I could care less if you think my posts are comical. Thinking it and saying it are not the same. Speaking my mind and from my heart, and your idea of being courteous is "kick a guy when he's down". Really tells me what y'all are made of...

All the same, you three are inconsiderate. I do not give a rat's a-hole about what you believe to be true. Short of an apology from all of three of you, none of you will get one from me.

I don't think anyone is kicking you when you're down. There's a huge difference between "Hey, you're a stupid smoker!" and what people have written here.

Personally, I smoke. I've smoked off and on for a bit over 30 years and I currently smoke somewhere around half a pack a day. I've smoked more in the past, and even quit for a few years somewhere in there. But if someone doesn't want me smoking in their house, or in their office, or in their car, or wherever, I don't.

I work in a field where stress is the number 1 health problem -- several years ago I went through an entire string of tests, including for such lovelies as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and AIDS, because my GYN couldn't figure out why I'd been ill for the past year or so. As soon as she got around to asking me if I was under much stress, she understood what was wrong -- my immune system had collapsed from work-related stress. Many of my co-workers are on anti-depressants or other stress-related drugs. Me? I smoke and drink and plot to get out of the entire high-tech end of the planet. What I don't do is run around blaming someone else for my decisions.

Am I unsympathetic? No. I've quit cold turkey a few times and know it's hard. I also have friends who've been heroin addicts who tell me that it really is harder than quitting heroin. What I do know is that the symptoms are gone after a few weeks. I've learned to tell people go to hell much better than the last time I quit and I expect that the next time I quit my ability to cope with stress will be improved enough that instead of feeling the need to light up, I'll deal with whatever it is that's being dumped in my lap.

But it's your choice to smoke. Kindly grow up and quit acting like it's someone else's problem.

[Dennis Alwon]

Okay, enough is enough-- I know I have a choice to read these post or not, but what benefit are we having here. This is a code forum--- how then does this fit into what this is all about. We can start a new thread about President Bush's policies(let's not), global warming (maybe some industry connections), and every other political issue out there. I hate to see intelligent individuals reduced to such a low in their lives. The thread is out of hand at this point and I believe, for what that is worth, it should be closed. NOW

[growler]

Year 2020 Help Wanted Add.
Journeyman Electrician: Must be male, under 30 years of age with at least 20 years of experience, drug free, non-drinker, non-smoker, vegetarian, less than 2% body fat, capable of working 48 hours shifts without a break. Those that are genetically modified or having cybernetic implants preferred. Brain scan and DNA profile required. Low pay and no benefits. Human, Robots, Democrats, Independants, and Republicans all welcome, we are an equal opportunity employeer.

Edited to insure all parties were included in the equal opportunity language

[growler]

Many of my co-workers are on anti-depressants or other stress-related drugs. Me? I smoke and drink and plot to get out of the entire high-tech end of the planet.

There is a comical song that states:

I would rather have a bottle in front of me
Than have a frontal lobotomy

[Smart $]

I don't think anyone is kicking you when you're down. There's a huge difference between "Hey, you're a stupid smoker!" and what people have written here.
It's not what you think that matters when you insult a person. My concern is not what posters in general have written... it's what you wrote here.

Personally, I smoke. I've smoked off and on for a bit over 30 years and I currently smoke somewhere around half a pack a day. I've smoked more in the past, and even quit for a few years somewhere in there.
You see here is what makes the big difference between you and I, as smokers. You've smoked off and on for over 30 years. There has been no off for me. The closest I've come to "off" is cutting down, and that's it. And technically you didn't quit for a few years... you only stopped smoking. They are not the same. Perhaps this is what you meant by, "You really can quit any time you want, put up with all the those horrible symptoms for about 2 or 3 weeks, and then be done with it for the rest of your life." As it stands you have now made yourself appear hypocritical.


But if someone doesn't want me smoking in their house, or in their office, or in their car, or wherever, I don't.
I do the same. That's not the issue. The issue is someone telling me I can't go where I can smoke when I so choose to. Even if I'm permitted to go, extending the distance I have to go isn't any different... such as I can't smoke anywhere on the property, including outside.

I work in a field where stress is the number 1 health problem -- several years ago I went through an entire string of tests, including for such lovelies as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and AIDS, because my GYN couldn't figure out why I'd been ill for the past year or so. As soon as she got around to asking me if I was under much stress, she understood what was wrong -- my immune system had collapsed from work-related stress. Many of my co-workers are on anti-depressants or other stress-related drugs. Me? I smoke and drink and plot to get out of the entire high-tech end of the planet. What I don't do is run around blaming someone else for my decisions.
Are you insinuating that I'm blaming my decision to smoke on others? If you are, you are most definitely way off base.

As to your problem and stress in general, I believe stress can take more years off one's life than smoking. So where are all the health nuts on this issue? Kinda hard to attack the abstract isn't it? I learned how to cope with stress long ago. I forget that it requires a conscious effort in doing so after a spell of going stress free, but it's a lot like riding a bicycle (not that I've gotten on a bicycle anytime lately, but at least it's the correct cliché ;) )

Am I unsympathetic? No. I've quit cold turkey a few times and know it's hard. I also have friends who've been heroin addicts who tell me that it really is harder than quitting heroin. What I do know is that the symptoms are gone after a few weeks. I've learned to tell people go to hell much better than the last time I quit and I expect that the next time I quit my ability to cope with stress will be improved enough that instead of feeling the need to light up, I'll deal with whatever it is that's being dumped in my lap.

But it's your choice to smoke. Kindly grow up and quit acting like it's someone else's problem.
Now you gotta take insult to the injury level. Who's the one that needs to grow up here?

I'm not acting. I am the person I choose to be. If becoming someone I am not is a part of growing up, I kindly refuse to do so. My smoking is very much a part of me. To have anything to do with me, you get the whole package, not just the parts you like. It's the way it is, like it or not.

[Smart $]

Year 2020 Help Wanted Add.
Journeyman Electrician: Must be male, under 30 years of age with at least 20 years of experience, drug free, non-drinker, non-smoker, vegetarian, less than 2% body fat, capable of working 48 hours shifts without a break. Those that are genetically modified or having cybernetic implants preferred. Brain scan and DNA profile required. Low pay and no benefits. Human, Robots, Democrats, Independants, and Republicans all welcome, we are an equal opportunity employeer.

Edited to insure all parties were included in the equal opportunity language
Now that is comical (no insult intended :grin: ) but oh so close to what I see for the future.

edited to add italics

[boboelectric]

Zyban and kids made me quit.
Bob o.84,Pa.15330

[tonyou812]

I smoked when I was a helper and there were many times that i would "forget" something in the truck so i could sneak a quick one. But I quit almost two years now and I find it very annoying when were on a job that needs to "get done asap" and guys are taking way to many smoke breaks, and sometimes they go out in herds. What makes this ok? That would be like me going to the bathroom 12 times a day. But this has become accepted behavior in our society. I went to look at a car the other day and as soon as we went outside to look at the truck the salesman lights up and even on the test drive he lit up in the car as we pulled into the lot. People smoke in groups outside buildings, it nuts. Basically if you hire a guy that smokes you should just assume he is going to light up, and just accept it. I personally find it unfair to pay a smoker less (unless you plan on tracking all his moves) than a non smoker because that shows favoritism, and you would need to prove that they work less than a non smoker. But who is to say you cant pay a nonsmoker more because of the less chance of him stealing time.

[bikeindy]

No, not the rule... blame the person or persons that made the [so-called] rule.


That don't even compare. Though I'm not advising you to do so, should you really, really want to sneakers to work, you'd be facing the same dilemma, but only in part, that I face going to work for an employer that has a no-smoking policy. Now if you are willing to wear boots for the sake of employment, no problemo. If you aren't willing...


I can not believe that you are really As Ignorant as you make yourself out to be here. I really believe that if you think as you are leading on here, you are a product of what is really wrong in this country. I see your point to this degree, I don't think the Government has any business whatsoever in protecting me from myself or making laws that are unreasonable, and we have many of them. Seat belts come to mind since not one seat belt would save a life if people just drove better I have been driving for 22 years and have NEVER had or been in an accident and it's because I am an awesome driver plain and simple I have avoided many many accidents from pure skill and alertness. But smoking as you have stated is a personal choice that you made and an employer requiring a smoke free work day is not unreasonable because it is HIS money that pays you and if he offers benifits it is less costly to him and others that don't smoke, to have his work force smoke free. now you can go to work for someone else and smoke if they alow it and tollerate it. But that comes down to choice again, your arguments hold no water they are ignorant plain and simple. Just because you choose to be an addict doesn't mean the rest of the world has to put up with your addiction. If it was up to me and you really believed your plight was so bad I would just shoot you and put you out of your, mine and the rest of the worlds misery. My main guy said to me a couple of weeks ago as we drove back to the shop and watched the dregs of society walk the streets, "If I had a terminal cancer I would take care of a lot of this worlds problems"

[electricmanscott]

But smoking as you have stated is a personal choice that you made and an employer requiring a smoke free work day is not unreasonable because it is HIS money that pays you and if he offers benifits it is less costly to him and others that don't smoke, to have his work force smoke free. now you can go to work for someone else and smoke if they alow it and tollerate it.



Exactly!! However many people would rather make it a "discrimination" issue. :roll:

[George Stolz]

...Ignorant ... product of what is really wrong in this country... ignorant plain and simple....I would just shoot you and put you out of your, mine and the rest of the worlds misery....
Hey, somebody poke this thread - I believe it is done. :D