Understood.  The key lies in HHSC's active enforcement. In effect the law allows/requires only for them to state "We're required to ban smoking. Fine. We ban it.  However we will not take limited resources away from patient care for active enforcement, nor enact any penalties on violators. It is within our purview to make such decisions and thus avoid triggering any need for collective bargaining."

There IS one problem with this "foot in the door" approach used for bans and taxes so often over the years: When they can't get anything stronger, Antismokers will accept the initial "crack in the dam" approach, saying "Fine, look, there's no need to actively fight us on this. All we're asking is for is signage. The ban will be 'self-enforcing," or 'All we're asking is 2c/pack for premature infant care.' "  BUT, once enacted it's then easy to come back and say, "Look we ALREADY agreed to this: now we're just making it effective."

Words prohibiting such changes should be incorporated.

-MJM