Discussion: View Thread

I am yet to fully think through the training ramifications of a recent
industrial agreement reached with members of a State Public Sector union but
I'm sure there are some - if only the lessons learned.

An agreement has been reached in Tasmania that smokers wishing to leave the
building for a cigarette (smoking inside nearly all buildings here is
banned) must now 'clock off' and 'clock on' again when they return.

Considering that the average smoker might cumulatively take up to an hour or
so off each day to satisfy their need for a cigarette this adds up to five
hours a week or 225 hours a year over a 45 week period (52 weeks minus
leave, public holidays and other days off). If they work a 38 hour week (as
most do) this adds up to an extra six weeks a year that they spend away from
their job. No wonder non-smokers get cranky.

As a training manager specialising in leadership and the use and management
of resources I feel this agreement is going to excite a lot of discussions
about how smokers and non-smokers are employed in the workplace and the
ramifications of potentially discriminating against one over the other.

Has anyone else had any similar experiences to this?

Phil Rutherford

Let's get back to the basics:

Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is addicted to. If one is smoking
inside the building, it means that person is poisoning himself/herself and
the rest, and therefore, should be banned from smoking inside at least.
That means, if the person insists on smoking, s/he has to do it outside.
Since that is not work, it should be taken out of their working hours. End
of story. There is no 'discrimination' of one group over another. There is
a protection of the nonsmokers from those who smoke, who, while smoking, can
not work because they are 'out of the working environment.' It would be
crazy to condone the management as discriminatory just because they are
reluctant to workers who are slackers.

Coffee drinkers also have to use breaks for coffee but people, who drink
coffee are not poisoning anybody else and can go on having a cup of coffee
while doing their work. In essence, they are not slackers, they are using
an ingredient that will boost their work efficiency.

In the smokers' side, nicotine is also a means to boost efficiency but it is
a wrong means because cigarettes, pipes, or cigars all contain highly
carcinogenic materials that not only kills the smoker but those around
him/her. You can not defend an act that not only damages you but all around
you at the same time.

These are the basics.

Yours sincerely,
_________________________
Emre Yucel
Doctoral Student and Research Associate
Department of Management
Arizona State University
fx: 480-965-4792


-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford [mailto:robnphil@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:10 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Industrial agreement and training ramifications


I am yet to fully think through the training ramifications of a recent
industrial agreement reached with members of a State Public Sector union but
I'm sure there are some - if only the lessons learned.

An agreement has been reached in Tasmania that smokers wishing to leave the
building for a cigarette (smoking inside nearly all buildings here is
banned) must now 'clock off' and 'clock on' again when they return.

Considering that the average smoker might cumulatively take up to an hour or
so off each day to satisfy their need for a cigarette this adds up to five
hours a week or 225 hours a year over a 45 week period (52 weeks minus
leave, public holidays and other days off). If they work a 38 hour week (as
most do) this adds up to an extra six weeks a year that they spend away from
their job. No wonder non-smokers get cranky.

As a training manager specialising in leadership and the use and management
of resources I feel this agreement is going to excite a lot of discussions
about how smokers and non-smokers are employed in the workplace and the
ramifications of potentially discriminating against one over the other.

Has anyone else had any similar experiences to this?

Phil Rutherford

Dear Colleagues,

I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to present your ideas on leadership.

Kind wishes.

Ed Hampton
Drive On!

2002: Leadership Beyond Boundaries!
Call for Concurrent Sessions/Presenters

2002 Association of Leadership Educators' Annual Meeting
July 11-13, 2002
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Lexington, Kentucky

The 2002 Annual Conference Planning Committee invites proposals for the upcoming ALE Annual Meeting in Lexington, Kentucky. Proposals should focus on the conference theme: 2002: Leadership Beyond Boundaries! The intent of the focus is to stimulate exploration of leadership beyond cultural, national, geographical, conceptual, organizational, and social boundaries. These proposals are for concurrent/breakout sessions that will be held throughout the three-day conference.

Proposals should be no longer than two pages and should include:
-Title of Presentation
-Name and titles of Presenters
-Address(es), email(s), Phone Number(s), Fax Number(s) of ALL Presenters listed on Proposal
-Main/Primary Contact Person
-Goals and Objectives of the Presentation
-Brief Outline of Presentation, including how the presentation will relate to the conference theme
-Time Requirements (20 minutes is preferred.)


NOTE: No paper is required in advance of the conference. All papers must be submitted at Conference and will be posted to the ALE website.

Presenters are responsible for all personal expenses, including, but not limited to airfare, lodging and conference registration, duplication and distribution of presentation materials. ALL PRESENTERS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY CONFERENCE REGISTRATION! (Final costs are being calculated but for planning purposes projected conference fee will be about $225)

Proposals Must Be Submitted Electronically, And Are Due NO LATER THAN 5PM Eastern (U.S.), Monday, March 11, 2002.

Submit Proposals to:

Edward Earl Hampton, Jr., Chair
Education Committee
Email: ehampton@mail.ucf.edu

Additional Conference Information will be found on the Association of Leadership Educators' web site: http://LeadershipEducators.org

Emre,

I'm not too sure the rights and wrongs of smoking is the issue here. In fact
there is a growing field of thought that cigaretter addiction is a disease -
like alcoholism - and those suffering from it should not be castigated but
treated with dignity and respect of someone so addicted. As a former smoker
I know that to make me go outside to smoke was, in fact, causing me to be
less productive (there was nothing nicer than a cup of coffee and a few
drags of my pipe while mulling over a problem) - and it was all down to a
blue eyed/brown eyed policy on the part of management.

However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not forcing
people to acknowledge the time they spend away from their job (that is, of
course, assuming that they don't take work with them when they go outside
for a smoke) is going to have wider ramifications throughout the
organisation. For example, those people who go for a wander around their
workplace and chat about what they did over the weekend, will they too be
required to clock off when their chatting about private issues and clock on
again when they get back to talking about work? Is there going to be a
'private/business chat/thought' police force going to be set up to monitor
and control who is doing what on whose time? And why is the union so happy
to oblige?

Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> Let's get back to the basics:
>
> Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is addicted to. If one is
smoking
> inside the building, it means that person is poisoning himself/herself and
> the rest, and therefore, should be banned from smoking inside at least.

Phil:

Any time not worked during the time of work is theft. If some rights are
negotiated between the management and the union, concerning rights of
breaks, that is not theft. But if we are talking about giving breaks
frequently for mitigating the adverse affects of an addiction, then those
people need help and should not be in the workplace in the first place.

Capitalism, liberal markets, and globalization work best when the offered
product/service (here the worker's 'actual work and contribution') is not
taken aback or set aside due to any reason. If you are sick, you take days
off, get better, come back to work, and start working again. But if
cigarette smoking is 'sickness' and at the same time a 'right', I have a
problem with that. I do not want to suffer double times because these
people are slacking at work by going outside to smoke and because they are
smoking next to me, killing me as well.

Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I know nobody because it is
inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.

On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up when the people who wander
off and chat around is also wrong if it does not contribute to the
following:
1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and identity-based trust within
the organization.
2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to colleagues, hoping to get
support or brainstorming, idea exchange
4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge

This list can be extended and is not exhaustive. On the other hand, if
these people are just going away because they are 'bored', 'dissatisfied',
or 'frustrated' and not working at the time they do so, then they are
stealing from the company here. Make no mistake: Even in the most 'relaxed'
and 'horizontal' workplaces, people act with an acknowledgement of
responsibilities. The abundance of coffee and water coolers are not for you
to have an entirely good time, it is for you to 'chat' and have a connection
with your colleagues so that it will foster brain storming and idea
exchange.

Can you see the difference?

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/5/02 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Emre,

I'm not too sure the rights and wrongs of smoking is the issue here. In
fact
there is a growing field of thought that cigaretter addiction is a
disease -
like alcoholism - and those suffering from it should not be castigated
but
treated with dignity and respect of someone so addicted. As a former
smoker
I know that to make me go outside to smoke was, in fact, causing me to
be
less productive (there was nothing nicer than a cup of coffee and a few
drags of my pipe while mulling over a problem) - and it was all down to
a
blue eyed/brown eyed policy on the part of management.

However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not forcing
people to acknowledge the time they spend away from their job (that is,
of
course, assuming that they don't take work with them when they go
outside
for a smoke) is going to have wider ramifications throughout the
organisation. For example, those people who go for a wander around their
workplace and chat about what they did over the weekend, will they too
be
required to clock off when their chatting about private issues and clock
on
again when they get back to talking about work? Is there going to be a
'private/business chat/thought' police force going to be set up to
monitor
and control who is doing what on whose time? And why is the union so
happy
to oblige?

Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> Let's get back to the basics:
>
> Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is addicted to. If one is
smoking
> inside the building, it means that person is poisoning himself/herself
and
> the rest, and therefore, should be banned from smoking inside at
least.

Emre,

I am not arguing against your point of view, all I am saying is that it is
not the issue.

Let me use your example. You said:

> Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I know nobody because it
is
> inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.

I have actually known quite a few. They have been good, upstanding citizens
and hard workers - just had a drinking problem that's all. Now, of course,
there are some people whose problem has taken them right over the top but in
my experience there are probably more alcoholics working then there are out
on the streets. A broad statement, I know, without any empirical data to
back it up but I have been in the world of work for nearly 40 years now and
been around the block a few times.

> On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up when the people who
wander
> off and chat around is also wrong if it does not contribute to the
> following:
> 1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and identity-based trust
within
> the organization.
> 2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
> 3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to colleagues, hoping to get
> support or brainstorming, idea exchange
> 4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge

So what you're saying is that this is okay just so long as they aren't
smoking at the same time? I've been out there in the drafty laneway. I know
what smokers talk about. And, hey, they talk about exactly the same things
that non-smokers talk about (except that they say "We should give this up"
rather than "You should give that up"!).

You are making some good points but I think they are more related to why
smoking is bad rather than the organisational ramifications of
discriminating against any group of people for any reasons - real or
perceived.

Phil Rutherford

Emre--

When corporations routinely expect people to respond
to phone calls at home or carry beepers. When
competent managers are thinking frequently about
work issues during their personal time, I have no
patience with people who bitch about lost minutes to
smoking, coffee, personal phone calls, or even web
shopping.

Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
Stuart Graduate School of Business
(630) 221-9456
barlow@stuart.iit.edu
http://www.stuart.iit.edu/faculty/barlow



---------- Original Message -------------------------
---------
From: Emre Yucel <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
Reply-To: Management Education and Development
Discussion
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:59:06 -0700

>Phil:
>
>Any time not worked during the time of work is
theft. If some rights are
>negotiated between the management and the union,
concerning rights of
>breaks, that is not theft. But if we are talking
about giving breaks
>frequently for mitigating the adverse affects of an
addiction, then those
>people need help and should not be in the workplace
in the first place.
>
>Capitalism, liberal markets, and globalization work
best when the offered
>product/service (here the worker's 'actual work and
contribution') is not
>taken aback or set aside due to any reason. If you
are sick, you take days
>off, get better, come back to work, and start
working again. But if
>cigarette smoking is 'sickness' and at the same
time a 'right', I have a
>problem with that. I do not want to suffer double
times because these
>people are slacking at work by going outside to
smoke and because they are
>smoking next to me, killing me as well.
>
>Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I
know nobody because it is
>inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.
>
>On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up
when the people who wander
>off and chat around is also wrong if it does not
contribute to the
>following:
>1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and
identity-based trust within
>the organization.
>2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
>3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to
colleagues, hoping to get
>support or brainstorming, idea exchange
>4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge
>
>This list can be extended and is not exhaustive.
On the other hand, if
>these people are just going away because they
are 'bored', 'dissatisfied',
>or 'frustrated' and not working at the time they do
so, then they are
>stealing from the company here. Make no mistake:
Even in the most 'relaxed'
>and 'horizontal' workplaces, people act with an
acknowledgement of
>responsibilities. The abundance of coffee and
water coolers are not for you
>to have an entirely good time, it is for you
to 'chat' and have a connection
>with your colleagues so that it will foster brain
storming and idea
>exchange.
>
>Can you see the difference?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phillip Rutherford
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Sent: 2/5/02 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training
ramifications
>
>Emre,
>
>I'm not too sure the rights and wrongs of smoking
is the issue here. In
>fact
>there is a growing field of thought that cigaretter
addiction is a
>disease -
>like alcoholism - and those suffering from it
should not be castigated
>but
>treated with dignity and respect of someone so
addicted. As a former
>smoker
>I know that to make me go outside to smoke was, in
fact, causing me to
>be
>less productive (there was nothing nicer than a cup
of coffee and a few
>drags of my pipe while mulling over a problem) -
and it was all down to
>a
>blue eyed/brown eyed policy on the part of
management.
>
>However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is
whether or not forcing
>people to acknowledge the time they spend away from
their job (that is,
>of
>course, assuming that they don't take work with
them when they go
>outside
>for a smoke) is going to have wider ramifications
throughout the
>organisation. For example, those people who go for
a wander around their
>workplace and chat about what they did over the
weekend, will they too
>be
>required to clock off when their chatting about
private issues and clock
>on
>again when they get back to talking about work? Is
there going to be a
>'private/business chat/thought' police force going
to be set up to
>monitor
>and control who is doing what on whose time? And
why is the union so
>happy
>to oblige?
>
>Phil Rutherford
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
>To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and
training ramifications
>
>
>> Let's get back to the basics:
>>
>> Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is
addicted to. If one is
>smoking
>> inside the building, it means that person is
poisoning himself/herself
>and
>> the rest, and therefore, should be banned from
smoking inside at
>least.
>

Chris:

"Bitching"? Please watch your language. This is a discussion group, not
your local bar. Thanks.

As much as intrusions into the private life by inconsiderate managers is a
problem and should be dealt with, the other side is equally wrong and should
be dealt with as well. There should be regulatory organs on both sides that
care and watch over illegal and unethical behaviors.

Smoking is unnacceptable during work hours. It is as unacceptable as
intrusions into private lives of subordinates. These are implications of
work ethics. I don't understand what you are failing to see.

Emre.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Barlow
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/5/02 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Emre--

When corporations routinely expect people to respond
to phone calls at home or carry beepers. When
competent managers are thinking frequently about
work issues during their personal time, I have no
patience with people who bitch about lost minutes to
smoking, coffee, personal phone calls, or even web
shopping.

Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
Stuart Graduate School of Business
(630) 221-9456
barlow@stuart.iit.edu
http://www.stuart.iit.edu/faculty/barlow



---------- Original Message -------------------------
---------
From: Emre Yucel <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
Reply-To: Management Education and Development
Discussion
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:59:06 -0700

>Phil:
>
>Any time not worked during the time of work is
theft. If some rights are
>negotiated between the management and the union,
concerning rights of
>breaks, that is not theft. But if we are talking
about giving breaks
>frequently for mitigating the adverse affects of an
addiction, then those
>people need help and should not be in the workplace
in the first place.
>
>Capitalism, liberal markets, and globalization work
best when the offered
>product/service (here the worker's 'actual work and
contribution') is not
>taken aback or set aside due to any reason. If you
are sick, you take days
>off, get better, come back to work, and start
working again. But if
>cigarette smoking is 'sickness' and at the same
time a 'right', I have a
>problem with that. I do not want to suffer double
times because these
>people are slacking at work by going outside to
smoke and because they are
>smoking next to me, killing me as well.
>
>Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I
know nobody because it is
>inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.
>
>On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up
when the people who wander
>off and chat around is also wrong if it does not
contribute to the
>following:
>1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and
identity-based trust within
>the organization.
>2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
>3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to
colleagues, hoping to get
>support or brainstorming, idea exchange
>4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge
>
>This list can be extended and is not exhaustive.
On the other hand, if
>these people are just going away because they
are 'bored', 'dissatisfied',
>or 'frustrated' and not working at the time they do
so, then they are
>stealing from the company here. Make no mistake:
Even in the most 'relaxed'
>and 'horizontal' workplaces, people act with an
acknowledgement of
>responsibilities. The abundance of coffee and
water coolers are not for you
>to have an entirely good time, it is for you
to 'chat' and have a connection
>with your colleagues so that it will foster brain
storming and idea
>exchange.
>
>Can you see the difference?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phillip Rutherford
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Sent: 2/5/02 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training
ramifications
>
>Emre,
>
>I'm not too sure the rights and wrongs of smoking
is the issue here. In
>fact
>there is a growing field of thought that cigaretter
addiction is a
>disease -
>like alcoholism - and those suffering from it
should not be castigated
>but
>treated with dignity and respect of someone so
addicted. As a former
>smoker
>I know that to make me go outside to smoke was, in
fact, causing me to
>be
>less productive (there was nothing nicer than a cup
of coffee and a few
>drags of my pipe while mulling over a problem) -
and it was all down to
>a
>blue eyed/brown eyed policy on the part of
management.
>
>However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is
whether or not forcing
>people to acknowledge the time they spend away from
their job (that is,
>of
>course, assuming that they don't take work with
them when they go
>outside
>for a smoke) is going to have wider ramifications
throughout the
>organisation. For example, those people who go for
a wander around their
>workplace and chat about what they did over the
weekend, will they too
>be
>required to clock off when their chatting about
private issues and clock
>on
>again when they get back to talking about work? Is
there going to be a
>'private/business chat/thought' police force going
to be set up to
>monitor
>and control who is doing what on whose time? And
why is the union so
>happy
>to oblige?
>
>Phil Rutherford
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
>To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and
training ramifications
>
>
>> Let's get back to the basics:
>>
>> Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is
addicted to. If one is
>smoking
>> inside the building, it means that person is
poisoning himself/herself
>and
>> the rest, and therefore, should be banned from
smoking inside at
>least.
>

Phillip:

Alcoholic citizens who are hard working and upstanding citizens with 'just a
drinking problem'? This is a strange approach. I do not want to bore you
with the details of biomedical implications of alcohol on the brain, but I
am sure you have an idea about the dying brain cells and how brain chemistry
changes to adapt to alcohol instead of energy sources. How can you think
that these people are not having a problem? By considering these people as
only those with a regular sickness is the root of your illogical approach.
But you are already admitting that your example has no basis.

I am saying chatting and discussing to foster idea and knowledge exchange in
ways that will not hurt others' health should be the ideal norm. In fact,
work that does not hurt others should be the norm, including exclusion of
intrusion to personal/private life. If excluding smokers from the building
and taking out the time that they are not working out of their salaries is
discriminating, so be it. If they are not working, why should they be
paid? If you are the owner/executive/CEO of a company, would you rather see
your people work or smoke, which one would you pick?

On the other hand, I see that you are trying to extrapolate from this policy
to other ramifications of discrimination. Discrimination poses danger if it
occurs due to cognitive differences. Here we have a cognitive difference.
Clearly the management of the company thinks that smoking-time should be
taken out of the wages of workers. Clearly, once you are away from your
working environment out in the open, I can not see how that translates into
work for the company. I do not see any ramification of discrimination here,
the basics say: do not hurt your neighbor, generalize this; do not hurt your
employees and the same message also becomes; do not hurt your co workers,
and firm.

In short, if we are considered to be discriminating against smokers because
we are not letting them earn money during the time they smoke, which equals
to they do not work, then human resources is all about discrimination; they
only hire people who fit certain criteria based on their experience,
education, etc.

Emre

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/5/02 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Emre,

I am not arguing against your point of view, all I am saying is that it
is
not the issue.

Let me use your example. You said:

> Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I know nobody because
it
is
> inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.

I have actually known quite a few. They have been good, upstanding
citizens
and hard workers - just had a drinking problem that's all. Now, of
course,
there are some people whose problem has taken them right over the top
but in
my experience there are probably more alcoholics working then there are
out
on the streets. A broad statement, I know, without any empirical data to
back it up but I have been in the world of work for nearly 40 years now
and
been around the block a few times.

> On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up when the people who
wander
> off and chat around is also wrong if it does not contribute to the
> following:
> 1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and identity-based trust
within
> the organization.
> 2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
> 3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to colleagues, hoping to get
> support or brainstorming, idea exchange
> 4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge

So what you're saying is that this is okay just so long as they aren't
smoking at the same time? I've been out there in the drafty laneway. I
know
what smokers talk about. And, hey, they talk about exactly the same
things
that non-smokers talk about (except that they say "We should give this
up"
rather than "You should give that up"!).

You are making some good points but I think they are more related to why
smoking is bad rather than the organisational ramifications of
discriminating against any group of people for any reasons - real or
perceived.

Phil Rutherford

Hey guys lets get real,
this agreement emerged because employers wanted a trade off for a pay rise. Why
this trade off
1. symbolic value - smokers are 'getting away' with time off [but so do
people who sit in the john for an hour, who don't work contantly 'cos of their
bad back, their flu/cold, who are 'functional' alcoholics - est to be some 10%
of the labourforce, along with the functional illiterates etc etc - mostly
ailments caused by paid employment in the first place]
2. symbolic value - non-smokers get pissed off as their colleagues disappear
regularly
3. legal value - forstall any future smoking related claims - also claims re
'time discrimination' by non-smokers [laugh you may, but it will come]
4. state (it is a government organisation) leadership in campaign against
smoking [this state aggressively markets itself as clean and green, opposes any
GE foods, etc, etc]
The 'saving' in labour time is decidedly secondary.
As for the categories of 'legitimate' chatting - well.... I ask you?!

Dave

Emre Yucel wrote:

> Phillip:
>
> Alcoholic citizens who are hard working and upstanding citizens with 'just a
> drinking problem'? This is a strange approach. I do not want to bore you
> with the details of biomedical implications of alcohol on the brain, but I
> am sure you have an idea about the dying brain cells and how brain chemistry
> changes to adapt to alcohol instead of energy sources. How can you think
> that these people are not having a problem? By considering these people as
> only those with a regular sickness is the root of your illogical approach.
> But you are already admitting that your example has no basis.
>
> I am saying chatting and discussing to foster idea and knowledge exchange in
> ways that will not hurt others' health should be the ideal norm. In fact,
> work that does not hurt others should be the norm, including exclusion of
> intrusion to personal/private life. If excluding smokers from the building
> and taking out the time that they are not working out of their salaries is
> discriminating, so be it. If they are not working, why should they be
> paid? If you are the owner/executive/CEO of a company, would you rather see
> your people work or smoke, which one would you pick?
>
> On the other hand, I see that you are trying to extrapolate from this policy
> to other ramifications of discrimination. Discrimination poses danger if it
> occurs due to cognitive differences. Here we have a cognitive difference.
> Clearly the management of the company thinks that smoking-time should be
> taken out of the wages of workers. Clearly, once you are away from your
> working environment out in the open, I can not see how that translates into
> work for the company. I do not see any ramification of discrimination here,
> the basics say: do not hurt your neighbor, generalize this; do not hurt your
> employees and the same message also becomes; do not hurt your co workers,
> and firm.
>
> In short, if we are considered to be discriminating against smokers because
> we are not letting them earn money during the time they smoke, which equals
> to they do not work, then human resources is all about discrimination; they
> only hire people who fit certain criteria based on their experience,
> education, etc.
>
> Emre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Rutherford
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Sent: 2/5/02 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications
>
> Emre,
>
> I am not arguing against your point of view, all I am saying is that it
> is
> not the issue.
>
> Let me use your example. You said:
>
> > Also; how many alcoholics do you know who work? I know nobody because
> it
> is
> > inconceivable to work when you are an alcoholic.
>
> I have actually known quite a few. They have been good, upstanding
> citizens
> and hard workers - just had a drinking problem that's all. Now, of
> course,
> there are some people whose problem has taken them right over the top
> but in
> my experience there are probably more alcoholics working then there are
> out
> on the streets. A broad statement, I know, without any empirical data to
> back it up but I have been in the world of work for nearly 40 years now
> and
> been around the block a few times.
>
> > On the other hand, the issue you are bringing up when the people who
> wander
> > off and chat around is also wrong if it does not contribute to the
> > following:
> > 1. Creating a sense of cultural embeddedness and identity-based trust
> within
> > the organization.
> > 2. Creating relationship based acknowledgment
> > 3. Introduction of yourself and concepts to colleagues, hoping to get
> > support or brainstorming, idea exchange
> > 4. Exchange of ideas and tacit knowledge
>
> So what you're saying is that this is okay just so long as they aren't
> smoking at the same time? I've been out there in the drafty laneway. I
> know
> what smokers talk about. And, hey, they talk about exactly the same
> things
> that non-smokers talk about (except that they say "We should give this
> up"
> rather than "You should give that up"!).
>
> You are making some good points but I think they are more related to why
> smoking is bad rather than the organisational ramifications of
> discriminating against any group of people for any reasons - real or
> perceived.
>
> Phil Rutherford

Hi - I would agree that smoking is very harmful
It is also a Health and Safety issue to the organisation and
to those who don't smoke as they are forced to become a passive smoker and
could cause the organisation to be sued if a smoking related illness occurs
to other individuals who don't smoke.

However people have to communicate and talk to each other as
the world of work is a community where people do care for each other be
friendly laugh work through problems both for work and personal.

Unless it is affecting production from the individual(S)
then of course this is an issue which should be addressed through the normal
practice of line management and Human Resource on the first instance the
appraisal systems that are in place.

As we must recognise that employees are protected by
regulations together with identification on those different behaviours and
attitudes.

Other issues can be addressed by communicating this problem
back to the whole of the workforce by managing group quality circles (TQM)-
to identify why this is happening and deploying a critical analysis.
Analysing the jobs, flows of information, of production and
resources (are individuals bored with not enough to) is there good
management structures on board - are there to many employees not enough
customers the question is why? .

We are human not robots - we do have integrity and other
values including innovation once you stifle the communication of free will
then problems occur and you have a very unhappy workforce.

Iris

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford
[SMTP:robnphil@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:42 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and
training ramifications

Emre,

I'm not too sure the rights and wrongs of smoking is
the issue here. In fact
there is a growing field of thought that cigaretter
addiction is a disease -
like alcoholism - and those suffering from it should
not be castigated but
treated with dignity and respect of someone so
addicted. As a former smoker
I know that to make me go outside to smoke was, in
fact, causing me to be
less productive (there was nothing nicer than a cup
of coffee and a few
drags of my pipe while mulling over a problem) - and
it was all down to a
blue eyed/brown eyed policy on the part of
management.

However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is
whether or not forcing
people to acknowledge the time they spend away from
their job (that is, of
course, assuming that they don't take work with them
when they go outside
for a smoke) is going to have wider ramifications
throughout the
organisation. For example, those people who go for a
wander around their
workplace and chat about what they did over the
weekend, will they too be
required to clock off when their chatting about
private issues and clock on
again when they get back to talking about work? Is
there going to be a
'private/business chat/thought' police force going
to be set up to monitor
and control who is doing what on whose time? And why
is the union so happy
to oblige?

Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and
training ramifications


> Let's get back to the basics:
>
> Smoking is wrong, no matter how hard one is
addicted to. If one is
smoking
> inside the building, it means that person is
poisoning himself/herself and
> the rest, and therefore, should be banned from
smoking inside at least.

________________________________________________________________________
Scottish Enterprise Network
http://www.scottish-enterprise.com

Headquarters Address & Contact Numbers

150 Broomielaw
5 Atlantic Quay
Glasgow
G2 8LU.
Tel: +44 (0) 141 248 2700.
Fax: +44 (0)141 221 3217

This message is sent in confidence for the addressee only.
It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to
be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorised recipients
are requested to preserve this confidentiality and to advise the sender
immediately of any error in transmission.

Bingo! The regulation of smokers in many workplaces is purely
symbolic/legal and has little to do with either work efficiency or
health concerns. If "health" was the primary issue, then
environmentally controlled buildings would be banned (at least in
Canada, they are a major source of recirculated viruses) along with cars
since second hand car emissions are 100 times as dangerous as
second-hand smoke. Emre's argument that people who are smoking are not
"working" only shows that he has never studied smokers who work,
especially those who work in knowledge/information sectors.

The larger implication of the issue is whether or not employees are paid
for producing a product or for producing an appearance of work, and this
strikes at the heart of the entire employment relationship. Regulation
and control of the work environment, a la Ford and Lenin, works only in
so far as the work product is a) well understood and b) subject to task
definition. For work products that are not subject to exact definition,
then regulation only serves to reduce the efficiency of production
(something that the socio-technical systems people have charted for
years).

Since the example under discussion is a government organization, I am
not surprised at this action. It is another example of the "standards
before reality" meme that is endemic in strongly bureaucratic
organizations stretching from ancient Sumeria to Nortel ("No, really,
the market will go up...").

Marc

>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:03:59 +1100
>From: David Morgan <d.morgan@unsw.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications
>
>Hey guys lets get real,
>this agreement emerged because employers wanted a trade off for a pay rise. Why
>this trade off
>1. symbolic value - smokers are 'getting away' with time off....
>2. symbolic value - non-smokers get pissed off as their colleagues disappear
>regularly
>3. legal value - forstall any future smoking related claims....
>4. state (it is a government organisation) leadership in campaign against
>smoking....
>The 'saving' in labour time is decidedly secondary.
>As for the categories of 'legitimate' chatting - well.... I ask you?!
>
>Dave
>

Well said Marc...
Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

According to the American Medical Association only 3% of alcoholics are
"skid row drunks" 97% are functional. Many have highly responsible
positions, including CEOs or even first ladies of the United States.

Conna Condon

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

The basis of this opinion has two incorrect assumptions.

1. When a person is away from their desk ... at the water cooler, in
the bathroom, at the snack machine, taking a "cubbie break" ... or at
their desk but not appearing to work ... social chatting, instant
messaging, social phone ... (add to the list as you choose, including
writing this list mail) ... they are not being productive.
A. Just because someone is at their work locale and appear to be
working
does not mean they are being productive. Social loafers are quite
capable
of appearing productive.
B. Just because someone is away from their work locale and does not
appear to be productive does not mean they are not being productive.
Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is to walk away from it for
awhile and think about it in a different locale. Many an inspiration
has occurred at the water cooler.
C. Last I checked the efficiency research has shown repeatedly ...
to
the point of being factored into expected efficiency calculations...
that it is unreasonable and unhealthy for humans to be 100% productive.

2. People taking cubbie breaks for any reason are using company time
and
should have that deducted from their pay. Careful of your totals.
When I
started working in the US I was supposed to have a certain length lunch
PLUS
2 breaks of 15 minutes each. This wasn't any altruistic offer of my
company. It was based upon prior research that proved that people
needed to
have "recess" just as kids needed to keep concentrating in class. That
people actually work more productively in total when they take breaks
... at the cooler or for a ciggie or any other reason ... than those
that don't.

So, those companies better make sure that they deduct the pay of every
worker who is engaging in non-productive behaviors ... not just the
obvious smokers ... and they better not deduct the portion that is the
breaks they are supposed to be providing ... and they had better prove
that the person
was less productive ... or they will have a hard time in court. There
is
plenty enough research to protect the smoker from those deductions.

Meanwhile, I don't want to smell like cigarettes. I have been checked,
medically other people's smoking isn't bothering me. But, I don't want
someone else to make me stink or my eyes sting. So, they can take
their
mental refreshers their way and I will take mine my way. So long as
they
don't make me smell like ciggies I am just fine with them.

Frankly, if they take away their mental breaks they may take mine ...
and I am well aware I need my mental breaks.

Conna Condon

From: Conna Condon [ <mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com>
mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

I was a guinea pig for a stop smoking research study. At the time I
was
fully tested medically for any damage that smoking had done to me. The
doctors were most frustrated. There was no damage. They had no
medical
reason to have me give up smoking.

So, I disagree. Smoking may be self-destructive ... but it is possible
that it can be a coping skill for a person for whom it is not
self-destructive,
physically. That is why the warnings on the side of the cigarette
packs
have to be limited.

Unfortunately for me, the coping skills I have been using since I quit
smoking are not as healthy for me. So, I am now having to learn new
coping
skills that are more healthy. But, it really irritates the heck out of
me
when people insist that a smoker will be healthier if they quit smoking.
That is not always the case. It was not the case for me. I was
healthier as a smoker.

As to the second-hand smoke campaigns, as we provide people with more
and more smoke free environments we are discovering that they are still
getting cancers just as often. oh, gosh, golly and gee. Second hand
smoke was not
necessarily the primary cancer causing agent. Well, shucks, maybe we
will
stop using gas powered cars and heating systems one of these days. What
a thought.

OK... I'm not sure how this anti-smoking campaign made it into MED.

Conna Condon

My research in the 1990s focused on the impact of smoking policies on
organizations. A few observations:

1. Sometimes when smokers congregate to smoke, they build social networks
that cut across functions and levels of hierarchy, actually increasing
individual effectiveness and personal power.

2. Ken Olive and I reviewed the literature and found smoking policies do
appear to increase cessation rates among smokers.
http://208.240.93.15/smj/96jul10.htm

3. Ex-smokers recommend "cold turkey" as the best way to quit.

John B.


http://www.msj.edu/ballard/

John--

RE:

>3. Ex-smokers recommend "cold turkey" as the best way to quit.
>

A quibble...

Some folks who smoke and try to quit succeed by going cold turkey.

These seem to make up more than half of your research pool.

But it leaves out the many who have tried cold turkey and been
unable to quit.

I seem to remember that a lot of soldiers tested positive for
heroin coming back from Vietnam, and 95% were successful in
quitting cold turkey.

But the other five percent ... a completely different experience.

And the word from those who have quit both heroin and tobacco, is
that they found heroin easier to kick.

Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
Stuart Graduate School of Business
(630) 221-9456
barlow@stuart.iit.edu
http://www.stuart.iit.edu/faculty/barlow

How about industrial agreements and legal ramifications?

I think there must be a case that could be made out of governments allowing
the sale of a drug to the general public (without prescription) while at
the same time enacting laws which treat smokers as social
outcasts. Typically, we are all trying to manage the outcomes (smoking)
and not the causes (production and sale of cigarettes) - if you are into
management education and development that should interest you.

Until the production and sale of cigarettes are banned I don't think anyone
has a right to tell smokers where and when to smoke - and no, I do not
smoke. It is a lot like the Blue eyes/Brown eyes exercise really.

Tyrone S. Pitsis
UTS
Sydney, Australia

Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Tyrone (et al),

If you have been listening to the news this morning you will know that
allegedly over 60% of the callers to talk-back radio stations agree with the
legislation - not that I think people who ring into talk-back radio are a
fair indication of mainstream society.

Having said that, people I've spoken to, Letters to the Editor I have read,
and the few talk-back callers I've heard agree wholeheartedly with your
sentiment. Furthermore, comments such as these have also been heard:

"Why is it that we spend a lot of money supporting drug injecting rooms and
the swapping of needles for drug users, and in doing so perpetuate the use
of an illegal substance by people who, through its use do not contribute one
cent to society, while at the same time penalising people who smoke a legal
drug and at the same time contribute over $40million a year into the
Treasury?"

"Are we going to ask people who use the toilet a lot to also clock on and
off?"

"Why does the agreement only cover a minority of the workforce and not their
employers or managers?"

To me the whole thing is a crock of nonsense. However, what surprises me so
much, and not just in association with this issue but in just about any I
can think of, is that the so called thinkers of our society - and I'd like
to feel that many of us are in that category - are the ones who can have the
most influence over such nonsense. Where do our students go when they
graduate, for example? If we have taught them well they eventually go on to
become legislation makers and systems developers. They eventually become
part of the same middle or senior managers from whom we expect society's
leaders to emerge. They eventually create the machinery that makes this
world a better place. Why can't we spend more time influencing them at that
point in their lives where we have the most opportunity? Writing letters to
the editor to complain about our offspring is far too late when they've
grown up and moved so far away they can't hear us anymore.

Just like most of us I have had many students shake their head when I've
spoken of examples of good management and competent systems thinking. I've
had students who've said "That won't work in our organisation" and similar
comments, but to each of them I've said that one day they will be in a
position of influence, and just because it all seems cockeyed and back to
front now doesn't mean it always has to stay that way. One day they will be
in a position to change it.

I'd like to think that what we give them now helps give them the strength
and the courage to change the things that are wrong - just like this dumb
piece of legislation.

Phil Rutherford




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyrone S. Pitsis" <tyrone.pitsis@uts.edu.au>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> How about industrial agreements and legal ramifications?
>
> I think there must be a case that could be made out of governments
allowing
> the sale of a drug to the general public (without prescription) while at
> the same time enacting laws which treat smokers as social
> outcasts. Typically, we are all trying to manage the outcomes (smoking)

I think "our" students go and run "Enron, HIH, Ansett, One.Tel" etc etc
Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Intriguing discussion, on accounting for time-off and on the job and the
desirability of particular activities.

It seems that there exist two basic issue involved:
1- The sustainability of the activity
2- Accountability to the firm

I perceive the issue has much broader implications that relate to the
effectiveness of individuals, the nature of the work done, and the value it
has. Do organizations pay for the actual work done, for the time spent
doing it, for physical presence, for knowledge, for performance, for
innovation or a combination of all these? How does an organization consider
the worker?

Clocking in-out for smokers, to be fair, would also require clocking in-out
when doing work related activities even outside the work environment. Now
what about the business lunches, dinners, or for that matter trips? Should
the worker register 24 hours of work because that is the time required by
the organization (taken away from their family)? What about the situation
where a preoccupation to resolve a nagging issue at work keeps the employee
awake half the night leading to the insight of the solution will they count
that as work? What if they get inspired and dream the solution, will they
clock that in too?

Only a sustainable stand has the logic required to impose itself over less
desirable ones. When taken to the extreme one can easily resolves if the
resulting scenario is sustainable and desirable or becomes exploitative and
detrimental. One way to resolve the issue would be to have incentives for
healthier life-styles (sustainable and desirable business models over the
long run). Unfortunately overall humanity as a whole seems to be heading in
the other direction into sick life-styles (with business models that
exploit opportunities independent of their sustainability over the long
run). Curiously I heard there was a study that showed that the most
profitable and long standing business had had principles and sustainable
practices as their core values.

Getting a desirable one-time customer may be a profitable business model;
though a superior model will have that customer as a repeat, coming back
for their life over a long time.... and an even superior model would even
help extend the life expectancy.

But who knows if instant gratification with quick profits that exploit
current opportunities will get more 'market' than the superior one that
takes longer to achieve. Sustainable deferred gratification seems to be
very limited in society today. Especially in light of the uncertain
future...

Cordially,

Esteban



____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Esteban,

Beautifully said.

Tyrone


This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Could somebody please explain to me what this 'blue eyes/brown eyes' term
mean? And Tyrone: What do you mean anybody should be free to smoke whenever
and whereever they are? I do not want people to smoke next to me under any
circumstance, because it kills me. Why is it wrong to ask another not to
act in a way that will harm me?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrone S. Pitsis
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/6/02 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

How about industrial agreements and legal ramifications?

I think there must be a case that could be made out of governments
allowing
the sale of a drug to the general public (without prescription) while at
the same time enacting laws which treat smokers as social
outcasts. Typically, we are all trying to manage the outcomes (smoking)
and not the causes (production and sale of cigarettes) - if you are into
management education and development that should interest you.

Until the production and sale of cigarettes are banned I don't think
anyone
has a right to tell smokers where and when to smoke - and no, I do not
smoke. It is a lot like the Blue eyes/Brown eyes exercise really.

Tyrone S. Pitsis
UTS
Sydney, Australia

Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Emre,

1. It is a social experiment where people with Brown eyes are said to be
more intelligent than people with Blue eyes, and the blue eyed people are
made to feel inferior and discriminated against. It is designed to show the
stupidity in discrimination etc.

2. You have a right to leave if you don't want to inhale the second hand
smoke. I totally respect and support your right to leave. I think the point
you missed is that it is hypocrisy to ban cigarette smoking from every
sphere of life while governments still profit through taxes from its
legalized sales - all the while discriminating against people who are
smoking substances deemed fit for sale by the FDA and other government
authorities. Rather, government should be profiting from its' illegalized
sales like it does from other drugs <grin>.


Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Esteban,

I agree entirely, but what is the solution? When should the intervention
come - after the fact or before it?

One of the difficulties I have in my country (and have experienced in a
number of others) is that management education is centred on those things
that can be taught - that is, what a lot of people call the 'hard' and
quantifiable skills. Very little is done about the 'soft' skills, even
though in my opinion they too can be taught (just a little bit differently).
And yet it is these 'soft' skills that get so many people into trouble.
Sure, they might be very good at writing submissions and developing
legislation, but when that legislation is wrong (but beautifully written)
they are not chided for incompetence - only awkward thinking.

I am currently reading a book by an ex-politician who said (in words to the
effect that) that the greater part of politics, and in my opinion
management, is not spent in finding out what people want and how they want
it, but in creating better ways of arguing for what you want and how you are
going to give it to them.


Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Esteban Trevino" <esteban.trevino@neoris.com>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


Intriguing discussion, on accounting for time-off and on the job and the
desirability of particular activities.

It seems that there exist two basic issue involved:
1- The sustainability of the activity
2- Accountability to the firm

I perceive the issue has much broader implications that relate to the
effectiveness of individuals, the nature of the work done, and the value it
has. Do organizations pay for the actual work done, for the time spent
doing it, for physical presence, for knowledge, for performance, for
innovation or a combination of all these? How does an organization consider
the worker?

Clocking in-out for smokers, to be fair, would also require clocking in-out
when doing work related activities even outside the work environment. Now
what about the business lunches, dinners, or for that matter trips? Should
the worker register 24 hours of work because that is the time required by
the organization (taken away from their family)? What about the situation
where a preoccupation to resolve a nagging issue at work keeps the employee
awake half the night leading to the insight of the solution will they count
that as work? What if they get inspired and dream the solution, will they
clock that in too?

Only a sustainable stand has the logic required to impose itself over less
desirable ones. When taken to the extreme one can easily resolves if the
resulting scenario is sustainable and desirable or becomes exploitative and
detrimental. One way to resolve the issue would be to have incentives for
healthier life-styles (sustainable and desirable business models over the
long run). Unfortunately overall humanity as a whole seems to be heading in
the other direction into sick life-styles (with business models that
exploit opportunities independent of their sustainability over the long
run). Curiously I heard there was a study that showed that the most
profitable and long standing business had had principles and sustainable
practices as their core values.

Getting a desirable one-time customer may be a profitable business model;
though a superior model will have that customer as a repeat, coming back
for their life over a long time.... and an even superior model would even
help extend the life expectancy.

But who knows if instant gratification with quick profits that exploit
current opportunities will get more 'market' than the superior one that
takes longer to achieve. Sustainable deferred gratification seems to be
very limited in society today. Especially in light of the uncertain
future...

Cordially,

Esteban



____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Blue eyes/brown eyes was an experiment (if you could call it out) conducted
by Dr someone-or-other (her name escapes me right now) where people were
segregated and treated as lesser beings purely by the colour of their eyes.
If one had brown eyes, so the activity went, one was naturally a worse
person - in everything that person did, no matter how right or wrong, good
or bad, evil or pure - and those with blue eyes could do no wrong.

The objective of the exercise was to help people - white people in
particular - to understand that even when they think they are not being
prejudiced against others, they really could be in just about everything
they do.

I used this as an example in response to what you were saying, in particular
that smokers were horrible people in everything they do. I thought, and
still think, that what you were saying was a gross generalisation based on
little or no knowledge of the people to whom you referred.

Most of us agree with the sentiments behind your points but the prejeduce
you excude is blanketing the message you are trying to send.

Phil Rutherford



----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> Could somebody please explain to me what this 'blue eyes/brown eyes' term

Tyrone:

I have a right to leave? Why am I the one leaving? I am not doing anything
that would hurt the other one's health. From my perspective, as a
non-smoker, I am only trying to sit down in the working environment (which I
visualize as a closed building without open windows but a so-so effective
ventilation system as it more often than not happens) and work. Why am I
leaving? I don't understand. I am not causing the stir, I am not the one
who voluntarily addicted myself despite all warnings and who continue to
screw my and other people's lives around me? If the government is taxing
cigarettes, that is another discussion. But why do I have the right to
leave here? I am trying to work through the smoke of your cigarette?

And by the way, what are you smoking to make you so high to suggest I have
the right to leave? If I have the right to leave, you have the obligation
to get out and leave me alone. I do not want to inhale your second hand
smoke, which by the way, causes amphizema, asthma, or at least coughing and
disgust!

I do not understand your stance at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyrone S. Pitsis
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/6/02 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Emre,

1. It is a social experiment where people with Brown eyes are said to be
more intelligent than people with Blue eyes, and the blue eyed people
are
made to feel inferior and discriminated against. It is designed to show
the
stupidity in discrimination etc.

2. You have a right to leave if you don't want to inhale the second
hand
smoke. I totally respect and support your right to leave. I think the
point
you missed is that it is hypocrisy to ban cigarette smoking from every
sphere of life while governments still profit through taxes from its
legalized sales - all the while discriminating against people who are
smoking substances deemed fit for sale by the FDA and other government
authorities. Rather, government should be profiting from its'
illegalized
sales like it does from other drugs <grin>.


Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F

Phillip;

There is no prejudice in my words, I did not condemn any smoker in my words,
nor did I use any prejudiced words against them, characterizing them in any
bad way. You are misleading my words and the discussion.

I argue that I, as a non-smoker, should not suffer because there are smokers
in the environment. I would also argue against anything that would have a
direct negative effect on my job performance, self-efficacy, and improvement
of my position. These could be anything from racial discrimination or
discrimination of any kind to noise pollution, to unfair practices of job
promotion, to smoking in the same environmnent that I am forced to breathe.

Secondly, the hazards of smoking are proven. Cigarettes contain everything
from ammonia to radioactive elements. These elements are largely intact in
the smoke blown from the lungs of the smokers. They are thrown into the
environment they smoke. I, as a smoker, do not want to breath them, and am
against smokers who will attempt not to take their business elsewhere, which
clearly puts my health in danger.

Third, smoking could have been a means of social interaction and cultivation
in the 50's when there was no consensus on smoking hazards. Back then,
almost all adults smoked. And now, the clear dangers of smoking are quite
apparent. If there are those amongst smokers who argue that smoking
ammonia, nicotine, tar, and other strange elements that are clearly
dangerous to one's health are in fact making their health stronger, then
that is a personal choice. But I should not suffer from the adverse
consequences of this personal choice, which are immediate in the form of
smoke.

Fourth, activities that lead to business transactions, such as idea
exchange, social capital formation, relational capital building, are needed.
We human beings need different settings and environments such as dinners,
trips, etc. to get to know each other well and see or agree with each
other's points. Cigarettes or even anything that will lead to the
participants' health to deteriorate should be simply taken out.

Finally, if smoking's hazards are proven, and if the smokers are not doing
work when they are smoking, that would worry me as an employer. How and
when will I be able to implement and control my administration if my workers
are not working but smoking for most of the day?

In conclusion, I am not saying that smokers are horrible in everything they
do. They could be or could not be great and effective workers but that is
out of the point. The point is that when they are smoking, they are not,
within the norms of the social rules that govern organizations, working to
reach results. They waste time and put their health in danger when they
smoke. This has more to do with their action of addiction, which they
should clearly do something about asap not only for their own sake but for
the sake of everybody surrounding them. But this does not mean 'everything
the smokers do is horrible.' To suggest something so drastic out of my
argument requires a different type of cognition, which I am curious to
understand.

I am not generalizing the personality traits of smokers. I admit I do not
know much about the smokers per se. What I am shooting for is the immediate
and drastic effects on the working environment they are causing. My focus
has nothing to do with what type of people they are but a lot to do with
what consequences they are causing with their actions. I thought this was
clear and apologize if I offended anyone.

What am I missing in your view? What is it that I do not understand about
yours and that you do not understand about my view, that you find so
offensive?

Thanks.

Emre
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/6/02 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Blue eyes/brown eyes was an experiment (if you could call it out)
conducted
by Dr someone-or-other (her name escapes me right now) where people were
segregated and treated as lesser beings purely by the colour of their
eyes.
If one had brown eyes, so the activity went, one was naturally a worse
person - in everything that person did, no matter how right or wrong,
good
or bad, evil or pure - and those with blue eyes could do no wrong.

The objective of the exercise was to help people - white people in
particular - to understand that even when they think they are not being
prejudiced against others, they really could be in just about everything
they do.

I used this as an example in response to what you were saying, in
particular
that smokers were horrible people in everything they do. I thought, and
still think, that what you were saying was a gross generalisation based
on
little or no knowledge of the people to whom you referred.

Most of us agree with the sentiments behind your points but the
prejeduce
you excude is blanketing the message you are trying to send.

Phil Rutherford



----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> Could somebody please explain to me what this 'blue eyes/brown eyes'
term

If the discussion is moved off list, please add my name to the email list if
the discussion continues because the subject matter material will be very
useful for me in my class on management communication, conflict resolution
(and how to have difficult conversations). I have not contributed, but I am
listening in. The points of view (and distance between them) provide a
fascinating example.

Thank you.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Emre Yucel
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:10 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications


Phillip;

There is no prejudice in my words, I did not condemn any smoker in my words,
nor did I use any prejudiced words against them, characterizing them in any
bad way. You are misleading my words and the discussion.

I argue that I, as a non-smoker, should not suffer because there are smokers
in the environment. I would also argue against anything that would have a
direct negative effect on my job performance, self-efficacy, and improvement
of my position. These could be anything from racial discrimination or
discrimination of any kind to noise pollution, to unfair practices of job
promotion, to smoking in the same environmnent that I am forced to breathe.

Secondly, the hazards of smoking are proven. Cigarettes contain everything
from ammonia to radioactive elements. These elements are largely intact in
the smoke blown from the lungs of the smokers. They are thrown into the
environment they smoke. I, as a smoker, do not want to breath them, and am
against smokers who will attempt not to take their business elsewhere, which
clearly puts my health in danger.

Third, smoking could have been a means of social interaction and cultivation
in the 50's when there was no consensus on smoking hazards. Back then,
almost all adults smoked. And now, the clear dangers of smoking are quite
apparent. If there are those amongst smokers who argue that smoking
ammonia, nicotine, tar, and other strange elements that are clearly
dangerous to one's health are in fact making their health stronger, then
that is a personal choice. But I should not suffer from the adverse
consequences of this personal choice, which are immediate in the form of
smoke.

Fourth, activities that lead to business transactions, such as idea
exchange, social capital formation, relational capital building, are needed.
We human beings need different settings and environments such as dinners,
trips, etc. to get to know each other well and see or agree with each
other's points. Cigarettes or even anything that will lead to the
participants' health to deteriorate should be simply taken out.

Finally, if smoking's hazards are proven, and if the smokers are not doing
work when they are smoking, that would worry me as an employer. How and
when will I be able to implement and control my administration if my workers
are not working but smoking for most of the day?

In conclusion, I am not saying that smokers are horrible in everything they
do. They could be or could not be great and effective workers but that is
out of the point. The point is that when they are smoking, they are not,
within the norms of the social rules that govern organizations, working to
reach results. They waste time and put their health in danger when they
smoke. This has more to do with their action of addiction, which they
should clearly do something about asap not only for their own sake but for
the sake of everybody surrounding them. But this does not mean 'everything
the smokers do is horrible.' To suggest something so drastic out of my
argument requires a different type of cognition, which I am curious to
understand.

I am not generalizing the personality traits of smokers. I admit I do not
know much about the smokers per se. What I am shooting for is the immediate
and drastic effects on the working environment they are causing. My focus
has nothing to do with what type of people they are but a lot to do with
what consequences they are causing with their actions. I thought this was
clear and apologize if I offended anyone.

What am I missing in your view? What is it that I do not understand about
yours and that you do not understand about my view, that you find so
offensive?

Thanks.

Emre
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rutherford
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 2/6/02 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications

Blue eyes/brown eyes was an experiment (if you could call it out)
conducted
by Dr someone-or-other (her name escapes me right now) where people were
segregated and treated as lesser beings purely by the colour of their
eyes.
If one had brown eyes, so the activity went, one was naturally a worse
person - in everything that person did, no matter how right or wrong,
good
or bad, evil or pure - and those with blue eyes could do no wrong.

The objective of the exercise was to help people - white people in
particular - to understand that even when they think they are not being
prejudiced against others, they really could be in just about everything
they do.

I used this as an example in response to what you were saying, in
particular
that smokers were horrible people in everything they do. I thought, and
still think, that what you were saying was a gross generalisation based
on
little or no knowledge of the people to whom you referred.

Most of us agree with the sentiments behind your points but the
prejeduce
you excude is blanketing the message you are trying to send.

Phil Rutherford



----- Original Message -----
From: "Emre Yucel" <Emre.Yucel@asu.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


> Could somebody please explain to me what this 'blue eyes/brown eyes'
term

Okay Sharon,
By popular demand, I encourage the smoking discussion to
continue for another day. Please no postings on this topic on February
9th or after (using your local time wherever you are).
Cybercollaborating,
Charles Wankel

-----Original Message-----

If the discussion is moved off list, please add my name to the email
list if the discussion continues because the subject matter material
will be very useful for me in my class on management communication,
conflict resolution (and how to have difficult conversations). I have
not contributed, but I am listening in. The points of view (and distance
between them) provide a fascinating example.

Thank you.

Sharon

Tyrone,

The taxes are not to make a profit but to make it more expensive and hard
to commercialize the product ( or pay for the damage of the product ).

Your second point espouses that each has a right to leave (not be present)
instead of a right to be present. For society to be it requires norms and
individuals that bring together in peaceful manner a diversity of
participants. Society ought to incorporate only norms that extend and
benefit every individual. Thus it has the right to van particular behaviors
damaging to individuals and society. Please note that this implies that one
individuals right can make every other individual change their position.
Discrimination happens when the opposite is true. What determines 'right'
or 'discrimination' depends on what is promoted (inclusion and health) or
(exclusion of health)...

Thus you are free to smoke so long as every individual in the group does
not have a problem with that... and if one individual opposes it, well you
are free to step outside to do whatever it is you want to do after all not
smoking is more healthful...

Those this make sense to you...

Cordially,

Esteban




"Tyrone S. Pitsis" <tyrone.pitsis@uts.edu.au>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on
02/06/2002 10:56:34 PM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>

Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>


To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications


Emre,

1. It is a social experiment where people with Brown eyes are said to be
more intelligent than people with Blue eyes, and the blue eyed people are
made to feel inferior and discriminated against. It is designed to show the
stupidity in discrimination etc.

2. You have a right to leave if you don't want to inhale the second hand
smoke. I totally respect and support your right to leave. I think the point
you missed is that it is hypocrisy to ban cigarette smoking from every
sphere of life while governments still profit through taxes from its
legalized sales - all the while discriminating against people who are
smoking substances deemed fit for sale by the FDA and other government
authorities. Rather, government should be profiting from its' illegalized
sales like it does from other drugs <grin>.


Tyrone S. Pitsis
School of Management
The University of Technology, Sydney
Broadway NSW 2007
Po Box 123
Australia

Tel: +61 2 9514 3395

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and
with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology
Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and
defects.
CRICOS Number: 00099F




____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Phil,

Indeed as you describe the core of the problem rest on resolving the issue
of 'what I want' vs. 'what ___ wants'.

This apparent irresolvable stand creates problems when there exists an
unsustainable situation, like exploitation, or cancerous developments.
Clearly the solution requires the opposite, a situation of sustainable and
complementary symbiosis where everyone wins.

Shifting from resolving what seems good to me now ('what I want') vs what
will be good for me in the long run ('what ___ wants')... becomes part of
the solution. When should this begin? Well I know there was a study at
Stanford that determined that children who deferred gratification became
more successful later in life...

Intriguingly I find that religion has been pushing the notion that being
good eventually pays while being bad eventually leads to losses.

Back to the original point, I hold that resolving for 'what ___ wants' in
fact becomes 'what I want' when the situation is sustainable. Because even
a small profit under sustainable model can accumulate into a fortune...

The last point you make in relation to "arguing for what you want and how
you are going to give it to them" can be sustainable or unsustainable, it
all "depends on what is promoted (inclusion and health) or (exclusion of
health)". Who knows when unsustainable development will be recognized and
shifted into sustainable developments, probably when discovering that
sustainable recourses pay more than exploitation, that prevention cost less
than the remedy. I heard the story of a turnaround somewhere in Africa of
the elephant population when locals realized that a live elephant attracted
tourists and left lots of money...

Cordially,

Esteban









Phillip Rutherford <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on
02/06/2002 10:58:34 PM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>

Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>


To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Industrial agreement and training ramifications


Esteban,

I agree entirely, but what is the solution? When should the intervention
come - after the fact or before it?

One of the difficulties I have in my country (and have experienced in a
number of others) is that management education is centred on those things
that can be taught - that is, what a lot of people call the 'hard' and
quantifiable skills. Very little is done about the 'soft' skills, even
though in my opinion they too can be taught (just a little bit
differently).
And yet it is these 'soft' skills that get so many people into trouble.
Sure, they might be very good at writing submissions and developing
legislation, but when that legislation is wrong (but beautifully written)
they are not chided for incompetence - only awkward thinking.

I am currently reading a book by an ex-politician who said (in words to the
effect that) that the greater part of politics, and in my opinion
management, is not spent in finding out what people want and how they want
it, but in creating better ways of arguing for what you want and how you
are
going to give it to them.


Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Esteban Trevino" <esteban.trevino@neoris.com>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Industrial agreement and training ramifications


Intriguing discussion, on accounting for time-off and on the job and the
desirability of particular activities.

It seems that there exist two basic issue involved:
1- The sustainability of the activity
2- Accountability to the firm

I perceive the issue has much broader implications that relate to the
effectiveness of individuals, the nature of the work done, and the value it
has. Do organizations pay for the actual work done, for the time spent
doing it, for physical presence, for knowledge, for performance, for
innovation or a combination of all these? How does an organization consider
the worker?

Clocking in-out for smokers, to be fair, would also require clocking in-out
when doing work related activities even outside the work environment. Now
what about the business lunches, dinners, or for that matter trips? Should
the worker register 24 hours of work because that is the time required by
the organization (taken away from their family)? What about the situation
where a preoccupation to resolve a nagging issue at work keeps the employee
awake half the night leading to the insight of the solution will they count
that as work? What if they get inspired and dream the solution, will they
clock that in too?

Only a sustainable stand has the logic required to impose itself over less
desirable ones. When taken to the extreme one can easily resolves if the
resulting scenario is sustainable and desirable or becomes exploitative and
detrimental. One way to resolve the issue would be to have incentives for
healthier life-styles (sustainable and desirable business models over the
long run). Unfortunately overall humanity as a whole seems to be heading in
the other direction into sick life-styles (with business models that
exploit opportunities independent of their sustainability over the long
run). Curiously I heard there was a study that showed that the most
profitable and long standing business had had principles and sustainable
practices as their core values.

Getting a desirable one-time customer may be a profitable business model;
though a superior model will have that customer as a repeat, coming back
for their life over a long time.... and an even superior model would even
help extend the life expectancy.

But who knows if instant gratification with quick profits that exploit
current opportunities will get more 'market' than the superior one that
takes longer to achieve. Sustainable deferred gratification seems to be
very limited in society today. Especially in light of the uncertain
future...

Cordially,

Esteban



____________________________________________________________________________

For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/




____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

From: Mike Kiska [mailto:mkiska@jefferson.lib.co.us]

If I remember right, the point Mr. Rutherford originally made before
"smoke got in our eyes" and blurred the whole discussion was something
along the lines of the ramifications of questionable policies a
management group will sometimes make. I would be interested in hearing
from those of you in the business of management education what teaching
points you could make by using Mr. Rutherford's example as a case study.


As a "Leadership" trainer for more than a decade, my mind floods with
possibilities. I'd sure like to hear what you learned folks can supply.
Seems to me it could get right to the heart of the kinds of values you
folks are instilling into your students before you send them out into
the world where they get to deal with folks like me.

Mike Kiska
Training & O.D. Manager - Administrative Services
Jefferson County Public Library

Find us on the Web: http://jefferson.lib.co.us

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

As a fellow researcher in communications and conflict resolution, I
appreciate the willingness to hear views and the wisdom of setting
boundaries.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wankel" <wankelc@optonline.net>

> Okay Sharon,
> By popular demand, I encourage the smoking discussion to continue for
> another day. Please no postings on this topic on February 9th or
> after (using your local time wherever you are). Cybercollaborating,
> Charles Wankel
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> If the discussion is moved off list, please add my name to the email
> list if the discussion continues because the subject matter material
> will be very useful for me in my class on management communication,
> conflict resolution (and how to have difficult conversations). I have
> not contributed, but I am listening in. The points of view (and
> distance between them) provide a fascinating example.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sharon
>