Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
So, in effect, those who visit other peoples houses as part of their work are not covered - or as equally protected - by this so called "smoking ban" which is part of the issue I referenced earlier.
|
Yes. Not sure if the NI legislation is the same, but that's the case for England. I think the peoples homes exemption is through regulations rather than in the act itself though it's a while since I read the English act so I may be wrong on that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Not so - there is no "long enough to present a risk to health" benchmark with regards to exposure to tobacco smoke - either first or second hand.
|
True - but a court would decide on the facts of the particular case if an employer required an employee to work in conditions that the employee believed were dangerous because of second hand smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
They have the right to ask but no legal powers to insist. How many home service business can afford to refuse to service that part of their customer base which constitutes smoking customers?
|
Not many - but then, the new act has nothing to do with this, and companies seemed to have managed to create a balance between providing services and protecting their employees health so far, so I don't see what's changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
This, I believe, is part of what the "show proceedings" hope to determine.
|
But the new act DOESN'T change anything about the law in relation to people whose work entails visiting private homes. So how can a challenge to the new law possibly have anything to do with the application of existing legislation?
That sort of issue would be determined by either a member of public bringing proceedings against a public body that refused to provide statutory services under because of the danger to health of their employee, OR the public body's employee bringing proceedings against their employer for forcing them to provide those services in circumstances they considered dangerous.
In any case, my understanding was that they were challenging under A1 and A8 of ECHR. Which won't address any of those issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
It's not just "elderly chavs" who die of cancers caused by smoking - but your disdain towards them is touching. Likewise we don't appear to have an epidemic of people dying from diseases directly attributable to passive smoking.
|
I know, I should have put a wink smiley in there. I was being facetious to illustrate a point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Actually, quite a lot will change with the introduction of the ban.
|
Yes, but not in relation to house visits
I've no doubt there'll be lots of minor legal wrangles in both the civil and criminal courts over exactly where the edges of the ban are, but you always get that with any kind of legislation. Nothing major's cropped up so far in any of the other bits of the UK that already have similar bans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
If the Government were truly sincere about the prime motive for this move being health related they would ban tobacco entirely instead of this mealy mouthed quick fix solution.
|
Could taxation money possibly be involved here?
I'm not sure you're right on this one; the new law doesn't stop people from smoking but stops them from smoking where it'll cause health problems to people who have to be there because its their job.
Personally I support the workplace ban, but I wouldn't support a ban that stopped people smoking in their own homes, because as far as I'm concerned what they do there where it's not going to harm others is their own business.