Smoking is a habit developed by most people but the problem with it, just like any other drug, is addiction. Consequently, people addicted to smoking find it difficult to go for long periods without smoking. This has led to people smoking everywhere; public areas such as buses, restaurants and workplaces.
For non-smokers, this habit is extremely irritating and can lead to health problems associated with passive smoke. As a result, a convenient prohibition should be implemented to place both smokers and non-smokers in a suitable position where none is bothered by the other.
It is quite unethical to allow smoking to continue in workplaces at the expense of the non-smokers. This paper intends to focus on convenient policies that could be implemented at workplaces that would be favorable to both smokers and non-smokers.
Renfold as a supervisor is approached by an employee who complains about the smoking habits of other employees in the workplace. The complaint raised by Darlene is that Alice and Frank smoke in their offices and the stench of cigarette smoke that remains in the air irritates her.
If I were Charles Renfold I would listen to Darlene’s complaint and look at the situation objectively before taking any action. Darlene is of the opinion that she would not work on the job that is assigned to her since she needs to retrieve files from Alice’s and Frank’s office.
Since the job is urgent and therefore needed in a few days time, I would request her to work on the job with the promise that I will communicate her complaints to Frank and Alice so that they may stop smoking in the office due to complaints raised by fellow colleagues. Furthermore, I will promise her that I would forward the complaint to the human resource manager so that they could formulate company rules that would favor both smokers and non-smokers within the organization without affecting employees output and morale.
After my encounter with Darlene, I would then visit Alice and Frank’s office to inform them of the complaints without necessarily revealing who the complainant is so that they may not develop feelings of resentment towards Darlene. I would then make a follow up with Darlene to ensure that she begins working on the files since the report is required by top management.
Afterwards I would visit the Human Resource office to voice the complaints so that necessary action could be taken if the Human Resource Manager finds it necessary to take action.
There are several policies that can be formulated to ensure that smoking within the offices is regulated. Since the three parties are workers within the organization, I will have to come up with a strategic policy which will be suitable to both the smokers and the non-smokers.
As smoking within the offices is the problem, I would recommend that smokers be allowed some amount of time during their working hours to smoke. The smoking would not take place within the building but there would be designated spots reserved for the smokers so that the smoke would not reach the non-smokers who are allergic or irritated by the smell of cigarette smoke (Office control, 2011, par. 7).
To ensure that the smokers respond to the new smoking rules, I would ensure that there was a penalty which would be charged on an employee who is found smoking in an area other than the one reserved for smoking. If this policy is assimilated and implemented by Redwood Associates, then both the smokers and the non-smokers would be satisfied.
The smokers could smoke more freely at their own pleasure while the non-smokers would be free from the irritating cigarette smoke.
Smoking is a personal choice and individuals who decide to smoke do so out of their own personal choice but this can be regulated so that smoking can take place in an area that is convenient for both parties.
But there are other issues that are more personal such as perfumes and body odor and addressing such matters requires a lot of delicacy and much care has to be taken without raising remorseful feelings and resentment.
If Darlene was offended by Frank’s body odor, then Renfold would have to approach the issue more tactfully and in a professional manner to avoid lowering Frank’s morale and creating self-esteem problems that are likely to affect his attitude towards work and his colleagues.
Renfold would have to approach Frank and request that they have a private talk since such messages cannot be passed on before the other employees.
Renfold would have to engage in a personal talk with Frank making sure that he is straightforward in speech and that he arrives to the point he wants to put across quickly without beating around the bush since this creates an uncomfortable situation for both of them especially Frank.
Before telling Frank about the issue, Renfold should make a point of informing Frank that the conversation is not related to work performance so that he can put Frank at ease and also to prepare him mentally for what he is about to say.
Renfold could go ahead to advice Frank on possible solutions to the problem. Afterwards, he could make a follow up of the issue to find out whether there are improvements.
As for Alice’s perfume, Renfold can also talk to her about it in a private conversation. He could request her to use little amounts since it is causing irritation to other employees or to change the product she is using.
However, this is quite a personal matter since there is little that could be done about a persons taste for different cosmetic products. In fact, asking her to change the product would make her change to a different one but the smell could still be offensive to Darlene, therefore, there is no real solution to such a problem.
Actually, there are areas that an employer has no right to intrude such as grooming since it’s governed by the rights of an employee to privacy (Weiss, 2009, p.363) Darlene would have to cope up with it since she does not work full time in Alice’s office.
Other employees who have been restricted from smoking resolve to smoking in their cars at the parking lot. Some companies have gone ahead and raised a ban on this habit.
According to me, this is justifiable since a parking lot is part of the areas owned by the business and if it is not reserved as a site for smoking, there is no reason why an employee should smoke there. Other employees who are allergic to cigarette smoke use the parking lot just as the smokers do.
Employees remain allergic whether the smoke is present in the offices or in the parking lot, it is still irritating and banning the smoking of cigarettes in the parking lot is justifiable and reasonable. In fact banning cigarette smoking to reserved sites can eventually help these smokers to reduce their cigarette consumption thus killing the addiction (Archie & Buchholtz, 2008, p.715).
Smoking is an addictive habit developed by many people and the problem is experienced in work places. Some cigarette addicts go to the extent of smoking at workplaces at the expense of other colleagues who might be allergic to the cigarette smoke.
To put everyone at ease, institution policies that prohibit smoking in public areas were formulated. They allowed cigarette smokers the right to smoke at designated spots reserved for the activity. Other issues arise at work places such as offensive body odors and irritating perfumes.
Such issues should be solved with much care since they involve intrusion into the private life of a colleague or employee. Smoking in parking lots should also be prohibited since this is a space that is shared by both smokers and the non-smokers.
Reference List
Archie, C & Buchholtz, A. (2008). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, Inc.
Weiss, Joseph. (2009). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, Inc.
Office control. (2011). The Smoking Ban. Web.