Orange Regional Medical Center Smoking Ban

[RWC130 594]

Orange Regional Medical Center

FULL BAN on Smoking ON and OFF property effective as of next week.

Staff is not allowed to Smoke at all while on duty or on breaks.

This will effect both ORMC in Goshen, NY and Middletown, NY

Numerous complaints of cigarette butts on and near property and staff stinking like cigarettes

forced hospital admin to take action.

On News12 tonight 7/31

[SgtGumby311 0]

Get ready for attitude from those employee's affected by this ruling. I smoke, and have for a long time. Those of us who have stressful jobs, have different vices to cope with what we deal with on a daily basis, I prefer to smoke. Do I know it's bad for me? Yes. I'm an adult. I'm not saying that while I'm on the clock, I should be allowed to smoke, it's not fair to those who don't. But, on a break, the time is mine to do with it what I please, as long as it's legal. Can I drink at work? No..Common sense. If I'm being brought in to a hospital, I don't look at the ground to see if there are cigarette butts, I want to be taken care of. I'm not asking for sympathy, but just think about your own vices and what you would do if your company or agency tried to restrict you...I'm ready to hear all of the rebuttal's on how bad smoking is, how it's not a right, etc.....Thanks for allowing me to vent.

[CPAGE 2]

This is just the start of this with hospitals. I work for a very big hospital in NYC and we have been looking at doing this as well. Most of the rules set are done by the JCHO (Joint Commission) they do surveys on all hospitals that receive any state or federal monies. So they have a lot to say what a hospital will do for the most part. By next year all major hospitals will have this in place at least with smoking on hospital grounds or with in 25 feet of the grounds.

[RescueKujo 130]

Sgt Gumby,

You are so right, sir. The rights of the average smoker are being trappled on by all. I don't smoke, but I have seen the problems my parents have had trying to stop this habit. When more money is needed via taxes, where do politicians look to? Let's raise taxes on cigarettes! Let's make the smokers do this or do that. It's ridiculous how smokers are treated, as opposed to other people with different vices. Cigarettes are still legal, so let's treat everyone the same.

Edited August 1, 2007 by RescueKujo

[SgtGumby311 0]

Well News 12 isn't the only outlet carrying this story now, it's on all the "major" local's. I guess it's a slower than usual news day.

[Bababoosky 24]

I can't say that its a bad thing, making people not smoke, but i DO NOT agree with this rule. Gumby is right, your break is your time. Are the employees going to be able to go to their cars and have a butt without fear of being fired? I used to smoke for a long time and quit, for the first 3 months i was CRANKY. Nothing like having a cranky nurse at a hospital (are there any other kinds?) because they didn't get her hourly cigarette.

[201/65 94]

At the request of the hospital as of last week no Mobile Life Support employees are allowed to smoke within sight of either ORMC campus while working.

[SgtGumby311 0]

You watch how quickly the vending machines will need to be re-stocked now. Then in a few months candy will be banned because the employee's are getting too fat.

[RC2389 0]

I believe that an employee's break is his or her own time, and that the complaint of butts on the ground is fairly trivial (what public place doesn't have cigarette garbage?). Cigarette butts can be thrown out.

staff stinking like cigarettes

That seems to be the main issue. The smell of cigarettes sticks to fingers and clothes, and that probably bothers a lot of patients especially because there is physical contact between patients and nurses/techs. If there is a way to get rid of the stench, then I say let 'em smoke during breaks.

[x635 4,066]

This is a hospital, where we care for sick patients. I'm sure a majority of hospital workers have seen the damages that smoking has done to patients, not to mention their families.

Yes, we all have "vices" to cope with stress, but if your vice includes smoking something known to cause cancer and other diseases, then you have other issues. Sure, smokers have rights, but I also have the right not to inhale your carcenogenic fumes. Nor should the patients have to be exposed to the smell that lingers on people's clothing, hands, breath, etc. As healthcare workers, we should be setting an example.

I'm also tired of the ER bay being the designated place to smoke. I don't want to inhale that crud while I'm restocking my ambulance.

As far as the cigarette butts go, they take forever to decompose, and detract from what should be a hospital's clean image. It's rude that smokers discard their waste like that.

I hope this forces some people to quit. And as far as smokers being taxed, I believe all that tax money should go towards the healthcare of those with diseases caused by smoking. Let's not forget the American economy was founded on tobbaco. Look at the columns on Capital Hill.

[Goose 188]

I'm not a tobacco user, but you simply shouldn't be able to effect control on someone's life like this. People have the right to do just about anything they want. If they want to knock off a few years by being a smoker, thats their business. If you want to screw them, make them pay extra into their insurance coverage. The stink/smell is also negligible in my mind - it's not as if these people are blowing on you or rubbing their clothes in your face. If you smell it, who cares? You now know they are a smoker - which has no influence on their performance or competency as a health care provider. People really have to grow up or grow a pair.

The cigarette smoking in the bays and butts are a completely different issue which the hospital can and should control.

My biggest issue is that you set a very very poor presidence by doing this. First it starts with tobacco, then you merge into soda, sweets, maybe even coffee. Maybe the cafeteria should stop serving french fries, fried chicken and sloppy joes. Remember folks, this is a FREE COUNTRY, lets keep it that way.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Goose

[x635 4,066]

The logic "Free Country" is flawed. Since this is a free country, does that give us the right to walk into someones home and shoot them. I can see the defense "It's a free country, your honor".

Your actions come with reponsibilty and consequences. If an institution decides to ban something that's been proven time and time again to be detrimental, and take a stand on the issue, then that is completly their right. If their employee's don't like it- then it's a free country and they can find another job.

Kudos again to this hospital for taking a stand on this issue.

And don't forget the numerous FD's in this country that have a "No Tobacco Use" policy.

[DOC22 1]

Up until June of 2006, I smoked cigars, average, probably around 4 or 5 per day. I had a very bad case of pneumonia. Now, I can't tolerate ANY smoking, especially cigarettes as well as that Godawful stench that is embedded in their clothing. So now if I'm a patient in any hospital, the last thing I need or want is that damn stink.

Just the rant of a former smoker. Oh and by the way, go I miss smoking??? NOT ONE BIT!!!!!!!!!!

[Goose 188]

It's the government's responsibility to tell you smoking is bad, but no one has any right to effect control on you to stop smoking. It's not their concern or business.

There is nothing flawed about being a free country, because we are just that. Obviously one has to respect another's right to life, thats part of the reason it's a free country.

Again, does the smoking adversely effect their ability to render medical care? No. In the case of an FD smoking can effect a member's ability to preform his tasks.

[NJMedic 96]

There are no Federal labor or employment laws that require employers to set specific intervals or even make time for employees to take work breaks or eat meals.

Fewer than half the states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to eat meals. Even fewer states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to take work breaks.

Given that bit of information I don't believe break time is really "your" time to do whatever you want. Even if it was the employer can restrict any behavior that occurs on their property.

I work for a hospital based EMS system and like most hospitals they elect to use the ER as the designated smoking area. That was the practice until an EMS crew brought in a child with asthma and the crew had to enter through the ER doors with two smokers puffing away. The mother had a meltdown in the ER about the smokers. I gave her the phone, dialed the hospital's president and stood back. In about 2 days smoking anywhere on the grounds was prohibited.

[NJMedic 96]

Again, does the smoking adversely effect their ability to render medical care? No. In the case of an FD smoking can effect a member's ability to preform his tasks.

So your saying a paramedic the works in a non-fire department agency who can't walk up a flight of stairs without stopping because of a 20 year smoking habit has no effect on their ability to provide medical care? But a firefighter who responds to the same job and has to stop and take a few breaths every flight due to a 20 year smoking habit does effect his ability to perform tasks?

Edited August 2, 2007 by NJMedic

[Guest]

Just my 2 cents, but...

When I was doing hospital rounds for my EMT course I was prohibited from wearing cologne, strong deodorant, after shave, etc. because of the POTENTIAL for those items to cause allergic reactions (among other reasons). Think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke, if a person smokes then they will be covered with all sorts of carcinogenic, nasty, chemicals. If you spilled benzene or tar on your uniform (both of which are in cigarette smoke), scrubs, etc. you wouldn't be allowed near a patient and you probably would place yourself OOS until you had decontaminated yourself/changed (and if you didn't your supervisor probably would). How is this any different? You are right, what you do on your time is your business, but if what you do on your own time prevents you from doing your job, or can cause severe and dangerous reactions in patients, then you bet you either won't be doing it anymore or you'll find a different line of work.

I don't want to be too harsh here, but if you smoke you are covered in all sorts of dangerous chemicals, and if I can't wear cologne because of the potential adverse effects on patients, I don't see why you should be allowed to be covered in cigarette smoke.

-Jared

[DOC22 1]

name='JaredHG' date='Aug 2 2007, 03:38 PM' post='98998']

Just my 2 cents, but...

When I was doing hospital rounds for my EMT course I was prohibited from wearing cologne, strong deodorant, after shave, etc. because of the POTENTIAL for those items to cause allergic reactions (among other reasons). Think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke, if a person smokes then they will be covered with all sorts of carcinogenic, nasty, chemicals. If you spilled benzene or tar on your uniform (both of which are in cigarette smoke), scrubs, etc. you wouldn't be allowed near a patient and you probably would place yourself OOS until you had decontaminated yourself/changed (and if you didn't your supervisor probably would). How is this any different? You are right, what you do on your time is your business, but if what you do on your own time prevents you from doing your job, or can cause severe and dangerous reactions in patients, then you bet you either won't be doing it anymore or you'll find a different line of work.

I don't want to be too harsh here, but if you smoke you are covered in all sorts of dangerous chemicals, and if I can't wear cologne because of the potential adverse effects on patients, I don't see why you should be allowed to be covered in cigarette smoke.

-Jared

AMEN, Brother!

[RWC130 594]

I must say pulling into the ER Ambulance Bay and seeing 5-6 smokers in scrubs puffing away

outside the ER doors is very unpleasant. I hate the smell.

Now having a Healthcare Professional such as a Doctor, Nurse, Paramedic, or EMT treat you

stinking of cigarette smoke on clothes, breath, and hands is just GROSS!

[Oswegowind 17]

I am a non smoker and think this is a great idea. I would not want a nurse, doctor, paramedic working on me that stunk like smoke. I enjoy going to bars and not having to throw my clothes in the washing machine instead of the hamper because of that horrible odor. I have rights too...and not having to smell the smoker's stink is one of them. I personally wear deodorant so I don't smell like a pig, dress professionally when at work (no uniforms here), and wear a light odored cologne so as not to impeach on others senses and make them uncomfortable. If you are providing care to a person who is asthmatic or difficulty breathing none the less then this smell can effect you. Sorry to all the smokers I am offending but I don't remember any smoker ever saying I am sorry for smelling like those disgusting cigarettes. However there are ways to smoke and not smell...listerine pocket packs and body spray are some of the easiest ways. As well, for every break that I may take at work, a smoker takes 5. And I seem to always get the question, "Where are you going, you don't smoke." That ain't right now is it?

[tunaFish 0]

There are no Federal labor or employment laws that require employers to set specific intervals or even make time for employees to take work breaks or eat meals.

Fewer than half the states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to eat meals. Even fewer states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to take work breaks.

Given that bit of information I don't believe break time is really "your" time to do whatever you want. Even if it was the employer can restrict any behavior that occurs on their property.

I work for a hospital based EMS system and like most hospitals they elect to use the ER as the designated smoking area. That was the practice until an EMS crew brought in a child with asthma and the crew had to enter through the ER doors with two smokers puffing away. The mother had a meltdown in the ER about the smokers. I gave her the phone, dialed the hospital's president and stood back. In about 2 days smoking anywhere on the grounds was prohibited.

You are Here: Home > Breaks & Leave > Work Breaks and Meals

Work Breaks and Meals

Introduction

This page covers work breaks and meals only for adult employees. Child labor laws vary by state, so work break and meal provisions for young employees might differ from those explained below.

When this page refers to the general term work breaks or rest breaks, it means what employees often refer to as snack, coffee, smoke, restroom, toilet or bathroom breaks. When this page refers to meals or meal breaks, it means what employees often refer to as dinner or lunch breaks.

Work Break and Meal Laws

There are no Federal labor or employment laws that require employers to set specific intervals or even make time for employees to take work breaks or eat meals.

Fewer than half the states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to eat meals. Even fewer states have laws that require employers to make time for employees to take work breaks. (See Work Breaks and Meals State Laws below.)

Although there are no Federal and few state laws that require employers to give bathroom breaks, the Federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has interpreted a section in its Sanitation Standard, to mean that it "...requires employers to make toilet facilities available so that employees can use them when they need to do so. The employer may not impose unreasonable restrictions on employee use of the facilities."

OSHA further clarified this interpretation in a letter dated April 23, 2003. Additionally, one of OSHA's Safety and Health Guides recommends that "Additional break periods and meals should be provided when shifts are extended past normal work periods."

Even though giving rest or meal breaks is not required under Federal law and the laws in most states, many employers do so anyway in accordance with industry (and OSHA) standards. Industry-standard breaks typically range from 5 to 30 minutes each.

If employers do voluntarily give rest or meal breaks in states without related law provisions, the work breaks are at least somewhat regulated by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Rest Breaks

Under the FLSA, employers who do have a policy of giving one or more short rest breaks of about 20 minutes or less, must pay employees for their time while on such work breaks.

In other words, the FLSA does not require employers to give rest breaks of any length. But, if employers give short rest breaks anyway, under the FLSA the work breaks are counted as time for which employers must pay employees. If authorized rest breaks extend work hours into overtime, under the FLSA employers must pay the overtime to eligible employees. Meal breaks are the only exception to these rules. More information about meal breaks is below.

Employers do not have to pay employees for taking unauthorized work breaks or extending authorized work breaks without permission, if employers have previously made it clear that doing so is not allowed and punishable. For example, a clear statement in an employee policy manual might be considered by a court to be sufficient.

The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or state equivalents might indirectly require employers to reasonably grant or occasionally extend work breaks for disabled workers, such as bathroom breaks. Employers must reasonably accommodate workers who are protected by the ADA.

States may enact laws that have the same or better work break provisions than those in the FLSA. But, as previously indicated, only a few states (listed below) have laws that include provisions for rest breaks or any other type of work breaks.

Meal Breaks

Under the FLSA, if employers do give meal breaks voluntarily, they do not have to pay employees while they're on such work breaks. However, the breaks must be bona fide meal breaks for employers to be relieved of break pay.

For example, an employer who voluntarily offers a daily meal break by policy, but who does not pay employees while they're on their meal break, must allow employees to take the whole break without working. Otherwise, it is not a bona fide meal break under the FLSA. Instead, it counts as work time, for which the employer must pay employees.

In other words, employers can't simply label work breaks as meal, dinner or lunch breaks to evade paying employees while they're on such breaks. Employers must allow employees to take meal breaks free of work duties.

States may enact laws that have the same or better meal provisions than those in the FLSA. But, at this writing, only the states listed below have laws that include provisions for meal or other work breaks.

Work Break and Meal State Laws

The 21 states listed below have laws that include some sort of provisions for work breaks. Of the 21 at this writing, only 19 specifically require a rest or meal break for adults, while only 7 specifically require a rest break in addition to a meal break for adults. Vermont nonspecifically requires only "reasonable opportunities to eat and use toilet facilities." Wisconsin requires meal breaks only for workers under 18 and simply recommends them for 18 and over.

State law provisions for work breaks and meals mentioned on this page might not apply to all employees in a particular state. Click a state below for specifics.

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Illinois

Kentucky

Maine

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New York

North Dakota

Oregon

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Vermont

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

If your state isn't listed, it means that there is no state law that specifically addresses work breaks or meals (at least not available on the Web). But your state might have related rules, regulations or guidelines that do. Alternately or additionally, your municipality might have a work break law or related orders, rules, regulations or guidelines. To find out, start by contacting your state's labor department.

Employers may grant more work breaks or those of longer duration than state or municipal laws require, but not fewer or of shorter duration. Employers may also "force" employees to take work breaks, particularly to avoid violating state or municipal laws that require them.

In states and municipalities where there are no laws or related rules, regulations or guidelines with work break or meal provisions, under the FLSA work break and meal periods are a matter of voluntary agreement between employers and employees or employers and unions.

If your employer is violating work break or meal provisions in state laws or the FLSA, your state's labor department might help you to right the wrong. If not, a lawyer might help.

Work Break and Meal Agreements

Collective bargaining agreements (contracts) might require employers to give rest and meal breaks to union employees, whether or not state laws do. If so, under state right to work laws, nonunion employees working in a bargaining unit might be entitled to take the same work breaks as union employees working in the same bargaining unit. Consult your local union representative (e.g., shop steward) if your employer violates its collective bargaining agreement. If your employer or union violates a right to work law, consider consulting a lawyer.

Explicit and implied employment contracts also might require employers to give rest and meal breaks to employees, whether or not state laws do. Consider consulting a lawyer if your employer breaches either type of contract.

In the absence of contract clauses and state laws or rules, regulations, or guidelines that say otherwise, employers may call most of the shots. For example, employers may set specific work break intervals and meal times.

But, of course, employers can't rightfully force employees to eat while on meal breaks, use the restroom while on bathroom breaks, drink coffee while on coffee breaks, etc. However, employers are not obligated to grant unscheduled "replacement" breaks to employees who use their scheduled work breaks for purposes other than intended.

EmployeeIssues.com Web Just for future reference!

Search Tips

Edited August 3, 2007 by tunaFish

[helicopper 1,050]

OK, I gotta ask... What "rights" are being trampled? I see no mention of smoking or smoke breaks anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so exactly what "right" is being abused by this regulation? As a non-smoker am I entitled to leave my work station every hour for 5-10 minutes for a non-smoke break, too?

As for your smoking not affecting anyone but you - is that really true? We've already got the posts about the lingering smell, etc. Doesn't the healthcare industry incur greater expenses because of smoking? Is that cost passed on to ALL users of the system with increased fees, premiums, etc. or just the smokers? My guess is that it is passed on to all the users so your smoking does affect me and everyone else.

To think that your actions on this planet don't affect anyone else is probably far from the truth. Our actions (or inactions) definitely impact others - smoking is only one example.

If you want to smoke on your time, in your home or vehicle, that's fine. But your employer (especially in healthcare) most certainly can restrict your actions and conduct while they're paying you and you're on their property. Wasn't there a thread not long ago about FD's prohibiting smoking on-duty and off-duty?

Just a dissenting view...