Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By bob norman
I am a serving prison officer at a high profile public sector prison. As we all know July the 1st is the implementation of the work place smoking ban. This i do not mind but i must know object when the Government is allowing prisoners to smoke in their cells on a technicality as it is their "bedroom". However it is still a place of work that i and 1000's of other unified staff have to enter for many reasons during the day to search, check, unlock etc. There is also no extraction system it is only a recycle system that deposits their smoke and toxin onto the landings making a constant smoke filled area for us to work in. I have asked for a full independent medical investigation into the harm that this is doing to staff and other non smoking people but this has fallen on deaf ears and i am being ignored in this vital area.
Can any one suggest another route of action to take or do we just give up our human rights and become a constant passive smoker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bennie
Hi Bob. Totally sympathathise with your situation. If the Government were really bothered about the effects of passive smoking, then they would ban tobacco but we know the reason they will not do this.
My wife is a home carer and the LA has stated that people in their own homes should not smoke for at least 1 hour before she visits, but in reality a home will stink of smoke for days after the last cigarette has been smoked.
I suppose it comes back to risk assessment. What would the risks be if we banned prisoners from smoking. Chances are that tempers would be stretched further and violence in an already stressfull environment would increase.
Or is it the namby pamby PC brigade that states the "human rights" may be affected.
What to do about it?
I suggest that you approach your union about this ASAP. It could be that you may have a case for grievance under the HASAWA where employers have a duty of care to their employees - and this is where the smoking ban originates.
If militant, then again sect 7 of the same act states that you look after your own Health and Safety.
You and your co workers could start reporting to the medics of dry noses and sore throats, coughing fits etc and get them them reported to management. If this continues, and you are forced to resign then there could be a
case for constructive dismissal, but knowing this government, there will be a loop hole somewhere.
At the end of the day, it is a recognised risk and all workers should be protected from them. That includes you.
Sorry for the ramble, but me thinks you are in a no win situation which is wrong in my opinion.
Wishing you all the best in your fight.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
I sympathise withn the prison situation, it is quite difficult to manage. The same applies in one or two other areas as well. But, a big but I cannot agree with the views relating to home care visits. The danger is from smoke itself not the smell however unpleasant this may be. Let's get of this the Government are baddies thing. This bill had full cross party support because the health risk are clear for all to see. Let smokers smoke if they choose, but not at the expence of non smokers health.
I live in smoke free Wales and although there were a few moans at first it has settled to aan acceptance (what the winter will bring may be another matter, but I think people will be used to it by then and the novelty of popping outside for a puf will have settled down).
The cost to the nation of passive smoking in monetory terms is quite significant and the cost in human tragedy caused by cancer is even greater. Not to take personal choice away from those who wish to smoke the Governement agreed on a compromise, smokers may smoke but not interfere with non-smokers health or pleasure.
Get used to it it's a fact of life. Manage it in line with the law and let it sttle down, it will become the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bennie
Hi Bob S.
Yes - it is the smoke that is the problem.
But reagrding LA - Tell an acoholic with learning difficulties that he needs to cease smoking before his carer arrives - can you imagine compliance???
I live in smoke free Scotland and see the benefits. It is brilliant. I am a smoker and also smoke outwith the house.
I still say the government are clinging to a hard rock when they are allowing prisoners rights that are affecting their employees.
So under the HSAWA where do they stand under their obligation to employees??
So please tell Bob who posted this thread how he can handle this situation without having a go at me.
Constructive opinions are very acceptable. Your tone is not!
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Sorry if you think my tone is rather abrupt, but it goes back to losing my mother from cancer. She was a smoker so to an extent self inlicted, but it doesn't change my dislike of smoking. I believe anything that protects the inocent is better than doing nothing. Yes there are some issus and I don't take those lightly. There are difficulties to be overcome no doubt but those with health problems like the less able persons is hard to manage and I think in this situation carers will do what they always do put there charge first, they are very good at that, see what the Macmillan Nurces do every day.
Appologies if anyone takes offence but the law is the law and because of the general risk caused by smoking the Governement acted with general cross party support. There will be problems to overcome but I believe they will be overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bob norman
Thank you guys for taking time to read my jotting. it is appreciated that there are some good ideas out there. i was not really having a go at the cross party support for this but rather the Prisons Minister himself who will not endorse any change.
once again Thanks.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracey P
Hi Bob
I too work in a prison and this new legislation has given me some headaches also.
I totally agree with what you have said about prisoners being able to smoke in their 'bedrooms' and the fact that you have to enter them on a regular basis. My establishment is different to yours in respect of ventilation (the air is not just circulated).
To try to reduce the effects of passive smoking on staff I along with the union rep carried out smoke dissipation trials as there was little guidance from the PSI writers. Armed with the timings (although not scientific, we used our eyes and noses!)we carried out a risk assessment on entering cells and then produced SSOW containing the suggested timings to wait before entering. So far so good but its only been a couple of months.
Tracey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bob norman Thank you Tracey. P. would it be possible for you to forward those SSW so the helath and safety manager and i can have a good look at them? robert.norman@hmps.gsi.gov.ukMany Thanks Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lilian McCartney
Hi Bob (N),
In addition to previous post about risk assessment and timings.
I was thinking about the circulation of air. Perhaps there is a filter which could be added to your system particular for cigarette smoke?
Similar to the machines you get for people homes which are designed for smoke particle 'collection'.
To stop smoke getting into the system I don't really have an answer. Perhaps someone from a Scottish Prison could answer as we've had this 'ban' for more than a year now.
Lilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Dear all,
The relevant section of the “Health Act 2006” is as follows,
3 Smoke-free premises: exemptions
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas within specified descriptions of premises, not to be smoke-free despite section 2.
(2) Descriptions of premises which may be specified under subsection (1) include, in particular, any premises where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily (including hotels, care homes, and prisons and other places where a person may be detained).
Note that it does not refer to “bedrooms” but to where a person is living, and that is what makes the difference.
Note too that the “smoking ban” originates under the Health Act 2006, not the HASAWA as stated above. If you want to argue that there is a risk to health from “passive smoking” you can do that. However WHO studies show that any risk to workers who do not themselves smoke is statistically insignificant. 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.
To suggest that workers contrive dry noses and sore throats, coughing fits etc. in order to obtain a ban in the prisons is bad advice on a number of grounds;
· It negates any case that environment tobacco smoke causes these conditions (particularly if there has been no consistent history of such conditions prior to this),
· It leaves workers exposed to disciplinary measures for false reporting of medical conditions, and
· Those who leave in order to win a case for constructive dismissal will lose, and therefore find themselves unemployed with no compensation, reduced entitlement to state benefits (because of voluntarily leaving employment) and with difficulties in getting employer references.
This issue needs to be dealt with sensibly, unfortunately for many it is a highly emotive issue and the only thing that specious arguments for or against smoking will do is alienate people and raise hackles on either side of the debate without achieving anything.
Forget bad science / bad research, forget the propaganda put out by one side to the other and settle down to looking for rational means of determining what the problem really is and then for dealing with it.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Had an interesting chat with a policeman friend of mine last week who commented on this problem.
They plan to ban smoking by all prisoners at all times, even in the 'cage', a secure outdoor exercise area.
Same reasoning - the new smoking regulations - but they are dreading it. Having a smoke can quieten down most of their guests, and in the past they have used the occasional ciggie break as a method of ensuring prioners stay calm and cooperative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Ian
Can your constabulary acquaintances not apply for an exemption, then? See Philip's contribution above.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Sorry to come back on this, but is Bob N's comment more about the smoking ban not being implemented in line with the new regulations by allowing prisoners to smoke in thier rooms (I always thought they were cells). Then it becomes a H&S issue for the prison officers because the smoking regulations state there is a risk to people who don't smoke as a result of those who do. This then has to be assessed and suitable precations put in place. How you square the circle is the trick. Are there no open areas for exercise where prisoners may smoke without damaging anyone elses space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracey P
Hi Bob
I have emailed them to you as I don't know who your H & S Manager is. I hope you find them of some help.
Tracey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
Bob
I was at a meeting recently which was also attended by someone from the Department of Health. He made the following comments with regard to prisons:
1. Whilst there are exemptions for prisoners cells the Prison Service have issued instructions which replicate this legislation.
2. Any premises dealing with under 18's will be entirely smokefree.
As others have already said the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 still applies. Can your trade union takes this up with the Government? In the meantime complain to the Prison Governor. If they do nothing raise the matter with the regulator telling them that your health is being put at risk by you having to work in a harmful environment. Put it in writing copying in the Prison Governor. Finally send a copy of the letter to the national press. I's a topical issue so they are bound to take it up.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AHS
Its to do with the staffing levels apparently its virtual suicide to reprimand prisoners therefore unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.