Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Dave Skipsey
I have just been tasked with reviewing my Org's Policy for smoking in the workplace. The Organisation I work for delivers a front line service in the social housing sector, our current policy prohibits smoking in our organisations offices, workplaces and company vehicles, however we have employees who frequently have to visit and enter tenants properties. Any ideas on how to protect this group of employees from passive smoking?
Is there anyone out there who could share a copy of their smoking policy with me as our's is ****.
Kind regards in anticipation.
Dave Skipsey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Dave
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject; a search of the forum may provide the information you seek.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Skipsey
Paul
Thanks for the advice, I have found and studied with interest a number of threads on this subject.
I would still be extremely gatefull though if someone from a social housing background would be willing to let me have a copy of their smoking policy.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Dave
I have also been asked to look at this for my LA. I have searched through the websites of all LA's in Scotland and found a couple offered good advice.
I also looked at the previous advice from previous threads but it seemed that too many H&S people found this a contentious issue and were actually quite argumentative in their postings and in their attitude to the issue. Some kept their composure and some were honestly trying to find a way through the difficult subject.
It seems that any time someone raises this issue, they are directed to these threads. I myself was and as stated looked to other avenues for help, which is a shame as I have lost count of the good threads where useful info, help, advice has been given.
By the way, the website I thought was good was www.fife.gov.uk/atozsearch/index and the document was entitled OH05 Smoking Policy.
Hope it is of use.
Michael
Now I await my sentence for daring to voice my opinion above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Daly
In Ireland the website to view would be
smokefreeatwork.ie
Covers most smoking issues as of course such smoking is against the law here.
Martin Daly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Hi, As stated there are a number of past threads on this subject. Unfortunately some seem to descend into an exchange re the smoking and no smoking lobby.
Re your point... I work for a LA department that has to send staff into client’s homes on a regular basis. We ask clients not to smoke during the visit or at least open windows etc.if they must smoke. Problem we have is that we can't stop the service because someone smokes whilst staff are engaged in their home. Thus staff do have to go into areas of "passive smoke". The issue can then become clouded re if they refuse how do we continue a service? and by doing so are individual workers in breach of their contract as they can't do the job they are employed to do? Discussion with the HSE both by correspondence and face to face usually leads to a fudge answer or no answer or they do the old number of referring you to your risk assessment. We do take into account any respiratory or other health issues of staff (asthma etc.) and try to accommodate them with no smoking clients but it's not always possible. It has been suggested that you can match up clients and workers who smoke. But this is fraught with problems. e.g. can we actively encourage certain staff to additional exposure by placing them in this situation. What about staff who wish to or stop smoking. Our view is that this action would or could be a legal minefield.
Sorry if this doesn't take you forward but it is a very difficult area and to be honest one that no one including the HSE will bite the bullet on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Winter
Dave,
Sorry I cant help you with a policy but I believe Jack's LA has adopted a fairly practical approach and has taken steps in asking clients not to smoke and matching smokers and non-smokers with like.
However the key point is to provide all employees with a safe place of work, so the next step could be to formally ask clients not to smoke when LA staff are in their property.
This could be phased in over say a six month period starting with flyers and information on why this is necessary and lead to formal changes to contracts for existing clients and having the 'no smoking clause' in all new contracts.
Once fully implemented any clients failing to abide by ther no smoking clause could have the services provided to them withdrawn legitimately.
Yes, it would upset some people and yes I have probably stirred up the pro and anti-smoking debate, but that's life.
It is all about striking a sensible balance. The employer (LA) has a duty to care for its employees and responsibilities to its clients, so I personally believe it is reasonable to expect a client not to smoke during a LA employee visit. By phasing it in it gives the clients fair warning of what to expect when the no smoking clause comes into full effect.
I am an ex-smoker, if that helps.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Skipsey
Folk's
Thanks for your guidance on this issue, as some have mentioned not an easy issue and one which the HSE seem to be reluctant to give clear guidance on apart from the usual risk assessment approach.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Dave
If you get a chance let us know what you are proposing. It may spark another interesting and decent thread without the pro-group and anti-group ruining it.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Hi, picked me up wrong We DO NOT match up smokers with clients that smoke. for the reasons stated.
Problem with the contract idea is enforcing it.. there are statutory duties in our line of work which makes it virtually imposible to stop a service. a client refusing not to smoke would never stand the test re these.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Afraid, you can't! If you have a statutory duty to provide a service, provide it you must. You can ask the person to stop smoking but if the answer in the negative that is unfortunate.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lorraine Shuker
Is this risk going to be "significant"?
How do you calculate the exposure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
No it's not likely to be significant, but you'll have a hard time proving it as the dose-response relationship has yet to resolved.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
In most social work/healthcare situations, withdrawal of service is nearly always an available option, albeit a last resort. I can, however, think of exceptions, such as child welfare, where this sanction could not possibly be used.
Naturally we would not wish to expose employees to a hazardous atmosphere. The problem is that without a defined dose:response relationship we cannot easily say what is and is not hazardous.
Now the NHS is running a TV advertising campaign with the simple message "Passive Smoking Kills". What more justification do we need than the official pronouncement of our Government (OK, Saddam also had WMDs, but lets not go down that road) to request service users not to smoke when being visited by our staff or ultimately face withdrawal of service? They do have a choice, and those persisting in smoking could be regarded as having refused the service.
Nevertheless, service providers have to recognise that there will be situations where withdrawal is not possible. In these, the potential risk to the wellbeing of the service user will far outweigh the health risk to the provider.
So where we cannot eliminate the risk we must control it as best we can, and short of issuing staff with respirators - hardly the best way to approach an abused child - minimisation of exposure time is probably the only control measure available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
As some responses pointed out it is important to establish what the risk is of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). In 1998 the WHO published their report, “Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe”, which showed that the Odds Ratio (OR) for exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.93-1.44). The OR for exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45).
A ratio of one equates to no-effect likely. A ratio between 0 and 1 shows a decreased likelihood of the event happening. A ratio greater that one shows in increased likelihood of an event happening. The Confidence Interval refers to the precision of the ratio and usually is expressed as a range of values. Where the CI crosses the 1 the indications are that the risk may well be nil.
In epidemiological studies ORs up to 2 or 3 (i.e. two to three times more likely) are considered to be statistically insignificant.
The same WHO report found that childhood exposure to ETS has a decreased likelihood of developing cancer, (odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96).
So what can we conclude? Basically that exposure to ETS may decrease the likelihood of developing cancer, have no effect or have a statistically insignificant effect. In other words the evidence does not support the contention that passive smoking will kill.
So, to use an old adage, put that in your pipe and smoke it, (couldn’t help that one folks).
Regards, Philip
More information:
http://jncicancerspectru...rint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Perhaps you could consider the other problems.
Asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, leading to COPD.
Also, consider that many people just don't WANT to breath tobacco smoke.
Cancer is an incidental, more smokers have heart problems than develop cancer, and far more have major respiratory problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Wilf Archer
Lets forget about the social implications for a minute and be radical.
If you have considered the hierarchy of controls and discounted Elimination, Minimisation, Administrative and Behavioural controls because they are unworkable. Then all you are left with is the personal protection of the individual. Give the social worker a powered hood.
Bet that makes the smoker sit up and think.
Sorry I can’t be any more helpful.
Wilf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
John,
From your posting it would appear that you accept the point that the research does not support the conclusion that ETS causes cancer, but the tenor of what you write also indicates that you may have missed the point of my posting, namely that some of those who promote a specific agenda, e.g. anti-smoking, will, when supportive evidence is not there, fall back on bias, assumptions, mis-information, hearsay, false authority and a host of other myths and psuedo science to get their message across.
When it comes to hazard assessments and safety controls, the purpose is not to pander to what people want or do not want, but to provide protection against real rather than imagined sources of harm. As Wilf suggests, you can provide social workers with powered hoods. You can also provide secretaries with gauntlets to protect against paper cuts and company directors with ear defenders to protect against the irrational demands of ill-informed safety bods, but why would you want to?
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
I have not missed any points Phillip.
Tobacco smoke is a known sensitisor, I have asthma and know this from personal experience. Putting your employees in an atmoshere known to cause problems is not really intelligent, especially in todays "compensation culture" (sorry, been reading the sun again...I meant "in todays culture where employees can claim compensation for harm/s caused them by their uncaring employers)
I have always said that cancer was never the real problem with ETS....but heart problems are, as are respiratory problems (although both tend to go hand-in-hand)
But you carry-on ... there is not a lot of evidence for cancer caused by inhalation of paint fumes...but you wouldn't think of putting your employees in that atmosphere....but carry-on....current H&S thinking, if there isn't much chance of a claim, don't bother.. ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I go for the powered hoods everytime.
A risk assessment including the sensitising effects would indicate that, as no other control methods are appropriate, PPE is required. Employees who are serious anti tabacco smoke will wear them (won't they ?) and I can imagine the reaction of a 40-a-day client when they see the social worker donning protective gear everytime they light up !
Those who are not really serious will certainly not wear the supplied PPE and could face disciplinary action. Fun all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Tanner
Hi,
I live in Australia and we have a non- smoking policy for every where.
For you type of problem, this is how we deal with it.
A letter goes out to clients explaining the policy and why we have it. The customer also has to go by it , if not no service. All have to sign it and its either they want your service or not.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.