I really, really hate smokers

[Boris Godunov]

I'm speaking of all of the regulations, not just workplace safety regulations.

Hence you're entirely to blame for a bunch of irrelevant arguing that shouldn't have occured. It was utterly daft of you to state a philosophical opposition to regulation when the issue here was worker safety standards.

I don't believe that a smoke-filled workplace is a significant and serious 'imminent' threat to the health of the worker. Yes, the smoke is carcinogenic, but so is the mercury in CFLs.

Finally, something on-point. If instead of engaging in a discussion about the philosophy of regulations you had actually started with this, it could have saved a lot of time.

So you agree with worker safety regulations, you just don't think second-hand smoke meets the level of a danger for workers. Why on earth couldn't you have said that in the first place?

Asbestos is a construction issue, not a job issue. It's no different then Lead pipes. Get it out of them and replace them with the modern fire retardants. Smoking is a different issue altogether.

How is it a different issue? If a work location is known to have asbestos, the onus is on the employer to fix it, due to regulations. The regulations pertain precisely to workplace safety regulation.

If they are paying you to perform a service, then you should deliver that service regardless of the working conditions.

Why thank you for stating this. I take it, then, that you have reversed course on your previously-held position vis-a-vis pharmacy employees refusing to dispense medications to customers due to personal objections? Because you argued before that a employer such as Eckerd Pharmacies shouldn't be able to require its pharmacists to dispense legal medications if they had some sort of moral objection to it.

I would find it baffling that you could believe both that a bar could have the right to make its employees breathe in carcinogens that might give them health problems but that a pharmacy could not require its employees to dispense their legal products no matter what personal objections they might have about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why thank you for stating this. I take it, then, that you have reversed course on your previously-held position vis-a-vis pharmacy employees refusing to dispense medications to customers due to personal objections?

Couple things here. First off, it depends on whether the pharmacy is state run or privately owned. If the latter, and the owner at the time of hiring makes his position known wrt to the dispensation of contraception and the morning after pill, then yes, I believe the employee has a duty to uphold the contract that they signed.

However, there are certain exceptions. If the employee has worked there and the policy changes, the employee cannot be fired for exercising her conscience rights. If the employer wishes to fire their employee, they have to provide them with the appropriate severance, etc.

For state run pharmacies, any state dispensation policy here will violate the Charter wrt to section 3 which states that employees ought to be free to practice their religion, and that includes Catholic pharmacists. Whereas the pharmacist should be able to refer to another pharmacist in a state-run system, it would be wrong to deny them employment based on their religion.

Because you argued before that a employer such as Eckerd Pharmacies shouldn't be able to require its pharmacists to dispense legal medications if they had some sort of moral objection to it.

I think it's wrong for them to change policy in midstream. The only case in where it would be applicable is if they informed the employee of their policy prior to hiring. If they failed to do so, you cannot blame the employee for exercising her conscience rights in refusing to dispense contraception or the morning after pill.

I would find it baffling that you could believe both that a bar could have the right to make its employees breathe in carcinogens that might give them health problems but that a pharmacy could not require its employees to dispense their legal products no matter what personal objections they might have about it.

I don't regard contracts as 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their wishes. If a prospective employee chooses to sign on the dotted line, then the only way for the contract to be valid is if they were capable to consent. If as you argue, they were coerced into signing, then the contract is invalid.

[Boris Godunov]

Couple things here. First off, it depends on whether the pharmacy is state run or privately owned. If the latter, and the owner at the time of hiring makes his position known wrt to the dispensation of contraception and the morning after pill, then yes, I believe the employee has a duty to uphold the contract that they signed.

Ok, this was simply not what you stated earlier, so I see a contradiction. The specific incident was a private company, Eckerd Pharmacy (There aren't any state-run pharmacies as far as I know in the U.S.). You adamantly stated it was wrong that the Pharmacy was requiring employees to dispense birth control when it was against their personal morals. Glad to see you've come around at least.

However, there are certain exceptions. If the employee has worked there and the policy changes, the employee cannot be fired for exercising her conscience rights. If the employer wishes to fire their employee, they have to provide them with the appropriate severance, etc.

As far as I'm aware, all pharmacies have a simple policy--you will dispense any medications we carry as prescribed by a patient's doctor. Therefore the addition of any and all medications is covered. Acquiring new medications to sell, whatever their use, would not constitute a change in policy.

I think it's wrong for them to change policy in midstream.

Companies have a right to change policies when they like. And employee contracts almost always state that the company has that right, and they are expected to go along with said policy changes. So this would not be applicable to most employers.

I don't regard contracts as 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their wishes. If a prospective employee chooses to sign on the dotted line, then the only way for the contract to be valid is if they were capable to consent. If as you argue, they were coerced into signing, then the contract is invalid.

I didn't argue that anyone was coerced into signing anything...where did you get that?

Even a non-coerced contract may not necessarily be valid, however. You can't legally sell yourself into slavery, no matter how much you and the other party may consent. The state has the power to render certain contractual terms invalid, and I suspect you fully agree with that power, yes? So yet again, "anything goes" for employer-employee relationships is not something you really believe in, even if there's an up-front contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, this was simply not what you stated earlier, so I see a contradiction. The specific incident was a private company, Eckerd Pharmacy (There aren't any state-run pharmacies as far as I know in the U.S.). You adamantly stated it was wrong that the Pharmacy was requiring employees to dispense birth control when it was against their personal morals. Glad to see you've come around at least.

I see it now as more of a business issue. Pharmacies should be able to run as they see fit, in choosing what they wish to stock. If they wish to stock contraception, that is a policy change. In my work the last 4 months, it's a big decision choosing to change over stock, and one of my jobs was to make sure that everything was accounted for in terms of the different brands, etc. Everyone was responsible for ordering, and nothing was ordered without the consultation of both my boss, and the lady who did the ordering for that particular supplier.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents, and it would not simply go into the store without first being discussed by the owner and the staff. The issue with Eckhard is how they conducted their transition. I do not believe it is right for a pharmacy to expect staff which has not ever dispensed contraception to do so without complaint.

Companies have a right to change policies when they like. And employee contracts almost always state that the company has that right, and they are expected to go along with said policy changes. So this would not be applicable to most employers.

Most items don't have conscience issues. Either keep the employee on and have them refer to another who is willing to dispense, and if that isn't possible and you are willing to let the employee go, you have to provide her severance, etc, as it's not termination with cause.

Even a non-coerced contract may not necessarily be valid, however. You can't legally sell yourself into slavery, no matter how much you and the other party may consent. The state has the power to render certain contractual terms invalid, and I suspect you fully agree with that power, yes? So yet again, "anything goes" for employer-employee relationships is not something you really believe in, even if there's an up-front contract.

Government only knows of contracts that they discover. If employee and employer were happy with the contract why should they intervene?

[Dr Strangelove]

I've lived in my current apartment in Toronto for 2.5 years now, with little issues. In the summer I'd have to frequently close my open windows as some idiot started smoking on their balcony, but that was it.

A few weeks ago, a new neighbour moved in nearby on the floor. He or she is a heavy smoker. I live in a building built in the '60s, and the ventilation pretty much sucks. Whenever they smoke, which is often, it immediately fills up the hallway with the heavy smell and very quickly wafts into my apartment. It's incredibly strong.

I've repositioned my Sharp air purifier near the front of my apartment which has helped a lot, but the smell is still incredibly persistent and incredibly annoying. I've now duct-taped all of the vents shut entering into my apartment but the seal by the door is not very good and the smell still permeates!

I'm seriously infuriated. I ****ing hate smokers, they really have no ****ing idea how much their disgusting habit pisses everyone else off.

Me too. I have to examine them in small confined room.s Some of them really reek, but they haven't a clue. Disrobing makes the smell even worse. I've actually has to give myself nebulizer treatments after treating some heavy smokers.

[Dr Strangelove]

.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents,

Natural equivalents? What are the natural equivalents of contraception? I'm almost afraid to ask. Anyone who sells a herbal contraceptive ought to be sued and imprisoned.

[Boris Godunov]

I see it now as more of a business issue. Pharmacies should be able to run as they see fit, in choosing what they wish to stock. If they wish to stock contraception, that is a policy change.

A vendor choosing to stock a new product is not a policy change.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents, and it would not simply go into the store without first being discussed by the owner and the staff. The issue with Eckhard is how they conducted their transition. I do not believe it is right for a pharmacy to expect staff which has not ever dispensed contraception to do so without complaint.

No, that was not the issue with Eckerd. The case was that a woman who had been raped got a prescription for emergency contraception, which Eckerd carried and had always done so. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription for the customer, citing his moral beliefs. Eckerd eventually fired him. At the time, you defended the pharmacist and said Eckerd was wrong to do so.

Regardless, birth control is medication, and if the store's overall policy is "You will dispense any medications we carry as a part of your job," then a change of products is covered. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense birth control, then he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Most items don't have conscience issues. Either keep the employee on and have them refer to another who is willing to dispense, and if that isn't possible and you are willing to let the employee go, you have to provide her severance, etc, as it's not termination with cause.

Refusing to sell a legal product that your employer expects you to sell is indeed a valid cause for termination. Of course, since most states are at-will anyway, this isn't going to be relevant most of the time. Still, I find it baffling to think that any employee could refuse to do an integral part of his job and not be fired for that.

I find it even more baffling that you want employers to have enough "flexibility" to expose their employees to what you acknowledge is a toxic substance that isn't an integral part of their job, while at the same time here arguing that an employer doesn't have cause to dismiss someone because they won't do precisely what they're paid to do. Insanity.

Government only knows of contracts that they discover. If employee and employer were happy with the contract why should they intervene?

Then you agree to decriminalize prostitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Natural equivalents? What are the natural equivalents of contraception? I'm almost afraid to ask. Anyone who sells a herbal contraceptive ought to be sued and imprisoned.

There are many things that should be banned IMHO, but our government in it's wisdom believes that if it's natural it's ok. Thank the greenies.

The question has come up.

[Ben Kenobi]

A vendor choosing to stock a new product is not a policy change.

Given the mess I had to sort out, yes it is. It wouldn't be stocked with considerable discussion, but I suppose you know my job better then I do.

No, that was not the issue with Eckerd. The case was that a woman who had been raped got a prescription for emergency contraception, which Eckerd carried and had always done so. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription for the customer, citing his moral beliefs. Eckerd eventually fired him. At the time, you defended the pharmacist and said Eckerd was wrong to do so.

Yes, I believe she acted in the way she ought to have, and we'd be better off if more pharmacists did the same. I don't believe Eckhard should have fired her, even if he was justified in doing so. Just because you are legally able to do something doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Regardless, birth control is medication, and if the store's overall policy is "You will dispense any medications we carry as a part of your job," then a change of products is covered. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense birth control, then he shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Wrong. The job of a pharmacist isn't to just rubberstamp a prescription. If it were, we'd have Mickey D clerks filling them out. I really don't understand why people don't respect the training that a pharmacist must do in order to do their job. If a prescription would provoke drug conflicts that the physician was unaware, then it's their duty not to fill out the prescription.

Refusing to sell a legal product that your employer expects you to sell is indeed a valid cause for termination.

Then you need to spell that out in the contract. Otherwise, the employee's conscience rights trump the employers' desire. Default is, unless the employer takes steps to protect himself, that the employee's conscience takes precedent.

If the employee signs the contract saying that she will prescribe contraception, then she's legally obligated. Otherwise, no.

Of course, since most states are at-will anyway, this isn't going to be relevant most of the time. Still, I find it baffling to think that any employee could refuse to do an integral part of his job and not be fired for that.

I find it baffling that you'd support an employer willing to run roughshod over employee conscience rights when it's about contraception, but would bend over backwards when it has to do with smoking. My position is consistant across both. If the employer makes it very clear that the employee will be required to do something and specifies that in the contract, and the employee signs it, then they are obligated to do so.

I find it even more baffling that you want employers to have enough "flexibility" to expose their employees to what you acknowledge is a toxic substance that isn't an integral part of their job, while at the same time here arguing that an employer doesn't have cause to dismiss someone because they won't do precisely what they're paid to do. Insanity.

I see dealing with smokers a core part of a job as a waitress or bartender. Contraception on the other hand is just one of tens of thousands of pharmaceuticals, and you are saying it's a core part of their job. You must see bartenders as skilled positions and pharmacists as unskilled.

Then you agree to decriminalize prostitution.

If you are a john and solicit a police officer, that's your problem.

[Nikolai]

Well isn't this a cute thread. So civil and all. I must say I'm glad we have mods like Ming and the gang, who manages to separate personal opinions and preferences from their work as mods. That's hard work, in case people didn't know. I have personal experience in being a mod for a smaller site, and I tell you, Ming & co is doing a great job. And without pay too, poor bastards.

[notyoueither]

Then you need to spell that out in the contract. Otherwise, the employee's conscience rights trump the employers' desire. Default is, unless the employer takes steps to protect himself, that the employee's conscience takes precedent.

If the employee signs the contract saying that she will prescribe contraception, then she's legally obligated. Otherwise, no.

Bull****.

[Lorizael]

Methinks this calls for a .
Meanwhile, is there some compelling reason why people can't switch to chewing tobacco? Or some other nicotine delivery system which is more elegant and palatable and doesn't indiscriminately release poisons into the atmosphere?

Starting that way might be fine, but switching would be more difficult. The addiction to nicotine gets people to really love the feeling of smoke in their lungs. Somehow.

[Nikolai]

After we got the new smoking law a few years back, we've had a large growth of "snus"(dunno the english term), wet tobacco which you place under your upper lip. Especially after the bag version came on the market.

[ColdPhoenix]

I wonder why people don't go back to snuff. Never tried it (now an ex-smoker of 6 or so months) but it sounds like good stuff!!

[Fake Boris]

Starting that way might be fine, but switching would be more difficult. The addiction to nicotine gets people to really love the feeling of smoke in their lungs. Somehow.

Yes.

This is how I picked up smoking. I was a toker (weed every night), but I didn't smoke tobacco. I eventually stopped smoking weed except for rare occasions, but the feeling of inhaling smoke while drinking a beer or a cup of wine became associated with relaxing. So I picked up smoking instead.