chocolatepossum said:
I remember you citing the United States Code but I'm not sure what it has to do with a ban in the UK. It seems you actually agree with me that there are other jobs that carry risks but that you consider all these risks to be unavoidable as part of the job, and therefore OK. Maybe you would like to compel bar owners to install air ventilation systems to minimize the unavoidable risk of working in a smoking bar instead of just banning them?
Ok UK specific information
Section 2 (1) of the Health and safety at work etc. Act 1974 (as amended) sates
"It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees"
There are two main points of consideration here.
Firstly what may present a hazard to workers safety,
Secondly what is "reasonably practicable" in this context
It is well established that atmospheric smoke is a hazard to those that inhale it. However the hazard will only present itself over prolonged exposure and in high concentrations, there is some debate over what the "safe" or "acceptable" levels of atmospheric tobacco smoke are, and also over what†acceptable" exposure times are.
The second point over "reasonable practicability" is, as ever the sticking point.
How can you prevent a hazardous substance presenting a risk to eth health, safety or welfare of your employees?
The accepted UK hierarchy of controls (also enshrined in European legislation) is
Elimination/Avoidance of Hazard
Substitution for Less Hazardous Material
Enclosure of the Material
Enclosure of the Individual
Local Exhaust Verification (fume cupboards etc.)
General Ventilation
Development of Safe Systems of Work
Information, Instruction and Training
Good Housekeeping
Personal Protective Equipment
Each point should be considered (cumulatively and in turn) until the risk to the employee has been eliminated.
At the moment a societal and legal judgment ahs been made that in the context of those working in the hospitality and entertainment industry,
Elimination/Avoidance of Hazard
Substitution for Less Hazardous Material
Enclosure of the Material
Enclosure of the Individual
Local Exhaust Verification (fume cupboards etc.)
Are either not “reasonableâ€, or not practicable.
So we are left with a current duty on employers to provide general ventilation and attempt “safe†systems of work (e.g. no smoking at the actual bar etc).
However these measures actually do very little to protect workers from inhaling smoke.
The question ahs to be raised, is removing environmental tobacco smoke at its source (i.e. the cigarette, cigar or pipe) really an “unreasonable†thing to do in the context of protecting workers safety.
We have banned the use of materials which, in the way they are usually used actually have a much lower risk profile (for instance Chrysotile- though I am not saying that white asbestos is safe, just that day to day it poses less of a health risk to those that come into contact with it than concentrated environmental tobacco smoke)
As other posters have already stated, if the risks posed to entertainment/ hospitality workers by environmental tobacco some where posed by any other substance, then the use of that substance would be severely restricted.
I cannot see any logical reason for protecting workers against exposure of Chrysotile (which has many useful functions) whilst not protecting workers from environmental tobacco smoke.
As to those that argue “well they knew the risks when they took the jobâ€, there are two points to consider firstly, health and safety responsibilities in UK law are criminal responsibilities, which cannot be transferred by contract.
Secondly, as others have sated here in the UK many people do not have the choice no to work unless they can support themselves privately.
Those people claiming “Job Seekers Allowance must prove that they are actively seeking work or their benefits are stopped. Refusing to take a job which is offered to you (even if it poses health risks) results in your benefits being stopped.
It is demonstrated time and time again, through history and through the world, that where health and safety responsibilities are moved from the employer to eth employee (i.e. require people to find work where their health and safety is not put at risk), then employees health and safety suffers. The short term desire to eat and to feed your family overrides long term considerations of health risks.
