Posted By gham
We banned all smoking on site including in carparks.... saved a furtune in smoking shelters and lot of staff have since given up because of that

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
Not strictly from a legal point of view, but our insurers insist on 5 metres clearance from any other building, with a regular cleaning up programme and fire buckets and sand packs for extinguishing butts. No eating allowed in the area during breaks either.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Seems to me that, before long, the non-smoking staff are going to take 15 minutes each hour as "non-smokers" break.
Or take the company to the cleaners for discriminating against non-drug users !

Posted By John Murgatroyd
How very true. But don't forget the staff working away while the "addicts" are getting their "fixes"

Posted By Simon Walsh Grad IOSH
Thats a HR issue John, not a Health and Safety one. If an employer is prepared to allow smokers time to have a ciggie in works time and not give non smokers works time for a coffee in the staff room then thats up to them to manage. Managers manage HR issues, Health and Safety Officers advise management on health and safety issues, not HR ones.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
An excellent point. And just what has the original question got to do with H&S ?

The provision of "smoking shelters" cannot be a H&S question, since smoking is obviously not healthy nor safe.

The PROVISION OF SMOKING SHELTERS is surely a HR requirement ?

Indeed, the suborning of a H&S professional to providing resources to ensure non-healthy and non-safe working conditions is a [expletive deleted]isation of the profession.

Posted By David J Jones
Hi Teresa,

Having read the responses so far, most seem to be banging the drum in different ways and not an awful lot has been said to answer your particular question, so I offer the following, for what it may be worth.

I agree the policy on smoking is primarily an HR issue, but as we did "north of the border", HR/H & S/Facilities/Finance got together to plan how we were going to approach the issue of the, then, forthcoming legislation. First step, decide whether to ban or no-ban. Having decided no-ban, investigated what shelters were available which complied with the legislation, then proposed two different potential sites for them at each of our three buildings, put that to the H & S reps to canvas their "parishioners", especially non-smokers, with feedback clearly coming down from both groups in favour a "suitable" site for each.

The proposed sites were risk assessed for suitability (by H & S - me) on the criteria of smoke from the shelters not being able to be drawn into the buildings through vent inlets, open windows and doors, not close to doors and door access routes where smoke may affect those passing, safe access to and from them and also looking at the asthetics of the shelters in relation to their siting.

We did not look to our insurers as we felt we had covered all aspects.

The shelters are popular with the smokers, non-smokers have commented favourably on their siting and we have this week received a visit by the LA enforcement officer who has declared us fully compliant with the legislation.

We have a smoker who empties the butt-bins and there is virtually no other rubbish or litter in the shelters - this from communication with smokers.

There is also a support group for those who may be looking to give up the weed, and we will fund patches etc for those who are requiring that extra assistance. HR have taken on board the issue of "ciggie" breaks and non-smokers' breaks with the management team.

So yes, this whole issue quite clearly, in my humble opinion, does have a H & S input.

Regards

David

Posted By Aidan Toner
CONSIDER JOB OFFER BY MODERN 'CARING' EMPLOYER?? -'Progressive Company seeks fit and active employee,integrated workforce,excellent working conditions,health plan,health insurance,workplace and home lifestyle balance-SMOKING SHELTER PROVIDED'......You can say what you like but I believe there is a future out there for both employers and employees and that future is not about assisting addiction.

Posted By David Bramall
Aidan - would you care to have a smoke with me?

Well away from the main building of course, we could take a first le;ft, second right, first turn off from the roundabout and walk straight for 1/4 mile! maybe not;- the cigs would go out - it's straight into the river.

Oh well, us poor, un-cared-for weedy addicts have to put up with many soakings - we still don't complain mind you; we are a hardy bunch.

P.S. did you know that the majority of successful high altitude climbers, i.e. everest, K2, Kanchenjunga, .................. are smokers; the reason is their bodies are used to achieving results with lower oxygen levels, therefore at high altitude, when oxygen is scarce, the old addict, cougher, bronchi, whatever we care to use as a term, flies up there while the non smokers are struggling for breath. Not a good argument for taking up smoking, I agree, unless you want to be a famous mountaineer.
Keep er lit
DrB

Posted By jackw.
Hi, The law or guidance notes relating to the new smoking law up here in scotland does not specify distances. It does indicate that the smoke from those smoking outside a building should not get back into the building. Thus you should avoid having smoking areas near windows, doors, vents etc. As for shelters these should have a max of 50% of there area enclosed = a bus type shelter with open sides.

Cheers