Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By p winter
There has been much discussion on this forum regarding the details of the new smoking legislation.
Is there anyone else who feels the the time and effort involved in their own organisations, could have been better spent?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
I'd make 2 comments on this one:
Firstly, in our company this was a joint effort by management + HR + EHS + unions and has been very smooth / well accepted.
Secondly, if we were to reduce smoking deaths in the UK by just 1% due to this effort- it would far out-number the numbers of work-related deaths by any other single cause!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zaphod
Worth every second of effort. I hope in a few decades we will look back on the days when smoking was allowed in public buildings - bemused that such a disgusting smelly and unhealthy habit was both legal and socially acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
With a combination of measuring, calculation, ordering, cancellation, ordering, consultation, policy, policy negotiation (who wants to handle the HR side, hee hee), etc., etc., I have spent at least four full days to get to the point I'm at - and suspect there's still another day to go ...
And our buildings were already non-smoking!
Collectively, this is a great step although I don't like it having to be legislative.
Individually, I could have done without having to put up signs - that's just plain dumb!
I said elsewhere on these forums - sign the places you CAN smoke!
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
I agree with Tabs - it's the signs requirement that gets to me also.
No smoking for years without a sign at every entrance.
As has been said in other threads, it's illegal to do lots of things in lots of places, but we don't put signs up to tell people!
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alan noble
The statutory smoking sign one has caused the most cases of non-compliance in Scotland. Some businesses just didn't put them up, in particular businesses who had never allowed smoking on their premises.
Although ignorance of the law is supposedly no defence. The sign is a legal necessity because if there is no sign a smoker could claim that he/she didn't know he/she couldn't smoke there. Having a sign (certainly in Scotland) would be a part of a business' defence of "due diligence".
It is worth the effort to have a robust smoking policy,in that it again shows that you are doing everything you can to implemenent the ban. Also enforcement in Scotland (and presumably in England)allows for a businesses to investigate and resolve any issues about smoking internally through the smoking policy rather than prosecution by enforcing authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
What beats me is that an obvious statement of law such as no smoking in public buildings or places or work or entertainment has to be reinforced with signs.
We do not have to put up 30mph repeater signs if the lamposts are less than 200m apart - you can still be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, so why make a concession for smokers? It is their responsibility to know where the law applies not the premise owners to tell them.
At the end of the day perhaps these signage requirements were put in place so that councils could set the fines off as productivity gains in order to satisfy the spin needs of an out of touch government, just as they are able to do with waste fines. It is this same government that is halting the assent of the Corporate Homicide bill by refusing to bring death in custody victims into the scope of the proposed act.
One is left wondering where the real ideas of the government are laying.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.