Smokers banned from using lifts

stix62

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Do you know of anyone that has died from an asthma attack from standing close to a smoker?

No, me neither.

A smoker who is not smoking at that!

ShadowPuma

stix62 wrote: »

So who do you know whose had an attack from standing next to a non-smoking smoker?

I've had an attack because of someones perfume before - far worse than smoky smell!

And yeah 5 floors? Sod walking that! In my case I have a non-smoking physical disability (fibro) which means I quite often can't walk long distances, especially heights/stairs.

ste_wilko

This is completely discriminatory and wouldn't hold up in court. You employer cannot deny you use of facilities based on your lifestyle, unless allowing you to use those facilities would put you or others at risk (such as access to a company car after a night out where you are still likely to be over the limit).

What they can do is remove the smoking facilities if they have any. But they certainly can't deny you the access to the lift that they allow non-smokers access to.

Why should you quit smoking? Is that the only polution in the world? No it isn't. Is the purchase of tobacco and related products one of the biggest tax revenue sources in the country? Yes.

It's a personal choice to smoke. If you don't want to smoke then fine, but stop preaching to us smokers about it. If someone is inconsiderate towards you with their smoking then fine, but if not then butt the hell out!!!!

Transformers

Being a smoker is NOT a protected characteristic so this isn't about discrimination.

System

I sense a few accidental trips by people when they reach the 3rd or 4th floor will concentrate the mind of the management once H&S get involved as well

System

TBH, the state my knees are in I wouldn't be able to walk up to the 3rd floor let alone the 5th before they seized up on me.

That may not be a protected characteristic now but it wouldn't take a lot of stair climbing to make it so.

vqmismatch

Why not just have a sneaky puff on an ecig without having to break your focus on work? I have a colleague who keeps one up his sleeve and has become remarkably adept at sneaking the odd puff even in the middle of meetings etc.

ste_wilko

It doesn't have to be protected. It is discrimination because the employer is saying that smokers aren't allowed to use the lifts after having a cig. That is discriminating against someone who smokes

littleboo

ste_wilko wrote: »

It doesn't have to be protected. It is discrimination because the employer is saying that smokers aren't allowed to use the lifts after having a cig. That is discriminating against someone who smokes

Well in the eyes of the law it does have to be protected,otherwise we'd have alcoholics claiming discrimination because booze wasn't allowed in the workplace, or people claiming discrimination because the dress code stifles their flamboyant sense of style.
Saying that, it does seem a strange rule to try and implement, not very well thought out and fraught with difficulty.

Andy_L

ste_wilko wrote: »

It doesn't have to be protected. It is discrimination because the employer is saying that smokers aren't allowed to use the lifts after having a cig. That is discriminating against someone who smokes

Yes it is discrimination, however since its not a protected characteristic its not unlawful discrimination