Laserfiche WebLink
In the process of discussing this proposed policy with our operation people, who it mostly <br /> affects, they brought up the following points: <br /> 1) The policy we currently have works well, why change it? <br /> 2) Because the City has a perceived problem, why should it translate to our problem? <br /> 3) Where will these restrictive personnel issue policies stop? For instance, if a person <br /> is carrying extra weight(poking fun at yours truly)will we restrict now and when <br /> they eat? <br /> 4) Will employees be allowed smoke or chew breaks? Will they be allowed to smoke <br /> or chew in the field while working? <br /> On the other side <br /> 1) Smoking creates environmental issues for other people. Second hand smoke <br /> inhalation causes health risks for near by people. Health problems caused by <br /> smoking creates financial costs which we all pay for in higher insurance costs. <br /> 2) Chewing may have no outward environmental impacts but will ultimately cause <br /> gum cancer. We again all pay for this through higher insurance costs. <br /> 3) It is becoming more common for institutions to declare themselves smoke & <br /> tobacco free. <br /> This is an interesting conflict of values, personal rights vs. who pays for the results of personal <br /> choices. <br /> What bothers many employees is the command and control mentality of telling people what <br /> they can and can not do instead of treating them as adults. <br /> As a possible compromise, keep the existing policy until a problem arises, then adopt the <br /> proposed policy. By having this discussion, it will set employees on notice. <br />