|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Employee smoking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-12-2004 04:15 PM
Whether you smoke or don't smoke, it's your choice. This is America.
Caveats:
(1) You are 18 or older. (2) You don't smoke inside. (3) You don't smoke where customers can see. (4) Take off your name tag, etc. (5) You do it on your breaks...
. Where I live, depending on how many hours you work per day, you can get as much as one hour of complete "off-time" lunch break and one 15 minute "rest break". Use as you see fit. If you don't need a full hour you can spend the rest of your (contiguous) hour as you see fit. If you want to go out and smoke for a half hour, so be it.
. When you take your 15 minute break you can "go outside" if you want, provided you make your supervisor/backup person where you are going.
. If you work in the booth you don't always have the luxury of taking a whole hour off for lunch. You have to take your breaks when you can get them. (Between sets.) Furthermore, you may be called back to solve a problem even though you are on break. You can't say, "No, I'm not going to fix the sound problem in theater #5 because I'm on lunch break." (!) If (on prior agreement with your supervisor) you want to take a half hour break to eat something and use the other half of your break later on, you may "go outside" then.
You must have agreed upon this beforehand. Furthermore, there will be no such thing as taking 6 ten minute breaks throughout the day or junk like that.
I think this is MORE than fair. The people who work in the booth are supposed to be the more responsible people of the bunch. Conversely, if the supervisor thinks your work has sucked lately, he can take away "special break privileges." In that case... Too bad... So sad!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-17-2004 01:38 AM
New study reveals dangers of 'passive smoking' by leisure industry employees.
quote: Second-hand tobacco smoke at work kills hundreds of Britons each year - including almost one hospitality industry worker a week, a study says.
Thousands more are dying from passive smoking at home, according to researchers at Imperial College London. The figures were released ahead of a conference on smoking in London. Doctors said they highlight the need for a workplace smoking ban, but pro-smoking group Forest called for hard evidence passive smoking was a killer.
Professor Konrad Jamrozik looked at the number of people who died from lung cancer, heart disease and stroke in England and Wales in 2002. He then calculated how many of these would have died as a result of being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke using a special mathematical formula.
This formula was based on information from other studies on the risks of dying from lung cancer, heart disease and cancer as a result of passive smoking.
Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people?
About 30% of adults under the age of 65 smoke. An estimated 42% of people under the age of 65 are exposed to tobacco smoke at home and 11% at work. According to Professor Jamrozik's calculations, approximately 700 people die from lung cancer, heart disease or stroke because of passive smoking at work. Another 3,600 people die as a result of second-hand smoke at home.
He also estimated that passive smoking kills one person working in the hospitality industry every week. Professor Jamrozik said the figures were probably the most accurate estimates available at the moment. "In the absence of a direct observational study, I feel this research is the best evidence we have in this country to show the effects of passive smoking in the workplace," he told the BBC.
Professor Carol Black, president of the Royal College of Physicians, urged the government to ban smoking in workplaces. "Environmental tobacco smoke in pubs, bars, restaurants and other public places is seriously damaging to the health of employees as well as the general public. "Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help over 300,00 people in Britain to stop smoking completely."
However, Forest rejected that idea. "Once again we are presented with estimates, calculations and 'likely risk'," said Simon Clark, its director. "Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people? If one person dies every week from passive smoking at work, as the anti-smokers claim, it's time to name names. "Let's have proof, not statistics based on very dubious science."
He added: "A total ban on smoking indoors should be a last resort, not a first option. "What's wrong with a choice of designated smoking areas or better ventilation that allow people to smoke without bothering non-smokers?"
The UK government has so far resisted calls to ban smoking in the workplace. This is despite calls to do so from the chief medical officers of England and Scotland. Ministers have said they prefer a voluntary approach rather than following Ireland and introducing a ban.
I'm not sure if I'd support a complete ban, but tobacco smoke is certainly unpleasant and almost certainly very dangerous for any third party who breathes it in. In Britain - and I presume the same holds true in America - we generally go by the principle that anyone can do anything they like, provided it doesn't reduce other people's quality of life or endanger their safety. Smoking does both of those things. Even if you buy Forest's exploitation of the very small chance that the scientists have got it all wrong, there is still the statistically proven increased risk of fires on premises where smoking is allowed, for example.
There has to be something wrong with the current situation. 30% of the population smoke, but yet in my home city there is only one bar out of 370 licensed premises which even has a decent-sized no smoking area, let alone a total ban. While I don't think I'd go as far as Ireland, I would like to see a change in the situation whereby a third of the population can effectively force the rest us to drink in a gas chamber. One solution would be for licensees to have to apply for permission to have a smoking area, which is only granted if they can show that it is effectively segregated from the rest of the place.
As for employees, there must surely be a simple solution to this. Simply tell them at the outset that either (i) smoking is allowed in this workplace and that if they don't like it, they can get a job somewhere else, or (ii) that smoking is not allowed on or anywhere near the premises, and if they can't survive an eight-hour shift without a fag, they too can seek alternative employment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|