Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: *all
Before smoking was banned in private offices, there was no reason to take a smoke break.
Before smoking was banned in private offices, I'm sure Mr. Swinton would have been considered an excellent employee. Now he's a bad one.

The employees didn't create this problem. The rule-makers did. It's the same endless problem everywhere: create a rule/rule causes problems/create new rules to fix the problems/new rules cause problems/create even more rules/etc.

Nobody at the top ever stops to consider that it was the initial ban that was the bad idea in the first place.

5 posted on 10/04/2002 12:15:44 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: *all
If that guy was an alcoholic and took long breaks to drink, would he have been fired on the spot or would he have gotten a free trip to rehab with the job waiting for him when he got back?
6 posted on 10/04/2002 12:16:39 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
http://www.yesmoke.com/index.php

Avoid tax.

7 posted on 10/04/2002 12:18:06 AM PDT by advocate10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
Before smoking was banned in private offices, I'm sure Mr. Swinton would have been considered an excellent employee. Now he's a bad one.

Before smoking was banned in the office, non-smokers had to put up with the stench and irritation of the smoker's bad habit. It is amazing how one lambasts the typical "government" worker but if he is a smoker he is defended.

37 posted on 10/04/2002 8:53:21 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
>>Nobody at the top ever stops to consider that it was the initial ban that was the bad idea in the first place.

I disagree. Educated people don't smoke, and don't enjoy smelling it on their clothes after leaving work, incurring higher cleaning bills, etc. Most companies like employing smart, educated people, so no smoking in the office isn't unreasonable.

Our private consulting engineering firm had a no-smoking policy 15+ years ago. And we weren't a bunch of carrot eating leftist tree-huggers; more like a bunch of Reaganite gun-owners in the South.
88 posted on 10/26/2002 8:49:02 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
There you go making sense again.

Like the stats on smokers falling sick. If you had to go out to smoke, chances are you'd fall sick too especially in cold area winters.
233 posted on 10/27/2002 12:02:19 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
That's known as the law of unintended consequences. Make a stupid rule, get unintended results--like people going outside to think and smoke.

I have to admit, though: it doesn't take me 15 minutes to get through ONE cigarette...
258 posted on 10/27/2002 4:29:32 PM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson