Old Smoke essay
In this paper I will describe the way I would cope with the situation in Case 8.4 “Old Smoke” if I were Mr. Renfold, describe my variant of policy on smoking for Redwood Associates, explain how the present case would alter if the situation concerned smell of perfume or body odor and tell whether it is reasonable to prevent employees from smoking cigarettes in own cars in the organization’s parking lot.
- Explain how you would handle this situation if you were Charles Renfold.
Being Mr. Renford under the circumstances would be tough since smoking in buildings was not forbidden at that period of time. Every state has certain rules on prohibiting tobacco at work. Most states assert that there has to be a selected fuming locality inside the surrounded structure with an additional ventilation system. Redwood Associates does not possess any no-smoking principle so they house smokers and non-smokers. Alice and Frank are 2 smokers and they work in the organization where they are allowed to smoke. Nevertheless, the same offices are utilized by other employees who don’t smoke. And they find the persistent stink of vintage fumes to be offensive. Non smoker Darlene has a right to work in a fumes free environment.
Darlene denies working in the agency since she can not stomach the fumes odors. Her accusation can’t be disregarded by supervisor. It is an ethical duty of the organizations to respect the rights of their employees. As an administrator I would take instant action to attempt to determine the issue. At the same time let’s not forget about the fact smoking is allowable.
So, I would not force Darlene to work under the circumstances because of her privilege to remain in a fumes free environment. As a manager in the organization, I should conduct a closed session with Frank and Alice and explain the concerns of not merely Darlene but other co-workers that have the same feelings. I would prohibit smoking in a file room and provide areas for those people who do smoke. I would explain to smokers why this regulation has to be followed every day for the health of others. I am sure that Frank and Alice will show understanding for Darlene’s position, since they have always considered when Darlene entered the room by not smoking cigarettes and opening windows (Shaw, 2010). Besides, smokers know how strong fume may be because of the harm it does to the organism.
At the same time I would remind Darlene that she is talking about what she desires, not what she is entitled to, under the law. Alice and Frank have already taken certain steps to minimize the influence of smoking. Besides, Darlene is talking about something that makes her feel “slightly nauseated” not completely unable to work. She also needs to be part of the solution. Employees should not tell the manager that they are not going to perform what they are asked. When a manager asks to complete a task and worker says “no” depending on conditions, it could result in denunciation. So, I would tell Darlene about the code of conduct policy. Since the organization has followed all the regulations which are set by a state, there is nothing else I can do at the moment. I also have to keep in mind the interests of people that do smoke. The organization believes that making smokers go outside will spoil the productivity since a file room is the main work area. So, they were permitted to smoke there.
- Describe the policy on smoking that you would recommend to Redwood Associates.
Since the organization feels that making smokers go outside will spoil productivity, I can not recommend the organization to make personnel smoke in the designated areas outside the building. So, if Redwood Associates is going to permit stuff to smoke cigarettes in the building, they should provide an area where the smokers may perform own work without offending non-smokers with fume. The productivity will be remained and all tasks completed. Alice, Frank and other smokers should be given a separate place that is well ventilated. The usage of tobacco products, counting chewing tobacco will be prohibited in all areas, accept designated ones (Heathfield). Smokers have to throw cigarettes proper containers provided by the organization. This assists in keeping clean environment for all employees and clients. No employee or client should be permitted to smoke along the pathway leading to the office or designated smoking areas outside the building. If a worker is caught outside of provided areas there should be certain consequences. Also Redwood Associates may have the file room painted to liquidate the old smoke stink. These simple steps would permit all employees involved to get what they need.
- Explain how this case would change if what bothers Darlene is not old smoke but the smell of Alice’s perfume or Frank’s body odor.
If what disturbed Darlene was a perfume or natural body odor, I would take on an entirely different approach. Workers’ rights arise from federal and state regulations that administer the manager – worker relationship. Workers’ rights guarantee equivalent opportunity for all personnel members. It makes people feel comfortable in the work environment. Defending personnel’s rights benefit the employees and the business by preventing the misinterpretation that may happen at work. And there are no laws or The Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations for wearing a lot of perfume or body odor.
It is logical to expect workers to be more devoted to their jobs, more concerned with quality and customer service, rather than other worker’s perfumes. When Darlene refused to write the report because of the hazard to her health due to inhaling the old smoke, I could totally understand that. In some companies employees who smell like smoke may be even asked to go home and change clothes. In some states employers have right to make the workplace non-smoking. But if there is no danger to Darlene’s health her work should be completed. She is being insubordinate, which is not allowed. There is work that has to be done. The company has followed all regulations set by the state and Darlene should understand that.
- Explain whether it is fair or reasonable for companies to ban employees from smoking in their cars in the company parking lot.
Many organizations are banning all tobacco usage on every inch of property – from the parking lots to the doorways. Severe prohibitions mean a worker can not smoke in the car if it’s placed on the company’s lot. More and more organizations are adopting similar ban. Companies assert that they want workers to be healthier and more creative. But one more goal of the smoking bans is to get employees to quit smoking and help reduce health care expenses that are skyrocketing at astounding rates. The American Cancer Society asserts medical costs reduce for $47 in the first year smoker quits and by $853 in the next 7 years (Romero).
Some human beings say bans take away their personal freedom to utilize tobacco. Others want to know what’s next (Peters, 2005). Will firms start controlling what workers consume to fight obesity, another reason driving up health care expenses? However, companies do not prohibit smoking at all. And it’s acceptable for organizations to decide what happens on their grounds, and how workers will present themselves on property. It still influences the firm, even though it is in the car of the employee.
Companies have the right to permit or expel certain types of behavior on their property, from enforcing uniform standards, to prohibiting alcohol, to requiring personnel to answer the phones in a certain way. Smoking is no exception – it is a deliberate, unnecessary behavior that may harmfully influence the health of other workers. An employee smoking in a car will have cigarette smoke on clothes, which can be a health hazard for his or her co-workers and a poor presentation to clients. Smoking area should be positioned so that non-smokers (employees and clients) would not have to be exposed to the smoke while they are transiting to and from their vehicle. Restricting cigarettes at work and in the company parking lot should be a part of entire health and safety promotion program. It is important to remember that for many employees, exposure to smoke is one of the many hazards they experience day-to-day. The exposure to smoke should be addressed as a part of a complete occupational health program.
