smoking and the pub

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

Well we've been told we won't even be allowed to smoke in the car park at work as it's still classed as the workplace Ok then, I guess the only other option of stand in front of the building off the property smoking and make the place look untidy.

That would never work at our place - first there are security cameras watching the yard and car park, and second there's a cabin for the security guards at the front gate. Even the delivery van drivers won't be allowed to smoke during working hours, and if they think their transport department managers aren't going to check, they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

A notice about the ban has gone up at our place, so they can't say they haven't been told. But there's another aspect of the ban which, quite frankly, I don't think the smokers at our place have thought of: namely, that since employees will not now be taking smoke breaks - supposedly - the managers will expect an increase in throughput.

I haven't the faintest idea of how much of an increase our lot will be expecting, but you can bet if they don't get some increase they'll damn well want to know why. And they will be able to tell, because our stock control system is entirely computerised. It goes like this:

As stock is unloaded from the trailers, the address barcode on each piece is scanned so as to add it to the stock, and in the process is given a unique reference label - as far as the database is concerned, this is the primary key, the address barcode being the secondary or foreign key. The reference label is considered to have a finite lifetime, which is from the moment it's received into stock to the moment it's delivered and the customer accepts delivery. But the entity relationship between item and customer is one-to-many, not one-to-one, because items can be reallocated.

A customer might cancel an order before it's delivered, or change their mind when it's delivered, in which case the driver has to bring it back. In either event, what are you supposed to do with it? Send it back to the supplier? No, that's not cost-effective; instead, reallocate it to another customer. If the relationship were one-to-one, there'd be no provision for cancellations, and eventually the warehouse would be full of cancelled and returned stock...although the place would most likely have gone bankrupt long before that point was reached.

Thus one item might have several customers before it's finally delivered (in practice, though, reallocation usually occurs a maximum of 3 times), but only one customer will eventually accept it upon delivery. At that point the reference label effectively ceases to exist; the customer order to which it refers will be retained on the database for a certain length of time (I don't know how long), and eventually deleted.

When stock is being put away on the various floors, the reference label and a location barcode are scanned, so as to register each item as being in a particular location.

At some point, stock items must be retrieved from wherever they've been put away, i.e. picked, so they can be loaded onto a given van. In the process, the address barcode and the reference label are both scanned to ensure each customer gets the correct item; it's no use sending a blue suite if they've ordered a cream one, for example, or a 3' bed if they want a 5' bed.

Finally, when the items are loaded onto the vans, each reference label is scanned by the loading team as a final check that a) every item for that van has been picked, b) it's present on the loading bay and c) it's the correct item - if you've got newbies doing the picking, they might have picked the wrong piece. It happens. Or the piece might have been labelled incorrectly by the receiving staff; that happens, too...far too frequently.

The upshot of all this is that the database is updated in real time every time a reference label is scanned. Every hour, a report is printed which shows - to the item - exactly how much new stock has been received in, how much has been picked for loading onto the 7.5 ton delivery vans, how much put away, how much loaded on the vans etc...in other words, how much work has been done.

The management know perfectly well that a certain percentage of the workforce slope off at intervals to have a quick fag. Therefore, since they won't be doing that any more (allegedly), they'll be at their place of work for longer each day. Therefore, the stock reports should show that more work is being done - especially now they have, FINALLY, seen sense and reinstated the night shift, as a result of which the place is now operating 24/5, plus part-day weekends.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I for one can't wait.

Right. Off to bed.

And does the "management" realise that there will be productivity loss because of un-happy workers because they can't have the occasional cigarette? No? Thought not.

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

And does the "management" realise that there will be productivity loss because of un-happy workers because they can't have the occasional cigarette? No? Thought not.

Of course not. Certainly not at our place. They don't give a toss about the staff as long as the work gets done. For instance:

On each loading bay, there's a sort of traffic light setup, just red and green. The idea is that the light's supposed to be on green when the bay is clear, so a van, trailer or whatever can be backed onto it, or when a van or trailer is ready to go. It's supposed to be on red while a van is being loaded, or a trailer unloaded. The light is there to advise the shunter driver that it either is, or is not, safe to move the vehicle. If the light's on red, i.e. someone's working on the vehicle, it is not to be moved - obviously. Only when the loading/unloading crew change the light to green should the vehicle be moved.

All well and good so far. Except that you need a key to change the light over, and the problem there is that a) all the keys have gone missing, and b) the fittings are obsolete anyway so we can't even obtain new keys. As a result, the shunter has to check with the loading/unloading team that it's safe to move the vehicle.

This is, by definition, a violation of the Health & Safety Act (1974). Do management care? Do they buggery. We're expected to use the bays whether you can change the lights over or not.

One of the lifts, the type with concertina doors, has a section on the inner door which is, not to put too fine a point on it, falling apart. As a result, the door isn't under the proper amount of tension when closed, so it won't stay closed and so the lift won't go up or down...the liftman has to hold it shut. It's been like that for a few weeks now.

Do management care? See above. We're essentially working in a 19th Century workplace, not a 21st Century one. They don't even care about health & safety as long as the work is done without interruption.

One of our lads was off for two months once. When he returned to work, he got grief over attendance issues.

He'd had a broken leg.

I had an accident and injured my hand; when I reported this to a manager and told him I was off to A & E because I suspected I'd broken something, all he was bothered about was whether or not I'd finished the job I was doing at the time.

Once, one of our lads had an epileptic fit - full grand mal attack. While we were waiting for paramedics, one of the managers wanted to move him because he was in the way.

Get the picture?

[Escapee]

you guys in England will probably notice five things in the pub that I have noticed since the smoking ban came into force in wales.

1) The pubs have a lot less customers and apparently the daytime custom has dissapeared in my local. Ther also seems to be a tendancy for the smokers to come out a lot later than they did.

2) When a smoker walks in, you can smell them straight away.

3) you will have difficulty getting in and out of the pub because they all huddle by the door feeding their addiction. Then complain if they have to join a queue to come back in.

4) When someone farts, it lingers for ages because there is no smoke to mask it or carry it upwards.

5) You can smell all the people with bad body odour. This has been very noticable, I can say I never noticed it before the smoking ban because the nasty stale smell of fags can overpower anything.

I cant believe I had some plus points for smoking in there.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Once, one of our lads had an epileptic fit - full grand mal attack. While we were waiting for paramedics, one of the managers wanted to move him because he was in the way.


Get the picture?

So did one of our's they had him back on a forklift before the week was out

[nfs6600]

Originally Posted by Escapee

4) When someone farts, it lingers for ages because there is no smoke to mask it or carry it upwards.

5) You can smell all the people with bad body odour. This has been very noticable, I can say I never noticed it before the smoking ban because the nasty stale smell of fags can overpower anything.

I cant believe I had some plus points for smoking in there.

Point 4, not the case in my local. When someone lets rip you know about it. It's a workingmans social club, so no women are allowed in the bar. A room full of blokes all having that quick pint before going home to see the wife. No ladies around, so just let rip. It can linger for ages.

As to point 5, even I as a smoker, can smell people who have just came from a fag break, have bad body odour, etc. They say it numbs your sense of smell, ive not noticed a difference.

Back onto the BAN, it hit me last week when I seen a huge sign in Lime Street Liverpool counting down in seconds, minutes, hours and days to when the ban hits. I've started thinking now about quiting. It's all very well in the summer months (when we actually get sun that is), I can just smoke in the beer garden. But come winter, do I really want to be stood outside in the wind and rain?

Around my town some places have already started making new outdoor heated areas for the smoker. Will be interesting to see how they go. Probably more people outside than in! Roll on the outdoor nightclub revolution?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

Point 4, not the case in my local. When someone lets rip you know about it. It's a workingmans social club, so no women are allowed in the bar. A room full of blokes all having that quick pint before going home to see the wife. No ladies around, so just let rip. It can linger for ages.

As to point 5, even I as a smoker, can smell people who have just came from a fag break, have bad body odour, etc. They say it numbs your sense of smell, ive not noticed a difference.

Back onto the BAN, it hit me last week when I seen a huge sign in Lime Street Liverpool counting down in seconds, minutes, hours and days to when the ban hits. I've started thinking now about quiting. It's all very well in the summer months (when we actually get sun that is), I can just smoke in the beer garden. But come winter, do I really want to be stood outside in the wind and rain?

Around my town some places have already started making new outdoor heated areas for the smoker. Will be interesting to see how they go. Probably more people outside than in! Roll on the outdoor nightclub revolution?

My local is a listed building and they are not allowed to put up a canopy outside for the smokers. The pub is on a corner with a road at front and side, and there is no garden so they have been hit hard with loss of trade. I have noticed however that the Wetherspoons has lost a lot of trade, but that has always been non-smoking.

So perhaps its not all down to the smoking ban?

The body odour and people letting rip are noticably different since the smoking ban, I have had people come upto where I am stood at the bar and the smell is really bad, some of these have been going in there long before the smoking ban but it never got noticed. One of my mates doesn't have a very strong stomache and he has been heaving a number of times lately. One guy put his arms up in the air saturday night, I think half a dozen people passed out.

[Mr Angry]

This could prove interesting.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This could prove interesting.

Love their "mission statement" - the non-italicised words at the end are mine.
"Our Mission is to highlight the injustice of the imposed smoking bans, in particular on the four countries of Britain, but also on our friends in Ireland and the rest of Europe, the USA and Canada.

We aim to challenge this injustice through the courts and to show the public that they have and are being lied to over Passive Smoking. We believe, in Freedom, Democracy, Truth and Choice" (for smokers)

[bringerofnoise]

Since our daughter was born 3 years ago we've had our own kind of smoking ban, we tried to give up but failed miserably and so we smoke outside in the past week fags have been far and few between to say the least due to the weather.

The pub side of things, i thought it was good enough when there was smoking areas in the pub so that if we went into the pub in the day for lunch or a snack we would be away from the smoke, funnily enough though if we wanted a fag whilst at the pub we would still go outside.

Ah, the human rights gravy train again.

It's sad that something its founders intended to combat intolerance, persecution and totalitarianism is now being used left, right and centre to challenge laws passed by democratically elected governments.

The only people winning here are the lawyers.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

We aim to challenge this injustice through the courts and to show the public that they have and are being lied to over Passive Smoking. We believe, in Freedom, Democracy, Truth and Choice"[/I] (for smokers)

They are right. If the government had only required that SOME pubs enforce the ban, then there would be choice, both for non-smokers (go to a non-smoking pub, or go to a smoking pub and put up with the fumes) and smokers (Smoke, and go to smoking pub or don't smoke and go to a non-smoking pub). The ban as it is has removed that choice.

[Jules]

For the last few years I have always gone outside for a cig even if smoking was allowed inside as I don't want to inflict it on other people

Originally Posted by Stuart C

They are right. If the government had only required that SOME pubs enforce the ban, then there would be choice, both for non-smokers (go to a non-smoking pub, or go to a smoking pub and put up with the fumes) and smokers (Smoke, and go to smoking pub or don't smoke and go to a non-smoking pub). The ban as it is has removed that choice.

At the risk of taking this thread right round in a big circle ... this legislation has been brought in as a health and safety at work measure, not a public health measure. It wouldn't make sense to apply it selectively.

There really is no grounds for objecting to this, it was a free vote in Parliament and is a truly democratic law.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

They are right. If the government had only required that SOME pubs enforce the ban, then there would be choice, both for non-smokers (go to a non-smoking pub, or go to a smoking pub and put up with the fumes) and smokers (Smoke, and go to smoking pub or don't smoke and go to a non-smoking pub). The ban as it is has removed that choice.

But how would they have decided which pubs were required to impose the ban?