WDYT Worker's rights vs. Client's autonomy

[Soror]

I'm not changing my mind but for curiosity's sake, I'm asking the hive. I take the opposite stance than my coworkers on this.

Would you be ok being in a house with a client smoking (assuming you don't smoke or live with a smoker)? Would you ask them to refrain or do you believe it is their house so they can do what they want and it is disrespectful to ask them to change their behavior? Meetings are sometimes done outside but this is not always feasible. Meetings are generally 30 minutes or less but sometimes up to an hour.

 

[mmasc]

I would not be able to be inside a house with someone smoking, period. But especially not for 30 minutes. Aside from the exposure to second-hand smoke and its possible effect on my health in the future, smoke makes me physically ill—headache, nausea, severe nasal congestion. So yeah, I’d ask them to not smoke while I’m there, or to meet outside if possible. 

[Indigo Blue]

Could not be in a house with a smoker. I spent my entire childhood riding in cars with both parents smoking with windows up. I side with the non smoker 💯.

[Pam in CT]

I would like an "other" option, please.

Good manners calls for a smoker to refrain from smoking DURING a 30-60 minute meeting, whatever the location -- office building, restaurant, personal residence.  ETA and good manners also entails for good ventilation.

 

I can imagine situations that truly do pitch a worker's rights v client's autonomy -- a bedridden patient whose sole remaining pleasure is his cigarette, with home health aides whose 24/7 care he needs for toileting and bathing, perhaps. But the scenario you describe isn't that.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Pam in CT

[KungFuPanda]

I think we are well past the days where we can, in good conscience, ask anyone to endure second hand smoke. My late brother and his wife are both smokers, but they never smoked in their home or vehicles. 

[City Mouse]

In some states it is illegal to require or force a worker to be around smokers (such as places where it is illegal to smoke inside a bar).  
I would think that a company/service that requires workers to be in a client’s home for any length of time would be able to select individual workers that do not mind being around the second hand smoke.

In the above example of a home healthcare worker and a bedridden patient, I have seen in my recent experiences with parents in nursing homes that the workers who are smokers will take the patients who are smokers outside to the approved smoking area and help them as needed.

[HomeAgain]

Does the worker have a right to a safe environment?

Does the client have the right to force others to accept unsafe conditions?

 

Put like that, the ethical choice is extremely transparent.  Nobody has a right to force others to accept their pollution.

 

ETA: I could not sit there while someone is actively smoking.  My lungs are terrible.  Even being in a closed door environment where someone has been smoking means I will be grabbing my inhaler.  Actively smoking?  No way.  I would have very large concerns for a company that decides to make it a policy or frowns on asking someone to stop.  It brings in a bunch of liabilities for them if it was not part of the job description to begin with.

Edited September 23, 2023 by HomeAgain

[Junie]

I couldn't vote completely honestly.

I do not think it is unfair to ask a worker to be inside a house with a smoker, but neither do I think it is unfair to ask a client not to smoke in their own home.

If a person has a problem with being in homes with allergens, then maybe they should take a different job.  I used to be severely allergic to cats and to wheat.  So a cat in the home or someone baking bread could have been as dangerous to me as cigarette smoke.  Having a job where I was often in other people's homes would not work for me.

On the other hand, I do not think that it is unfair or even unkind or unmannerly to ask a person to refrain from smoking while you are visiting their home.  Unless the worker is at the home uninvited (law enforcement to make an arrest, for example), the worker should be considered a guest and should have the freedom to ask for some accommodations to make them feel comfortable and welcome.

[bolt.]

That's an interesting conflict of best interests. For me, I wouldn't be able to answer without knowing what kind of service this person is recieving and how critical it is to recieve it in-home (vs in some other location).

For example, if you are an occupational therapist bringing someone back to health and mobility, that service is really important, and if they are housebound, even more so, and unrealistic to deliver at another location.

On the other hand, if you are a housecleaner or a plumber, those services are not usually quite so life-critical (although in some cases they are critical) so I'd be more inclined to say a worker can decline a job and a client could seek a smoke-friendly provider.

In most case, I'd be inclined to try and solve the situation practically or socially. I think it's reasonable to ask people to refrain during the 'meeting' itself. If the meeting is longer than is reasonable for that person to go without a smoke, taking a break for that need is also reasonable. Maybe the worker waits outside during the smoke break?

[livetoread]

Just being in a house where someone smokes means you are going to stink like it when you leave. They can refrain from smoking while you are there and it is still hazardous and gross. That smell gets into everything. 

[sassenach]

We have a home health nurse who works in our home caring for ds. Part of our contract is that we agree to provide a safe environment, where she can walk without hazard, has clear exits, and is not exposed to hazardous materials. The agency can drop us if we fail to do so. 

[sassenach]

47 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

I would like an "other" option, please.

Good manners calls for a smoker to refrain from smoking DURING a 30-60 minute meeting, whatever the location -- office building, restaurant, personal residence.  ETA and good manners also entails for good ventilation.

 

I can imagine situations that truly do pitch a worker's rights v client's autonomy -- a bedridden patient whose sole remaining pleasure is his cigarette, with home health aides whose 24/7 care he needs for toileting and bathing, perhaps. But the scenario you describe isn't that.

Smokers are bed ridden all of the time in facilities and they are provided with nicotine gum or patches, but not permitted to smoke. No worker should be forced to endure second hand smoke. If a family member wants to take over for that period, that’s fine. 

[bolt.]

6 minutes ago, sassenach said:

Smokers are bed ridden all of the time in facilities and they are provided with nicotine gum or patches, but not permitted to smoke. No worker should be forced to endure second hand smoke. If a family member wants to take over for that period, that’s fine. 

That's true. It's possible that my views on smoking 'feeling necessary' (and being accommodated) are outdated. 

[Pam in CT]

15 minutes ago, sassenach said:

Smokers are bed ridden all of the time in facilities and they are provided with nicotine gum or patches, but not permitted to smoke. No worker should be forced to endure second hand smoke. If a family member wants to take over for that period, that’s fine. 

Yep, that seems to me like a reasonable balance.

 

 

[marbel]

I agree that this is not simple.  I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke (I grew up with smokers in the family) and don't smell it often anymore. On the rare occasion I'm around it, it's distasteful to me but doesn't cause any more discomfort than any other bad smell. If I am in the home of a smoker, I can smell it even if they are not smoking, and have to shower/wash my hair/wash my clothes after because I don't want to smell like that. But I don't have any reaction. 

If I'm in a home with a cat, though, I will get very itchy and even if I shower afterward, the itching persists for hours. I may have to take benadryl to sleep. If' I'm in a home with mold/mildew, my eyes will itch and I'll get a severe headache. So for *me* those situations would be worse than a person smoking during a 30-60 minute meeting.  Of course these are not known to have dangerous long-term effects as cigarette smoke does, as far as I know. I don't know that being with a smoker for 30-60 minutes once a week is particularly dangerous long-term. Not everyone who lives with a smoker has long-term effects from it, as far as I know. 

So I don't know. Following @Junie: I would not be a candidate for a position visiting homes, because I couldn't control the cat and mildew situation.  

On the other hand, a person  should be able to refrain from smoking for the 30-60 minutes the meeting would last, and I would expect most people would understand and comply with that. But judging by the people I often see walking out of grocery stores, stuffing a cigarette in their mouth and getting ready to light up the *moment* they are out the door, I am not sure everyone would. 

ETA: What about masking? N95s are supposed to filter cigarette smoke/particles?

Edited September 23, 2023 by marbel

[SKL]

Honestly, if I'm spending time in a house where smoking happens all the time, I'm breathing nasty stuff whether the person is smoking at that moment or not.

I think that if the person started smoking in the area where I was working, I'd say something like "I'm so sorry, my eyes are sensitive to smoke, would you mind not smoking while I'm in the room?"

I had a really good, elderly friend who happened to be a smoker.  We met at work, but after I moved on, we would mainly only see each other when I went to her house to do her taxes.  My two choices were either don't see her or be immersed in her cigarette smoke.  So I went, but every time, I would come home smelling like a stale cigarette from the skin out.  I didn't like it, but I liked my friend, so ....

[Soror]

Did you guys guess what side I'm on?

I'm on team I have the right to a safe work environment. I get an instant headache when someone is smoking. I tried it a few times inline with my coworkers views but decided their rights do not override my own. If I have a client that has to smoke I'll offer that we meet outside. 

I think the idea that a worker has to put up with smoke while working is very outdated. We know the effects of second hand smoke. My aunt has COPD from my uncle smoking in the house. I think smoking in a house with nonsmokers is rude and selfish at best. 

If we want to further restrict social workers a d other inhome providers to tolerate smoke or take another position we'll be dealing with even bigger staff shortages. We aren't paid enough to deal without the this. 

My boss has made it clear that I don't have to put up with anything that makes me uncomfortable. Regardless I'd die on this hill. 

[Lecka]

I have received in-home behavior services with workers in my home.

 

I think there is another side where the workers may not provide as good of service if they are not comfortable.  I don’t think this is a conscious thing but I think it does happen.  I think there are things that can just be a distraction.

 

I think there can be ways to look at things where a worker being assertive about something that will allow them to provide a higher quality of work, can be better than a worker who does not feel able to bring something up that would increase their performance.  
 

On the other hand, it’s very vulnerable to have someone come in one’s home.  I think any worker would need to be sensitive to that and consider not saying anything about some circumstances.  
 

So I think there are huge swaths of exceptions, but a lot of the time I think making a positive mutually beneficial atmosphere is worth doing even if it involves bringing some things up that might be awkward.  
 

I think people can “try” to provide the same level of performance but I think it is not realistic if certain things just are going to be a distraction from that.

 

 

[SKL]

If it's about checking on children's safety (or that of vulnerable adults), I think smoking or other noxious things should not prevent kids from getting proper oversight.  But maybe they could provide workers with special masks for such situations.

Edited September 23, 2023 by SKL

[bolt.]

Social workers might be one exception where I would expect some tolerance or accommodation for some smoking.

It seems to me that social work services are a good thing, that reduces harm, not only for 'the client' but often for children in their care. Social workers often struggle to get clients to consent to meetings or interventions at all. In cases like that, I can see that some social workers would be willing to work outside of a healthy or comfortable environment -- because it reduces the barriers between the client and the care they need. It can feel very important not to stress a connection or risk offense in any way.

[Lecka]

Ime I think there are times someone isn’t comfortable to ask something.

 

It can be awkward to ask, but I think it is also awkward if nothing is said.

 

A lot of times something isn’t even a big deal!

 

I have been asked to put my dog away, and I think that’s totally reasonable!  
 

Sometimes people would come at a time that I was distracted and I just wouldn’t think of it being an issue.  
 

For what I was doing, a worker could ask to be transferred to another client, maybe not immediately, but it would happen.

 

I would not want to have someone transfer over something that I would have been happy to change, if asked.  

[Lecka]

I think there is a value to a person being straightforward a lot of the time, though.  
 

I think there are times to be sensitive to others, but it can be patronizing, too, if there is something that is causing a problem.  
 

I think sometimes, if a worker comes across as honest and willing to say something that is awkward, then it can seem like they will be willing to be truthful in other areas, even if it might be difficult to hear.  
 

It does just depend, though.  
 

 

 

[wintermom]

31 minutes ago, Soror said:

Did you guys guess what side I'm on?

I'm on team I have the right to a safe work environment. I get an instant headache when someone is smoking. I tried it a few times inline with my coworkers views but decided their rights do not override my own. If I have a client that has to smoke I'll offer that we meet outside. 

I think the idea that a worker has to put up with smoke while working is very outdated. We know the effects of second hand smoke. My aunt has COPD from my uncle smoking in the house. I think smoking in a house with nonsmokers is rude and selfish at best. 

If we want to further restrict social workers a d other inhome providers to tolerate smoke or take another position we'll be dealing with even bigger staff shortages. We aren't paid enough to deal without the this. 

My boss has made it clear that I don't have to put up with anything that makes me uncomfortable. Regardless I'd die on this hill. 

Are you saying that it is not standard policy at your workplace that clients refrain from smoking during appointments? You shouldn't be placed in a situation that risks your health, so it's great that your boss supports this, but it should be regulated across the workplace. It would also be helpful for this non-smoking information included in all the regular client information materials so it is very clear what the policy is. 

Outside of working situations is voluntary whether you choose to be in a situation where another person smokes. It's different in the workplace, because there is the accumulation of hours potentially spent breathing in second-hand smoke, place it's not "voluntary" for the worker.

[Indigo Blue]

40 minutes ago, Soror said:

Regardless I'd die on this hill. 

Make room for me. There is no reason anyone should ever be without the choice to be around that or not. It’s a carcinogen and it makes some people feel ill. You wouldn’t require someone to endure being around any other type of toxin, such as benzene or any other harmful fume. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Indigo Blue

[Ting Tang]

Maybe the organization that sends their employee out should also send a list of "expectations" or something to the client?  

[BusyMom5]

I would ask that they not smoke, as I am allergic.  I have such a strong sense of smell it makes me sick.  

[Grace Hopper]

Quick answer - not a situation I would force. I’d honestly do my best to place a worker that either didn’t mind or also smokes. If I didn’t have a worker available for that, I’d decline taking on the client. 

ETA my vote would have to be a third option, neither is fair

Now off to read through everyone else’s thoughts. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Grace Hopper

[Grace Hopper]

More thoughts…

I am extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke, it triggers a headache, filling sinus cavities with mucus that has on occasion developed into a sinus infection. For me, it’s not about whether or not a client smokes when I’m there. I can’t even go into a home/room where someone previously smoked. Same trigger, though active smoke is worse. 
 

As a client/patient, if the worker were the smoker, I couldn’t work in close proximity to someone who had a clinging aroma of cigarette smoke in their hair or clothing. I’m really that sensitive. I could maybe get by for under 10 minutes, but not for 60 or even 30 minutes. I’m really that sensitive. I guess it’s a good reminder to me that if I ever find myself in need of home health services, to try to request a non smoker. (Sorry to sound prejudiced against smokers, but….breathing is not optional.)

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Junie said:

If a person has a problem with being in homes with allergens, then maybe they should take a different job.  I used to be severely allergic to cats and to wheat.  So a cat in the home or someone baking bread could have been as dangerous to me as cigarette smoke. 

Cigarette smoke is in a different category than allergens though. Some people are more immediately sensitive than others, but it’s harmful to everyone, unlike cats and bread. It seems OSHA regulations would apply and workers would have the right to be protected. It would be more akin to asbestos exposure. 

[Catwoman]

2 hours ago, Soror said:

Did you guys guess what side I'm on?

I'm on team I have the right to a safe work environment. I get an instant headache when someone is smoking. I tried it a few times inline with my coworkers views but decided their rights do not override my own. If I have a client that has to smoke I'll offer that we meet outside. 

I think the idea that a worker has to put up with smoke while working is very outdated. We know the effects of second hand smoke. My aunt has COPD from my uncle smoking in the house. I think smoking in a house with nonsmokers is rude and selfish at best. 

If we want to further restrict social workers a d other inhome providers to tolerate smoke or take another position we'll be dealing with even bigger staff shortages. We aren't paid enough to deal without the this. 

My boss has made it clear that I don't have to put up with anything that makes me uncomfortable. Regardless I'd die on this hill. 

I can understand not wanting people to be smoking while you're in their home, but you can't regulate whether or not they smoke in their own home when you're not there, so I guess I'm wondering if you are willing to enter the home of a smoker at any time.

I mean, if they are rushing to put out their cigarettes when they hear you ring their doorbell, there will still be smoke wafting around the room when you walk in, and even if they haven't been smoking for a while, the smell will still linger in the house.

Could you wear a good quality mask when you enter smokers' homes? (I would still request that they not smoke while you are there, if it really bothers you, but the mask might help to mitigate the problem.)

[KSera]

30 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Could you wear a good quality mask when you enter smokers' homes? (I would still request that they not smoke while you are there, if it really bothers you, but the mask might help to mitigate the problem.)

This is the route I would go in this kind of client situation where the client relationship may be tenuous but necessary and I didn’t want to rock the boat. An N95 will block the vast majority of harmful smoke particles, but it won’t block the smell.

[Shelydon]

Home health workers of all types have to work in the homes of smokers. Nursing, PT, OT, speech therapy visit homes multiple times a week to provide therapy for both adults and children.  Frequently the children live in homes of smokers or the adult patients are smokers. Especially in the case where children are receiving care, adults in the home will frequently smoke. It's unfortunate, but if every therapist or nurse bailed out, then those kids would never be seen. Wearing a good mask can help a lot. 

[Soror]

I see so many assumptions. 

I'm not looking for advice on what to do. I know people here can't quite help themselves when they think someone should do things differently. Things are going fine with my clients and boss. As I said it's just a curiosity.

The vast majority of my clients love me. I just had another tell me last week that they like me because I treat them like a human. You can let a client smoke in their home with you and still not treat them respectfully. It is the tone you take, how you act, and the words you use. There is far more than just letting them smoke in the room with you.  I closed 2 cases in the last couple of weeks and both were sad for me to go. I don't have tenuous relationships with my clients. 

I talk to my clients respectfully. I tell them truthfully I get a headache from the smoke so if you have to smoke while I'm here we'll talk outside. Now, talking outside isn't always ideal but I offer that as a compromise. Smokers have to refrain from smoking all the time. The current one I have that I asked not to smoke with me has a job where they have to go for hours without smoking. I'm usually there 3 times a week for 30 ish minutes each time. 

As other posters mentioned it is not at all akin to allergies. Cigarette smoke is bad for everyone. It is cancerous. Now, others may not care because they smoke or they or around smokers, or they are just less sensitive. 

[SHP]

Honestly, IME smokers are the most entitled demographic I have encountered. See all the battles against banning smoking in public because smokers felt their right to their addiction trumped the rights of literally everyone else.

That said, I would expect the agency to have clear expectations of client behavior spelled out and to drop clients who do not comply. If the person is so self centered that they cannot forego a cigarette for a short time while receiving services then they have to find a different agency. If they cannot find an agency but need the services to be independent they will be faced with hirering, training, and paying their own staff or giving up their independence. At this point in my life I no longer care. There are patches, gum, and have been public health programs to stop smoking around for decades.

No one has the right to engage in behavior that inflicts harm on others.

 

I am very allergic to smoke and until it was illegal in public places I was not safe to be in public. And when the science came out and people started screaming about their rights > than mine to live, well, I would expect that most people would get testy. Sorry not sorry you have an addiction. That does not give you more rights than me. 

[Melissa Louise]

Second hand smoking is a work health and safety issue.

Client can smoke.

They just can't access a worker indoors and smoke. They could use a nicotine patch or gum during the meetings. 

An employee who allows their employees to be exposed to a toxin in the workplace is negligent. 

[Faith-manor]

Is m terribly allergic. I used to volunteer at a food pantry to deliver groceries to people who couldn't drive. I had to give it up because inevitably I would have to carry grocery bags into people homes. I would get so sick, and had numerous bouts of bronchitis. So if I had a paid position, it would be a hard no going into smokers' homes.

[TravelingChris]

I couldn't go  into smoker's houses.  I have asthma and smoking is a the worst trigger for me.

[Melissa Louise]

It's not about allergies.

It's a carcinogen. 

Exposure to secondhand smoke can give you cancer. 

Employers should not expose their workers to known carcinogens, and if people would like social workers, health aides, etc. exposed, due to patient autonomy, they'd better be good with those same workers receiving hazard pay. A very high level of hazard pay.

It's unacceptable to expose workers to known carcinogens. 

 

 

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's not about allergies.

It's a carcinogen. 

Exposure to secondhand smoke can give you cancer. 

Employers should not expose their workers to known carcinogens, and if people would like social workers, health aides, etc. exposed, due to patient autonomy, they'd better be good with those same workers receiving hazard pay. A very high level of hazard pay.

It's unacceptable to expose workers to known carcinogens. 

 

 

I agree with you and I have noticed that, at least where I live, unless one is having an immediate anaphylaxis reaction* then there is often a lack of ability to see current actions as linked to a possible future consequence. It has to be made illegal and then there has to be enough time for those who are unable to see long term consequences to get over it for it and accept that they have to change their behavior. 

People are selfish and shortsighted. 

 

 

*and even then there are people who would refuse to acknowledge that there is a connection.

[Katy]

I’m surprised this is even a question. The last time we had many in-home services we had a long list of requirements, including not smoking, not wearing perfumes or colognes the days they came over, not burning candles or running oil diffusers, and not using electronic devices while they were there so we wouldn’t waste their time. 

[Amethyst]

I suppose I read the question envisioning a social worker or CPS coming to someone’s home. Extremely stressful for the home owner kind of situation where they were chain smoking out of nervousness. So, I voted to allow smoking for the home owner but in reality, I think a third option is what I would have preferred. Even in the especially stressful situation, politely ask if we can take this discussion outdoors. Bitter cold weather? Might be tough, maybe please open a window. I answered viewing it from the home owner, and they felt like they were already being put in a difficult situation. So, I think context is important. If I’m going in to do PT on someone who is expecting me, is different than if I’m going in possibly removing their children. 

[Ting Tang]

17 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's not about allergies.

It's a carcinogen. 

Exposure to secondhand smoke can give you cancer. 

Employers should not expose their workers to known carcinogens, and if people would like social workers, health aides, etc. exposed, due to patient autonomy, they'd better be good with those same workers receiving hazard pay. A very high level of hazard pay.

It's unacceptable to expose workers to known carcinogens. 

 

 

Might I add that, at least from my experience, these types of jobs are not exactly lucrative.  I left social services because I felt the culture was to be a martyr in too many ways.  

[KSera]

17 hours ago, Soror said:

I don't have tenuous relationships with my clients. 

.

.

As other posters mentioned it is not at all akin to allergies. Cigarette smoke is bad for everyone. It is cancerous.

I was the one who used the phrase “tenuous relationships”, so you might be replying to me? I wanted to clarify that I was thinking of potential difficult circumstances like amethyst mentioned, where you are there to check on the kids and there is potential for removal. Perhaps that’s not a kind of social work you’re ever involved in though. If clients have invited you to be there, that’s a different situation. 

At the same time, I’m also one of the “as other posters mentioned” you refer to, who made the point one can’t compare it to being allergic to cats or wheat because it’s harmful to everyone. Cigarette smoke would be a major issue for me as well. 
 

The discussion made me curious what the rules are with masking. If a social worker wants clients to wear a mask while she is inside to protect her own health, can she request that? Conversely, if the client requests the social worker wear a mask while inside, is there a rule that the social worker should abide by that? There are some parallels and I wonder how that’s handled. 

[Soror]

4 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Might I add that, at least from my experience, these types of jobs are not exactly lucrative.  I left social services because I felt the culture was to be a martyr in too many ways.  

Yes, it's a lot like teaching. Everyone has an opinion about how you are doing it wrong but few want to step up to do it and often those opinions are not based on facts but conjecture. Oh, you're already working for peanuts why don't you sacrifice your health while you're at it? Then people wonder why aren't lining up for the jobs.  

3 hours ago, KSera said:

I was the one who used the phrase “tenuous relationships”, so you might be replying to me? I wanted to clarify that I was thinking of potential difficult circumstances like amethyst mentioned, where you are there to check on the kids and there is potential for removal. Perhaps that’s not a kind of social work you’re ever involved in though. If clients have invited you to be there, that’s a different situation. 

At the same time, I’m also one of the “as other posters mentioned” you refer to, who made the point one can’t compare it to being allergic to cats or wheat because it’s harmful to everyone. Cigarette smoke would be a major issue for me as well. 
 

The discussion made me curious what the rules are with masking. If a social worker wants clients to wear a mask while she is inside to protect her own health, can she request that? Conversely, if the client requests the social worker wear a mask while inside, is there a rule that the social worker should abide by that? There are some parallels and I wonder how that’s handled. 

I know at the height of the pandemic they switched to mostly phone visits, past that I'm not sure. Considering that people were forced to mask when accessing any other services I can't see why social services would be any different. Why should workers deserve less protection because their work is in someone's home? This doesn't dictate what one has to do the rest of the time but while they are accessing services. However, the first step would be to see if a compromise could be reached- with distance, masking, and outside meetings. 

------------------------------

I don't remove anyone from their homes. Even in DFS, at least here, that is a small part of what they do. I don't know why everyone jumps to that.

 

[Ting Tang]

On 9/24/2023 at 2:45 PM, Soror said:

Yes, it's a lot like teaching. Everyone has an opinion about how you are doing it wrong but few want to step up to do it and often those opinions are not based on facts but conjecture. Oh, you're already working for peanuts why don't you sacrifice your health while you're at it? Then people wonder why aren't lining up for the jobs.  

I know at the height of the pandemic they switched to mostly phone visits, past that I'm not sure. Considering that people were forced to mask when accessing any other services I can't see why social services would be any different. Why should workers deserve less protection because their work is in someone's home? This doesn't dictate what one has to do the rest of the time but while they are accessing services. However, the first step would be to see if a compromise could be reached- with distance, masking, and outside meetings. 

------------------------------

I don't remove anyone from their homes. Even in DFS, at least here, that is a small part of what they do. I don't know why everyone jumps to that.

 

Yes.  And your health is everything.  My father is dealing with the consequences of a lifetime of smoking---cancer treatments and surgeries wrecked his body. It is not pretty.  

[ScoutTN]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:52 AM, Junie said:

I couldn't vote completely honestly.

I do not think it is unfair to ask a worker to be inside a house with a smoker, but neither do I think it is unfair to ask a client not to smoke in their own home.

If a person has a problem with being in homes with allergens, then maybe they should take a different job.  I used to be severely allergic to cats and to wheat.  So a cat in the home or someone baking bread could have been as dangerous to me as cigarette smoke.  Having a job where I was often in other people's homes would not work for me.

On the other hand, I do not think that it is unfair or even unkind or unmannerly to ask a person to refrain from smoking while you are visiting their home.  Unless the worker is at the home uninvited (law enforcement to make an arrest, for example), the worker should be considered a guest and should have the freedom to ask for some accommodations to make them feel comfortable and welcome.

Not an apples to apples comparison. Cats and wheat are not deadly or toxic for the vast majority of people. Cigarette smoke is a powerful and well documented danger to anyone and everyone who is exposed to it.