Smoking

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
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.
 
Smart $ said:
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.
 
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.
 
Wow, Tom, you think you could have found a more slightly biased source?
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...
eww.gif

laughabove.gif
roflol.gif
 
iwire said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
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?
 
georgestolz said:
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.

 
Smart $ said:
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.
 
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!
 
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:
 
Smart $ said:
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.
 
Smart $ said:
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
 
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. :)
 
iwire said:
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!

iwire said:
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.

iwire said:
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.

iwire said:
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?

iwire said:
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.
 
Smart $ said:
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.

iwire said:
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. :(
 
roger said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top