Linda, Sheila and me

Currently in Cork.

I'll have more to say later about a story that broke while I was on the train from Dublin.

Fortunately there was a good wifi connection so I was able to email a response without hiccup.

Mail Online has a report, including a quote from me, here:

The Guardian also has the story: Council staff face work-hours smoking ban.

In the meantime here's a clip from last night's Reporting Scotland.

It features me, Linda Bauld (Cancer Research) and Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) addressing the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee.

Comments

[nj]

Banning staff from smoking during their official breaks and threatening sanctions if employees are found smoking in their works uniforms.
Nottinghamshire County Council, are discriminating against its employees.

[Misty]

I think that Nottinghamshire Council may be on thinner legal ice than they realise here. There are several ways in which they could be taken to task – or even to court – over this po-faced proposal. For starters, there’s sex discrimination, which of course is illegal, and which could be invoked if one (yes, it only needs one) member of one sex is negatively affected by this decision when there is at the same time one (yes, again, just the one – that’s the law) member of the opposite sex who is not negatively affected by it. The fact that the rule applies to everyone, regardless of what sex they are is irrelevant; if it impacts negatively on, say, a female member of staff, but leaves a male member of staff unaffected, then a case could be made for sex discrimination (the same, of course, could be said if the members of staff involved are from different races, religions or sexual orientations). Honestly. Check with an equal opps lawyer (don’t mention smoking, because personal prejudice/preference will skew the answer, just ask about it in principle) if you don’t believe me!

Then there’s the working hours legislation. The law is quite clear on how long an employee can be expected to work without being given the opportunity for a break (six hours, in case you are interested; minimum break time at least 20 minutes). And if an employer has decided that their employees’ “breaks,” hitherto so named because they are supposed to be a “break” from doing as one’s boss tells you, are now yet more of the same, i.e. doing the employers’ bidding – whether that’s refraining from smoking or anything else – then the fact that an employee might happen to be drinking a cup of coffee whilst they’re doing it doesn’t mean that they aren’t, effectively, still working. So, having, effectively, done away with “breaks” in the true sense of the word at morning-coffee time, Nottingham Council could find that they are in contravention of the working hours legislation in respect of those employees for whom changing out of uniform and going “some distance away” from the premises isn’t a practical option at lunchtime. As an addendum to this one, it would be interesting to see what the courts’ feelings might be about an employer who grants an employee “permission” to do something, but then makes it so practically difficult for them to adhere to the conditions associated with that “permission” that they are, in effect, never able to take advantage of it – as, effectively, Nottingham Council are proposing to do.

In respect, again, of those employees who are not able for practical reasons to take advantage of the “permission” to smoke at lunchtimes, the same sex/race/religious discrimination arguments could also be applied, but this time comparing an employee of one sex who can “escape” at lunchtime against an employee of another sex who, in real terms, can’t.

Ah, if only there was an eagle-eyed lawyer or a union who was genuinely concerned with individual members’ rights and welfare out there somewhere. They could really, really have some fun with this one and could set some pretty groundbreaking precedents which could well go far, far wider than just the issue of smoking. Sadly there don’t seem to be very many of either species around at the moment, but who knows …

[gray]

The dead Labour party "reaching out" to voters .

[Helen D]

Yes it was the labour party that brought it in. What is the alternative doing about it though?

I've managed to convince many previous labour voters about their abhorrent treatment of smokers but the main alternative is doing the same.

Bring on what people want for their country and not what filthy lucre persuades.