Who should have to compromise? The smoker or the person w. enviromental sensitivies?

[DolaMight]

My Coworker was told not to smoke before meetings. I don't smoke and I'm trying to be objective here.

I work for the Govt. in a standard issue cubicle office with standard heavy ventilation. Our team got merged into a new team that the mentality is you have to have a meeting about everything.

The smoker is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian. The person who complained is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian who works for the team we were absorbed into. She is environmentally sensitive(perfume, cologne etc...) She said that she had an attack and had to leave the last meeting because she was able to smell the smoke on the co-workers clothes even though they weren't sitting near each other.

My coworker needs to smoke because he gets withdrawal symptoms and anxiety. If he couldn't smoke prior it would hit at the worst time during meetings when you have to be cool. I'd imagine her symptoms are similar when exposed to smoke.

The only compromise is coworker stops smoking or he attends via tele/videoconfrence or she tele/videoconfrence's and doesn't physically attend.

The govt. has declared smoking legal, and consequently he became physically addicted. Right or wrong he has a right to smoke, he can't around others but he can in private. There's no law about having smoke odor on your clothes.

IMO she has a severe mental phobia like fear of heights or carsickness where she drums herself up so much she develops anxiety which then causes asthma like symptoms. No one else has a problem with or ever noticed the coworkers' smoke odor. One person complains and the majority has to bend.

I don't think it's fair as smokers have had their rights taken away to the point they have to smoke outside 500ft from the bldg. Smoking is unhealthy but either you ban it outright or give the addicted fair rights.

I'll let ronfez.net decide their fate, who should have to compromise?

http://ricketyclick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/smoking3-716130.jpg

EDIT: I wish the firefox spell checker worked on subject lines

[boobieman]

What next you might eat somthing that will give you bad breath.then he/she asks you not to eat it anymore. Or you wear a deodorant and he/she does not like the smell...give up one freedom and the rest will fall.

Tell the shit dick to kiss off.


SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYA

[jauble]

If she has another way to attend the meetings (may I suggest gotomeeting.com I think I get money if I say that) she should compromise because I'm sure there are other people that are slightly annoyed that they have to cater to her condition.

[Jujubees2]

I dislike the smell of cigarettes. But you can't expect someone not to smoke BEFORE a meeting.

[britneypablo]

i wont say to much bc usually long paragraphs i write for free turn into incoherent babble...but i hate smoking...it REPULSES me...i can smell it on anyone who smokes...and it gives me major problems smelling it...

if someone showed up to work with horrible BO u would expect them to take bathe themselves...
the same goes for smoking...it is an undesirable smell...anyone would agree that this is a smell that they wouldnt buy a body splash if it smelled like that...

so my case is...which ever one of them is smarter and better looking should have to rights...
im guessing the non-smoker is the better one....this is just based on my experiance....
so in this case that person should def get their way...

im an alcoholic u dont see me needing to be drunk at business meetings so i dont get withdrawal symptoms....

i hate smokers, i judge a person immediately if i see them smoking, i hope they kill themselves helping with population control to leave more breathing air, food, resources , etc. for sensible people like me

[Friday]

i wont say to much bc usually long paragraphs i write for free turn into incoherent babble...but i hate smoking...it REPULSES me...i can smell it on anyone who smokes...and it gives me major problems smelling it...

if someone showed up to work with horrible BO u would expect them to take bathe themselves...
the same goes for smoking...it is an undesirable smell...anyone would agree that this is a smell that they wouldnt buy a body splash if it smelled like that...

so my case is...which ever one of them is smarter and better looking should have to rights...
im guessing the non-smoker is the better one....this is just based on my experiance....
so in this case that person should def get their way...

im an alcoholic u dont see me needing to be drunk at business meetings so i dont get withdrawal symptoms....

i hate smokers, i judge a person immediately if i see them smoking, i hope they kill themselves helping with population control to leave more breathing air, food, resources , etc. for sensible people like me

uh oh.
i hope jonyrotn doesn't read this post.
:unsure:

[Dougie Brootal]

i wont say to much bc usually long paragraphs i write for free turn into incoherent babble...but i hate smoking...it REPULSES me...i can smell it on anyone who smokes...and it gives me major problems smelling it...

if someone showed up to work with horrible BO u would expect them to take bathe themselves...
the same goes for smoking...it is an undesirable smell...anyone would agree that this is a smell that they wouldnt buy a body splash if it smelled like that...

so my case is...which ever one of them is smarter and better looking should have to rights...
im guessing the non-smoker is the better one....this is just based on my experiance....
so in this case that person should def get their way...

im an alcoholic u dont see me needing to be drunk at business meetings so i dont get withdrawal symptoms....

i hate smokers, i judge a person immediately if i see them smoking, i hope they kill themselves helping with population control to leave more breathing air, food, resources , etc. for sensible people like me

i dont smoke. and im an alcoholic.

[britneypablo]

well since i have a particular likin towards that one, i may be willing to carry around a fire extinguisher and blast him with it anytime he thinks he might want to smoke......actually i may do that to everyone i see who might think they want to smoke....it will be like symbolic...wow im so deep:wallbash:

[RhinoinMN]

wow im so deep

HOT!

[HBox]

My Coworker was told not to smoke before meetings. I don't smoke and I'm trying to be objective here.

I work for the Govt. in a standard issue cubicle office with standard heavy ventilation. Our team got merged into a new team that the mentality is you have to have a meeting about everything.

The smoker is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian. The person who complained is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian who works for the team we were absorbed into. She is environmentally sensitive(perfume, cologne etc...) She said that she had an attack and had to leave the last meeting because she was able to smell the smoke on the co-workers clothes even though they weren't sitting near each other.

My coworker needs to smoke because he gets withdrawal symptoms and anxiety, at the worst time during meetings when you have to be cool. I'd imagine her symptoms are similar when exposed to smoke.

The only compromise is coworker stops smoking or doesn't attend or she tele/videoconfrence's and doesn't physically attend.

The govt. has declared smoking legal, and consequently he became physically addicted. Right or wrong he has a right to smoke, he can't around others but he can in private. There's no law about having smoke odor on your clothes.

IMO she has a severe mental phobia where she drums herself up so much she develops anxiety which then causes asthma like symptoms. No one else has a problem with or ever noticed the coworkers' smoke odor. One person complains and the majority has to bend.

I don't think it's fair as smokers have had their rights taken away to the point they have to smoke outside 500ft from the bldg. Smoking is unhealthy but either you ban it outright or give the addicted fair rights.

I'll let ronfez.net decide their fate, who should have to compromise?

http://ricketyclick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/smoking3-716130.jpg

EDIT: I wish the firefox spell checker worked on subject lines

I can tell you being sensitive to smoke is not "mental," at least not always. I couldn't go into restaurants here in NJ at all before the smoking ban, even in non-smoking sections. Half way through the meal I'd end up with piercing headaches that would go away for hours. This was physical, I already had breathing problems. I'm not going to go in depth with my physical problems, but I will say that I later had those breathing problems cleared up and now I have no problem in closed areas with smoke.

People have the right to do what they want as long as they don't affect anyone else. I've never gotten why smokers sometimes feel like they never affect anyone else.

I also dont get why you say that he "needs" cigarettes. You can make the argument that you are asking him to make unfair concessions but I'd put each of these coworkers problems on the same level. I don't see how you can write off one's problems as mental and not the other's.

The bottom line for me is that this person bothered by the smoke didn't ask to be sensitive, unless she's faking it of course. This other guy chose to smoke. And that choice is affecting the other person. So I'd say he has to make the concession.

It doesn't really matter though. We all pretty much know the way this is going to go.

[RAAMONE]

i wont say to much bc usually long paragraphs i write for free turn into incoherent babble...but i hate smoking...it REPULSES me...i can smell it on anyone who smokes...and it gives me major problems smelling it...

if someone showed up to work with horrible BO u would expect them to take bathe themselves...
the same goes for smoking...it is an undesirable smell...anyone would agree that this is a smell that they wouldnt buy a body splash if it smelled like that...

so my case is...which ever one of them is smarter and better looking should have to rights...
im guessing the non-smoker is the better one....this is just based on my experiance....
so in this case that person should def get their way...

im an alcoholic u dont see me needing to be drunk at business meetings so i dont get withdrawal symptoms....

i hate smokers, i judge a person immediately if i see them smoking, i hope they kill themselves helping with population control to leave more breathing air, food, resources , etc. for sensible people like me

i dont smoke. and im an alcoholic.

alright...i'm starting to think doug likes girls

[JPMNICK]

i think she needs to learn to cope. move her seat in the meeting and be a person to deal with it. i HATE when people smoke around me, but i would have to deal with this for a work meeting. its not like he is blowing it in her face

[ibanez23]

I'm allergic to dogs.Anyone that has a dog should not be allowed in a meeting I attend.
I hate anyone that doesn't "Consider my allergy".I hate anyone that owns a dog .I wish the dog would kill them in there sleep and eat there lifeless body.:wallbash:
See how fucked up you sound?

[Furtherman]

She sounds like a bitch who hates the smell of smoke and feels everyone should cater to her needs. He should blow smoke in her face.

[Death Metal Moe]

Her 'Bad' uncle was probalby a 2 pack a day guy.

[EliSnow]

My Coworker was told not to smoke before meetings. I don't smoke and I'm trying to be objective here.

I work for the Govt. in a standard issue cubicle office with standard heavy ventilation. Our team got merged into a new team that the mentality is you have to have a meeting about everything.

The smoker is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian. The person who complained is a 30 year old middle of the road proletarian who works for the team we were absorbed into. She is environmentally sensitive(perfume, cologne etc...) She said that she had an attack and had to leave the last meeting because she was able to smell the smoke on the co-workers clothes even though they weren't sitting near each other.

My coworker needs to smoke because he gets withdrawal symptoms and anxiety. If he couldn't smoke prior it would hit at the worst time during meetings when you have to be cool. I'd imagine her symptoms are similar when exposed to smoke.

The only compromise is coworker stops smoking or he attends via tele/videoconfrence or she tele/videoconfrence's and doesn't physically attend.

The govt. has declared smoking legal, and consequently he became physically addicted. Right or wrong he has a right to smoke, he can't around others but he can in private. There's no law about having smoke odor on your clothes.

IMO she has a severe mental phobia like fear of heights or carsickness where she drums herself up so much she develops anxiety which then causes asthma like symptoms. No one else has a problem with or ever noticed the coworkers' smoke odor. One person complains and the majority has to bend.

I don't think it's fair as smokers have had their rights taken away to the point they have to smoke outside 500ft from the bldg. Smoking is unhealthy but either you ban it outright or give the addicted fair rights.

I'll let ronfez.net decide their fate, who should have to compromise?

http://ricketyclick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/smoking3-716130.jpg

EDIT: I wish the firefox spell checker worked on subject lines

I'd probably side with the smoker, but I disagree with your statement that he's addicted as a consequence of the government declaring smoking legal. If he's 30 something, then when he started smoking he knew it would be addictive, and he'd get hooked on it.

[RhinoinMN]

I'd probably side with the smoker, but I disagree with your statement that he's addicted as a consequence of the government declaring smoking legal. If he's 30 something, then when he started smoking he knew it would be addictive, and he'd get hooked on it.



http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u241/markbee1/10000Posts3.jpg

:clap::clap:

[DolaMight]

I can tell you being sensitive to smoke is not "mental," at least not always. I couldn't go into restaurants here in NJ at all before the smoking ban, even in non-smoking sections. Half way through the meal I'd end up with piercing headaches that would go away for hours. This was physical, I already had breathing problems. I'm not going to go in depth with my physical problems, but I will say that I later had those breathing problems cleared up and now I have no problem in closed areas with smoke.

People have the right to do what they want as long as they don't affect anyone else. I've never gotten why smokers sometimes feel like they never affect anyone else.

I also dont get why you say that he "needs" cigarettes. You can make the argument that you are asking him to make unfair concessions but I'd put each of these coworkers problems on the same level. I don't see how you can write off one's problems as mental and not the other's.

The bottom line for me is that this person bothered by the smoke didn't ask to be sensitive, unless she's faking it of course. This other guy chose to smoke. And that choice is affecting the other person. So I'd say he has to make the concession.

It doesn't really matter though. We all pretty much know the way this is going to go.

I don't smoke and I don't have environmental sensitivities so I can only go by what's proven.

When I say "needs" I meant he has to or else his brain will physically trigger a withdrawal reaction. That's documented. It is more than just a mental problem. (smoking IS legal, some just can't quit). If someone vomits at the smell of fish that's a psychological problem. They're not allergic, they just detest the smell.

I can't say with 100% certainty she doesn't have a direct physical reaction to smoke if someone had smoked and is sitting all the way across the room. All I can judge with is that I have a normal sense of smell and I have never noticed, therefore you would have to have an above normal sense of smell to be bothered by it. I have noticed when a smoker comes in from the cold and you have to sit in an enclosed car with them it can bother me but that's a big difference that and between a giant ventilated boardroom.

Either way it has not been proven to be a health hazard to the general public.

Pollen causes allergies, that's proven. I feel if someone has a genuine physical reaction to such small amounts of smoke they can claim a disability and maybe the employer should provide alternate means of work for them.

[DolaMight]

I'm allergic to dogs.Anyone that has a dog should not be allowed in a meeting I attend.
I hate anyone that doesn't "Consider my allergy".I hate anyone that owns a dog .I wish the dog would kill them in there sleep and eat there lifeless body.:wallbash:
See how fucked up you sound?

No I don't because in this case it's not an allergic reaction.

[DolaMight]

I'd probably side with the smoker, but I disagree with your statement that he's addicted as a consequence of the government declaring smoking legal. If he's 30 something, then when he started smoking he knew it would be addictive, and he'd get hooked on it.



True but I meant that if the govt. never made smoking legal he would would have no right to come to a meeting smelling of smoke and this wouldn't be an argument. You wouldn't be able to come to a meeting now smelling of weed even if it didn't negatively affect the performance of you or others. You just couldn't because it's illegal.

I never meant that it was the govt's fault. It's a personal choice to start but because it's addictive and it's legal the govt' has a responsibility to give smokers a certain amount of fair rights.

[ibanez23]

No I don't because in this case it's not an allergic reaction.I meant to quote post# 5.
Sorry.

[MadMatt]

The environmentally sensitive person can take a hike. If you are so sensitive that life makes you sick, stay at home, sit in a plastic bubble, and go on disability.

I am allergic to virtually everything on the planet. Do you know what I do? I deal with it; I take allergy meds and do what I can to stay away from stuff that might "hurt me," but otherwise I live my life and try not to bug others too much.

The exceptionally "environmentally sensitive" people out there that think the rest of the world should adjust so they can live a "normal life" can suck a thick dick. The more society moves to the lowest common denominator the weaker we become.

:furious:







Crap - I am really surly today. :laugh:

[EliSnow]

True but I meant that if the govt. never made smoking legal he would would have no right to come to a meeting smelling of smoke and this wouldn't be an argument. You wouldn't be able to come to a meeting now smelling of weed even if it didn't negatively affect the performance of you or others. You just couldn't because it's illegal.

I never meant that it was the govt's fault. It's a personal choice to start but because it's addictive and it's legal the govt' has a responsibility to give smokers a certain amount of fair rights.

I understand, but if you are making a pitch about this, I'd leave out discussion about his addiction to cigarettes. The point you really are making is that he engages in legal and free activity that doesn't impact his job performance, and so he shouldn't be punished for engaging in that activity.

[DolaMight]

I understand, but if you are making a pitch about this, I'd leave out discussion about his addiction to cigarettes. The point you really are making is that he engages in legal and free activity that doesn't impact his job performance, and so he shouldn't be punished for engaging in that activity.



Thanks Eli, it's a good point. Plus, when we have a meeting about this I can truthfully say I have consulted the advice of a lawyer.

[EliSnow]

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u241/markbee1/10000Posts3.jpg

:clap::clap:

Thank you.

[EliSnow]

Thanks Eli, when we have a meeting about this I can truthfully say I have consulted the advice of a lawyer.

I know you're joking, but for my own interest, I need to say this:

I did not provide legal advice to you. Should you need legal advice please contact a lawyer. I was giving a personal opinion that was in no way meant to provide advice as to legal rights.

[DolaMight]

I know you're joking, but for my own interest, I need to say this:

I did not provide legal advice to you. Should you need legal advice please contact a lawyer. I was giving a personal opinion that was in no way meant to provide advice as to legal rights.

I guess that's why I didn't see the name ELISnow registered with the bar association. Do you bychance wear a cape?

[EliSnow]

I guess that's why I didn't see the name ELISnow registered with the bar association. Do you bychance wear a cape?

Oh, I am a lawyer, but due to all of the standards put upon lawyers in the provision of legal advice, I have to be very careful when you actually provide legal advice, and when I don't.

And I only wear capes on special occasions.

[RhinoinMN]

And I only wear capes on special occasions.

For the second time in this thread........HOT!!!

[britneypablo]

I'm allergic to dogs.Anyone that has a dog should not be allowed in a meeting I attend.
I hate anyone that doesn't "Consider my allergy".I hate anyone that owns a dog .I wish the dog would kill them in there sleep and eat there lifeless body.:wallbash:
See how fucked up you sound?

i agree with u, if that person cant come to work with clean clothes or get a danderduster...then kill them
inconsiderate canine owning bastards....

but as it goes, a metaphor that doesnt match up that is trying to make me look stupid fails again...
im already stupid, crazy, and fucked up...ur post isnt going to enlighten me or anyone else of that any further...

death to smokers (and their attempts to validate smoking) ! WOO!!
(but dont die on my doorstep i dont want ur dead body stench or ur smokers breathe stinkin my area up)

note to readers: this post is not intended to be mean or insulting, just a PSA

[ChimneyFish]

i hate smokers, i judge a person immediately if i see them smoking, i hope they kill themselves helping with population control to leave more breathing air, food, resources , etc. for sensible people like me

Glad to know you have so much love for Ron Bennington.



That's great.:smoke:





















"Environmentally sensitive"????

Reason 500,042 why the human race should just die already.

[britneypablo]

if i SEE them smoking....plus like jonyrotn, ron is a special case in my book...u have to be outstanding to be allowed to smoke...most of you smokers arent XOXO

[HBox]

When I say "needs" I meant he has to or else his brain will physically trigger a withdrawal reaction. That's documented. It is more than just a mental problem. (smoking IS legal, some just can't quit). If someone vomits at the smell of fish that's a psychological problem. They're not allergic, they just detest the smell.

I can't say with 100% certainty she doesn't have a direct physical reaction to smoke if someone had smoked and is sitting all the way across the room. All I can judge with is that I have a normal sense of smell and I have never noticed, therefore you would have to have an above normal sense of smell to be bothered by it. I have noticed when a smoker comes in from the cold and you have to sit in an enclosed car with them it can bother me but that's a big difference that and between a giant ventilated boardroom.

This smoker's "withdrawal" and this person's sensitivities are on the same level. First of ll lets get to personal responsibility. If you suffer wtihdrawals so bad you cant function at all when you don't smoke regularly you have a problem and if it affects your work you have to make a choice. You chose to smoke in the first place. If this guy's in his 30s he made this choice knowing everything negative about smoking. Why is this accepted and not someone who saus they need a drink during the day? They'd be going through the same kinds of chemical withdrawals.

My main point is that this person chose to smoke and the other person didn't choose to be sensitive to it. She shouldn't be forced to change her life due to someone else's life choice. We can;t have this guy's choice to smoke supersede this other person's need to breathe.

Either way it has not been proven to be a health hazard to the general public.

Come on now.

Pollen causes allergies, that's proven. I feel if someone has a genuine physical reaction to such small amounts of smoke they can claim a disability and maybe the employer should provide alternate means of work for them.

Smoke causes allergies. That's proven too.

And what if this person went on disability because she can't smell smoke as some are suggesting. MORE people would be pissed at that! Imagine if you found out someone went on disability because they can't even tolerate smoke on a person's clothes.

[ChimneyFish]

if i SEE them smoking....plus like jonyrotn, ron is a special case in my book...u have to be outstanding to be allowed to smoke...most of you smokers arent XOXO

So, what you're saying is you're a complete lunatic, with no sense or reason.

Gotcha.:wink:

[HBox]

I think we are just dealing with 2 weak whiners in this case. One so mentally weak that he thinks he can't get through one fucking meeting without "withdrawals" unless he has a cigarette and another sensitive to smoke who thinks she can't go without smelling the slightest hint of smoke on clothes without having an "attack." They are both pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[britneypablo]

So, what you're saying is you're a complete lunatic, with no sense or reason.

Gotcha.:wink:

finally someone who really understands me:wub:

[Ritalin]

Smoking makes you run faster, I know that for sure. Remember Jesse Owens?

He smoked.

[cougarjake13]

the smoker

fuck them, they should just make it illegal

[DolaMight]

Come on now.

Really? It has been proven that lingering smoke on someone's clothing has the same effect as second hand smoke?

Smoke causes allergies. That's proven too.


I never said she was allergic, she was described to us as being "environmentally sensitive".

And what if this person went on disability because she can't smell smoke as some are suggesting. MORE people would be pissed at that! Imagine if you found out someone went on disability because they can't even tolerate smoke on a person's clothes.

I feel for you that you had to endure the breathing problems you had but the example you gave of you being in a 50/50 smoking restaurant is a far different situation. Nobody is smoking near her or even in the building. In your case the smoke will travel from the smoker's lounge to the non smokers. I would completely agree if that was the case. This has to do with her sitting way across the boardroom saying that she is affected by a cigarette he had 30 minutes ago, outside, 500 feet from the building. I honestly can't smell it sitting beside him. Again she is not allergenic.

[ahhdurr]

I used to smoke so much I smelled like .. you ever have a homeless person come up to you who smoked too much? That's what I smelled like - I must have. And this was during college when we'd have to split up into small groups and have Spanish discussions or whatever.

I would have had to get a new spanish group but I wouldn't have stopped.

Lo siento puto.

[HBox]

Really? It has been proven that lingering smoke on someone's clothing has the same effect as second hand smoke?

My mistake. I thought you were talking about smoke generally..



I never said she was allergic, she was described to us as being "environmentally sensitive".



I feel for you that you had to endure the breathing problems you had but the example you gave of you being in a 50/50 smoking restaurant is a far different situation. Nobody is smoking near her or even in the building. In your case the smoke will travel from the smoker's lounge to the non smokers. I would completely agree if that was the case. This has to do with her sitting way across the boardroom saying that she is affected by a cigarette he had 30 minutes ago, outside, 500 feet from the building. I honestly can't smell it sitting beside him. Again she is not allergenic.

This whole "environmentally sensitive" stuff is just semantics. If that little smoke really bothers her to the point of having an attack of some kind you can't classify that as anything but a severe allergy.

I mean, is it really such a problem for this guy to not smoke until after the meeting, just as a courtesy to a co-worker? He can not smoke until later. She can't just turn off whatever it is that makes it affect her so much.

[DolaMight]

My mistake. I thought you were talking about smoke generally..





This whole "environmentally sensitive" stuff is just semantics. If that little smoke really bothers her to the point of having an attack of some kind you can't classify that as anything but a severe allergy.

I mean, is it really such a problem for this guy to not smoke until after the meeting, just as a courtesy to a co-worker? He can not smoke until later. She can't just turn off whatever it is that makes it affect her so much.

Yeah he really objects to the idea. He's good at what he does, he takes his smoke breaks within the time limit alloted to him by the collective agreement and smokes really far from the building as required by law. So the added punishment was worth objecting to.

Side note: Late today the intern student was told by management to stop wearing too much perfume. I asked her who complained and she said they didn't say. She also said she wasn't wearing perfume. She said she thinks it might be because her shampoo was scented. Now she has to change her shampoo brand.

Without knowing for sure I assume the complaint was from the same person.

[hunnerbun]

I am beginning to think this is a Canadian thing. When I lived in Halifax it got to the point that I stopped wearing perfume anywhere. There were so many freakin' "scent free" zones it was hard to keep track of them all so it was just easier to not bother.
I always felt bad for the people who worked at the hospital and certain gov't buildings. They were always asking me if there were hair products that they could buy that were fragrance/scent free. There is a difference between the two. Fragrance free means the product still has a smell, but no added perfumes. scent free actually has "stuff" added to it to mask any scent at all. Given the choice I'd rather the fragrance free then the Unscented version with more chemicals to mask the natural fragrance.
I know that some people are sensitive, but if she is that sensitive about smells, how the hell can she even go outside. There are a million things that she must come into contact on a daily basis that have way more odor then this smoker.

[ChimneyFish]

finally someone who really understands me:wub:

:laugh:

The only difference with me is that all my sense and reason always lead to the same conclusion: the extinction of the entire human race.:happy:

[Thebazile78]

Yeah he really objects to the idea. He's good at what he does, he takes his smoke breaks within the time limit alloted to him by the collective agreement and smokes really far from the building as required by law. So the added punishment was worth objecting to.

Side note: Late today the intern student was told by management to stop wearing too much perfume. I asked her who complained and she said they didn't say. She also said she wasn't wearing perfume. She said she thinks it might be because her shampoo was scented. Now she has to change her shampoo brand.

Without knowing for sure I assume the complaint was from the same person.

I don't blame your coworker for objecting to having to change his behavior for someone he didn't have to work with ... who seems to be having a freakout for what you think is no reason.

The thing is ... when something bothers you, it just does. Environmental or psychological, it does. And just because you can't smell the smoke on someone doesn't mean another person can't. (I can smell a smoker across a room. It grosses me out, but it doesn't give me an asthma attack!)

As a compromise, I wonder if maybe he could switch from smoking in the morning to nicotine gum instead ... and then smoke as much as he needed after the meeting, once he didn't need to be in the same room as this other coworker with the "environmental sensitivities."

Which I have myself, by the way.

My worst triggers are smoke, since I quit smoking 7 years ago, perfume and paint. I've had to deal with all 3 odors at work. The only time the smoke gave me massive issues just from the smell was when I had a stomach infection shortly after I quit.

The combination of the smell, which made me vomit once before I'd completely quit, and the stomach infection were enough to make it intolerable.

Perfume and paint, on the other hand, are always problems for me. These odors will trigger an asthma attack for me, and my asthma controller meds are too expensive for me to purchase.

Fortunately, we don't have anyone nearby who smells as if they've bathed in perfume. And the IT dude who does never works on jobs for me because we used to date and it ended badly. (No lectures, please. I was young, stupid and very flattered.)

I feel for your coworker and the shampoo issue.

Honestly, though, if you have a problem you should confront the person about it instead of running to HR or whoever like a chickenshit. That's what I'd do now. Too bad I didn't do it when my fucking teammate was SPRAYING PERFUME IN HER CUBICLE before going out to dinner ... I almost puked in my trash can. Fortunately, she's no longer with the company. This is a good thing, because she was a useless piece of shit.

ANYWAY:

My step-dad has the same issue as your other coworker. Really, if you'd been describing a semiretired stock trader over the age of 60 instead of a 30-something female in Canada, it would be exactly right on.

Part of it is because he's a former smoker.
Part of it is because he's got cancer that's a direct result of his having smoked.
Part of it is because he's a sociopath.

Whenever I visit with my mother at her house, I have to check with her about what sunscreen isn't bothering him this year (they live at the beach; I burn without sunscreen, but I love the beach, so ... this is a necessary evil) ... and always need to switch my deodorant to the Dove Unscented/Sensitive Skin stuff before I go.

They also use a specific type of shampoo (JASON brand, unscented) and Dove unscented soap ... for people who aren't used to it, like my husband, or people who think it's all in my step-dad's head, like my sister, it's a huge deal.

I can empathize; it's annoying. Really, it is, but the bottom line is, when I see him, it's usually in his own home. I don't see what the problem is with accommodating someone in their own home.

Because this is a workplace, on the other hand, it's a stickier situation.

On the one hand, you'd prefer that your civil liberties aren't infringed upon while you're at work.

HOWEVER ... in a case like this, it sounds as if management will accommodate the person who makes the most noise. And, the way you've told the story, the person with the environmental sensitivities is making a great deal of noise.

I wonder if both situations could be perceived as creating a hostile work environment for the offended teammate ... because that would suck even harder than the current situation.

(p.s. - I really feel for you about the "meetings about everything" management style ... my current team is like that. There are times when I think they're going to call a meeting because the manager took a shit and wanted to brag about how much roughage she'd gotten into her diet. Fuckers.)