Ford limits where workers can smoke -oh brother

STLToday.com ^ | 11/04/2003 | Todd C. Frankel

[CSM]

"Screw smoker's rights. I have the right to breath clean air and not be engulfed with a known carcinogen. If some dumb son-of-a-bitch wants to endanger his life and the life of his family in their own home, so be it, but don't try and light a "cancer-stick" around me. It means nothin' to me to whoop a man's ass."

Your supposed right to breath clean air does not trump the property owner's rights. You are not forced into any private establishment, you are invited. If upon invitation, you are not satisfied with the environment, you are free to exercise your ability to leave. (An "open" sign is an invitation.)

[CSM]

I do own some. Do I have that right?

[CSM]

"They smell like cigarettes, just like I do when I go have one. You think they don't?"

I will say they don't. They smell of diesel exhaust from all of the generators, tent heaters and vehicles. If you'd ever spent time in that situation, you would know that.

[CSM]

Ah, the resurrection of older threads. Amazing, I didn't recognize the posts that I had responded to in November. I get so used to hearing the anti-private property messages that I just responded again.

[HairOfTheDog]

You missed my point.

[CSM]

If you think cig smoke stinks (personal opinion of course) then you should smell the diesel exhaust stench that a soldier smells like after being in a field environment for more than a day or two. I welcomed the stench of cig smoke to the stench of generator exhaust......

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh brother.... The point was she was throwing soldiers at me to try get me to say that if it is soldiers, cigarettes don't smell. It was silly and gratuitous. It has a smell. End of point.

I know what you mean about old threads.... I have found myself arguing on a thread only scroll down to see my own name already in the argument!

[CSM]

I know, arguing points already made....Kinda disheartening that we have to continue down the same paths as always.

I knew what your point was, but I was just showing that the stench from cigs is irrelevant to them and it is drowned by much worse smells. I admit that cig smell is prevelant after smoking a cig, however, to some people the smell is tolerable and in some cases it is pleasant. To others, it is offensive. I find many smells offensive, but I wouldn't legislate for my olfactory senses.

[philman_36]

A paper mill in southern Maine was forced to go smoke free because one of the women supervisor's complained of the SMELL.
Now that one takes the cake! I know all too well what a paper mill smells like.

[SheLion]

Now that one takes the cake! I know all too well what a paper mill smells like.

Oh! Pay back is a you-know-what. The men made it quite miserable on her. I wish I could get more feed-back on how she's doing or even if she still WORKS there. LOL!

[BooBoo1000]

Your reply to She Lion,as rude, childish, in poor taste, and uncalled for. Anyone who can kick the nicotine habit deserves a pat on the back. Not some snotty remark like yours.

[philman_36]

Pay back is a you-know-what.
You can say 'female dog', I won't be offended. {;^)
Maybe things like "being/coming in heat" is what is supposed to give the expression such a negative connotation.
Everyone knows what happens to a bitch in heat, they get...er, uh, well...mated...yeah, that's the ticket!

BTB, did you get to read metesky's link in #54?
Loved this part...
OK, this may sound rather over-dramatic - and that is what I felt when I first read the article. And I am certainly not suggesting that medics and health professionals are involved in a sinister neo-Nazi conspiracy. I am not saying that at all. But the more I examine the intolerance which our society extends to those it deems as exhibiting 'bad habits', the more I am reminded of those concepts of 'racial hygiene' 'health purity' and of the 'duty' to conform to the state's concept of 'healthy living' - it's an uncomfortable feeling. And it is this 'discomfort' with historical reminders that is evident in Germany today. It has been suggested, for example, by George Davey Smith - an epidemiologist at Bristol University - that one of the reasons many Germans continue to smoke cigarettes in apparent defiance of extensive anti-tobacco campaigns is because of reminders of the Nazi past. For Hitler, tobacco was a 'genetic poison' and the anti-smoking campaigns that he personally instigated were allied directly to the promotion of Aryan superiority. The stance taken by Goebbels on coffee was very similar. And the memory of these lingers on.

Don't ya just love repeating history! (re: Santayana)

[Peace will be here soon]

It is not about the smoker's right to smoke, nor is it about a non-smoker's rights to "breath smoke free air". It is about the property owner's rights. When will we stop infringing upon their rights, just for someone else's convenience?

---

Yes, it is about property rights. The company, the union , and probably many to most of the workers are behind this. Ford is not some mom and pop shop on the corner, with one person making decisions at every level. It is a corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees owned by its shareholders. And its true duty is to its shareholders.

By implememtning this policy, I think Ford is only doing what is best for its shareholders. One, by heading off any possible lawsuits related to this issue. Second, by creating a better , less hostile work environment for its employee`s. And this usually results in better production, and quality in its products.

Assembly line workers at Ford ( and other companies ) do not have some constitutional right to smoke while they work. The policy is set by their employer. And that is really what is happening here. You can say that outside pressure from other groups is responsible, and you would be right. But Ford also has the right to ignore these groups. But they have chosen to change the policy.

Ford is even building rooms for smokers to take smoke breaks, something they have no obligation to do !!

We do have federal safety standards factories and companies must meet. I think working around a bunch of smokers ( which I have done ) creates a bad air quality situation. Something I think the company is responsible for addressing. Which they did.


I know what your going to say. Then how can I agree with big Government telling bars and restuarant owners that they can`t have smoking in their places of business. Well, I don`t agree with that at all. It should be up to the business owners to decide that. But the business owners must also accept responsibilty that an employee may have health issues in a smoky environment. And be willing to address that situation shall it arise.

[Gabz]

I find many smells offensive, but I wouldn't legislate for my olfactory senses.

You win the Cupie Doll!!!! (or is that too un-PC???)

[Mears]

Huh????? I have no idea what you are talking about.

[185JHP]

Yo Quix, I'm glad to see you're still posting and roasting...

[Quix]

THANKS.

Likewise.

Interesting, no one on the other side cared to respond!

Funny thing. Not.

Have a blessed Chinese New Year!

[alaskanfan]

Rossie Judd, an eight-year veteran on the plant, claimed that workers smoking near her on the floor aggravated her asthma, making it at times impossible to breathe.

I have the same bodily response to a co-worker that insists on standing near me and farting. I've complained to management, but since he is my boss they refuse to do anything.

[lewislynn]

I DO have a problem when the government says I can't smoke in a BAR if they sell food.

That would be a problem you're going to have to live with...get used to it.

One good thing, you won't be freezing your ass off down in Florida when you have to go out into the parking lot to have a fag.

[lewislynn]

Ford owns the plant, they can dictate the rules. Thats called property rights.

LOL...They want it both ways. They don't want the government taking "property rights" from business owners who want smokers but they also want the government to force business owners to accept smoking anytime anywhere.