Free Custom «Old Smoke» Essay Paper

How Renfold can handle the situation

There are various choices available to Charles Renford concerning the issue. Firstly, the relocation of the files office could be an option. This can be a viable option as Frank and Alice will be left with office and so, in case they smoke, it would not be problematic to any person who wants to go into the office. The relocation will also mean that the company has set aside the office occupied by Frank and Alice for employees who are smokers. Secondly, Charles can ban smoking in the office all together. This can happen if he kindly advises both Alice and Frank to be smoking from outside the building as the effect the smoke of their cigarette will have on the nonsmokers, would be minimal. In addition, the smokers can be advised to be puffing their cigarettes in a secluded area of the office, such as the toilets or a private room be made, just for smoking. Thirdly, Renford can enforce the smoking ban. According to the smoking act, the welfare of the nonsmokers is paramount, and that is why it states that, companies should provide a smoke-free environment for its employees. Therefore, the smoking ban should ensure that those employees that smoke do not do it in areas where it will affect the welfare of those who do not smoke. Another step that Renford can take is the enacting of the law which prohibits workers smoking while on duty. With this law in place, the workers who smoke will have to wait until after duty, in order for them to smoke or they can do it first thing in the morning before reporting at the work place. This will serve the interests of both smokers and nonsmokers well, as those who smoke will also be forced to go outside the office, in order to puff their cigarettes from there (Jandt, 2009).

The Policy of Smoking I would recommend to the redwood Associate

The smoking policy I would recommend to Redwood Associate relates to the designation of smoking areas and the nonsmoking areas. This policy is paramount since, in almost all countries, the formulation of smoking policies should first take in to welfare, the concerns of the nonsmokers. Therefore, I will designate several places on the building and outside the building where the employees who smoke can go and puff. This will ensure that the other rooms in the office are not affected by the smoke emanating from the smoking rooms. It is also necessary to consult the employees of Redwood Associates concerning the matter. This is as stipulated in the smoking act of some states. The consultation will mainly focus on the appropriate smoking law which will suit the Redwood workplace. This is also an option, and whatever decision, the employees of Redwood Associate settle on, will be implemented, so as not to affect their work morale. The second option I would recommend to the Redwood Associate is the ban of "on duty smoking". This will ensure that no employees will come to smoke from the office. This will also force them to smoke before and after working hours which means the nonsmokers' welfare is considered. This will also regulate the time the workers spend smoking cigarettes instead of concentrating with office job. The third recommendation I will give to the redwood Associate will concern their employment policy. This will seek to know a person. That is if a person is a smoker or nonsmoker. The employment policy will contain a policy which will regulate the people being employed by the company, to be only nonsmokers. This rule will save the company a great deal when it comes to dealing with the problem of smoke in the office as everyone will be a nonsmoker (Pickard, 2008).

How the Case will Change if the Odor was not Old Smoke but Alice's Perfume or Frank's Body Odor

The case would not hold if the odor was from Alice's perfume or Frank's body odor. Firstly, it will be assumed that Darlene might be having something personal with those two as they do not complain about one another. Secondly, the case will be brushed aside, and Darlene will be advised to go talk to Alice and Frank concerning the matter. For instance, if it was Alice's perfume, Darlene can seek the assistance of Charles to go talk to Alice concerning the matter. On the other hand, Charles is only required to advise Alice concerning the perfume she wears. Charles is expected to this professionally not to hurt the interests of Alice. Charles should advice Alice either get a perfume which is mild because some people in the office are allergic to strong perfumes or quit wearing the perfume to the office. This should go down well with Alice. If the body odor comes from Frank's body odor, this should not be considered to cause alarm in comparison to smoke from cigarettes. Darlene can use the same channel she used concerning the cigarette smoke. Darlene can approach Charles and seek his assistance concerning the matter. Charles is expected to use diplomacy when talking to Frank concerning the matter as Frank might be having a problem which makes him have the odor. Frank can not be banned from coming to the office reeking of the odor, but he can be advised on the appropriate way in which he can get rid of the odor. In fact, Charles should try and identify what causes frank to smell that way. In addition, Darlene will not be expected to complain the way she did concerning the cigarette smoke. Darlene is supposed to raise the issue in a more respectable way and seek help but not to talk with such finality (Jandt, 2009).

Companies Banning their Employees from Smoking in their Cars in the Company Parking Lot

The companies banning their employees' from smoking in their cars in the company's parking lot is reasonable. There are many reasons, which support my stand on this issue. Firstly, it can be considered as a way of upholding the company's profile. The company's ban employees from smoking from their parking lots as this will depict a distressing picture of the company. The essential point here is that, the company's clients pass through the parking lot and if employees are allowed to smoke from there, the company's clients will have a negative opinion of the company. The welfare of their clients who are nonsmokers is also upheld by this move. This is important as the law also supports the welfare of the people who do not smoke and campaigns for their rights to be paramount when formulating the smoking laws.

Secondly, the companies deem their employees' smoking from their parking lots might send the wrong message to the non-employees. The non-employees might end up smoking in the company's hallways or in the offices assuming there is nothing wrong with that since the employees of the company are doing it from the parking lot. Thirdly, the companies realize the threat which is associated with smoking and the careless fires. If the employees are allowed to smoke from their parking lots, this might lead to many cases of fire in the company's premise which might not augur well with the clients.