fitzscoob

Can I just ask why you think it's acceptable for an employer to foot the bill for staff smoking habits? Nothing to do with laziness, you show me someone who can work at 200% pace for an hour after a 5 minute *** break and I'll buy the guys a box of 10 each per day.

Got nothing against smokers at all, each to their own, just not on my time.

Kwik

iTrader: (10)

It's an un-written rule where I work that smokers basically do not have a break and non-smokers take their hour or 1/2 hour as they please. I eat my lunch at my desk still working away, I couldn't smoke and take a lunch break that would take the ****.
When its quiet I'm ok with people popping to the local shop, reading the paper etc because when it gets busy we all pull together and they know I expect them to be flexible as I am.

Turbohot

Sorry, Lisa. I missed your post.

Regardless of who smokes (you, I or anyone else- it makes no difference), the Government has the authority to pass the bill. If the Goverment passes that bill, it can compel every organisation to enforce it. That is why I involved the Government in it. Now, when I thought of involving Government pressure with the time limited *** break, I was aiming at the serial p!sstakers who take half hour for a standalone *** break (on top of their contracted breaks), because they want to chat **** with their colleagues over a *** or something as nonsense as that, and ignore work. I didn't mean to target any non-p!sstakers. I mean, non-p!sstakers won't abuse the time anyway, so they should have no problem with this law being passed. However, I don't have any authority to tell the Government to pass any bill, so the smokers are potentially safe.

Regarding why you should have any less break time than others, I don't know where that came from, as that is not what I was implying. I have posted where I quoted Andy that I was hypothesising extra two breaks on top of your regular breaks that you fit your smoking within. In that sense, I am actually doing a favour to the smokers like you, as you will get extra two 5 minutes breaks to cane two more. If you don't want to use them for smoking extra two ****, that's up to you. But if you did, there won't be any problem.


My first post that you quoted bears some anti-smoker sentiment due to it being tight on time (merely 5 mins) for extra two *** breaks. I am tight over a standalone *** break time because some do take a p!ss, as I said above. Some smokers don't take a p!ss, and that is cool. I know both sorts, because I have worked/still work with both sorts. One of the places I work has no limitation on *** breaks or any breaks. People manage their own time. Almost everyone there is very good with it, and it works well for that organisation. But there are a couple of people who do take a p!ss. One goes off to get her nails done for an hour on her *** break, and talks complete cack with the manicurist. We all know that the number of *** breaks aren't a problem for that workplace; as long as they are not too frequent, and as long as ones makes up for that time- although the written work policy suggests that the employee only gets 20 minutes unpaid lunch break over 7 hours work, and that's it. You see, this nailpampered employee is taking a p!ss, and such people don't go missing under the radar. Another one just takes too long to finish her normal work, and then works longer to build her TOIL. She doesn't smoke, but so what. She still is a problem employee.


Therefore, no one needs to have any less break than anyone else, and the smokers aren't 3rd grade citizens. I have smoked in past (I still feel like smoking sometimes), and smoking didn't turn me into some kind of demon. Smoker or not, everyone should have equal breaks.

albob

DON'T call me SHIRLEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Hi Swati, what you originally posted was this comment before Andy had put me right.

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...24&postcount=7

Rightly or wrongly (the latter as turns out), I didn't take your comment as you intended it to be, and read it as if you were saying that smokers should only get 2x5 minute breaks all day, not this on top of their scheduled breaks, hence if that were to be the case, I would have less break time than non-smokers. Never mind, it's easy to misinterpret the written word.

Anyhow, my opinion still remains the same in that I don't think the government should get involved. They are proven to be anti-smoking and I could just imagine them trying to stop people being allowed to smoke while at work full stop if they could find a way. The government already have law in place for minimum breaks, and that is where their involvement should end. After that, it is up to individual employers to set their breaks and imo, they should be fair with neither smoker or non smoker getting any better deal.

I am so used to having set, rigid breaks, that it is a bit alien this notion of having time away from work on top of that. That is not to say I never take a couple of minutes out to speak to people in passing, but that is the environment I work in, and not a break as such, and it's inside so not an opportunity for a cheeky extra smoke. If a workplace allows for added smoke breaks they should give the same time to non smokers to go for a drink or sit down or whatever, if not, then I suggest those non smokers complain.

Your last point is bang on, and the same as I am saying. Breaks should be the same for all, regardless of what they are used for.

ScoobySteve69

iTrader: (13)

I hear the mention of 5 min *** breaks??? Where I work, by the time the smoker walks off the shop floor, changes footwear, gets the compulsory accompanying coffee, gets to the smoke hut and gets back, it`s a min of 20 mins

My sister works part time at a doctors surgery and the WHOLE SITE is non smoking. She could even get done if she lit up in her car on the carpark! That`s my sort of workplace

urban

iTrader: (1)

We only have a few smokers in work.
I assume they smoke on the way to work, they get one break in the morning and one in the afternoon - this takes them 5-10 mins each time

fitzscoob

I think my point of view is a little different to those working in an office environment. I run a factory, and as such the staff are required to work on certain jobs as a team.

If people are working in pairs and 1 nips off for a ***, the whole production line comes to a halt. Anyone working in manufacturing in the UK knows its hard enough without half your staff dictating that they're having extra breaks during the course of a day to have a ***.

I'm sure office environments are different, but factory life isnt as pleasant or relaxed.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

I'll vouch for that. Most factories and warehouses are sh1tholes!

urban

iTrader: (1)

Factories - yes, fair enough, especially production lines.
You should only be allowed to smoke at lunch time.

LEO-RS

If he sits in front of a screen all day then he is surely entitled to eye breaks, what he does in that time away from the screen is therefore irrelevant.

H&S and all that. My company policy is 5mins eye break every 45mins, no one bats an eyelid at the smokers taking 15min breaks every hour.

As long as the work is getting done, what's the problem?

Leslie

I imagine it depends how badly hooked he is. If he is a very heavy smoker, it won't be long after he gets back that he will be gasping for another cigarette.

It is something he has to deal with himself, giving up is the real answer of course!

Les

Littleted

Chinese guy I worked with was a chain smoker like most Chinese LOL

I worked out he only did a 3 day week,

Sack him or have a quiet word in his shell like

WRX_Dazza

...so he didn't actually smoke then?

finalzero

I used to smoke, social smoker if you will i.e. someone who had the odd ciggy break at work to cope with the demand of going mad from looking lots of code on a screen all day.

But since I quit I realised who anti-social and anti-office it is...you smell like a stale fart for ages and your breath stinks, coupled with that the amount of time you take out in a day adds up.

I don't mind smokers, just don't do it in my face and I personally feel it makes you lazy over time...ex smokers always tend to be the harshest on other smokers lol

Carlh

my boss allows me to go out for a cig, but then im pretty productive and im out for 3 or 4 minutes (including going down two flights of stairs to go out and back in). Most of the time, he comes out with me, walk around the car park. Gets away from our computers and allows us to think about any issues we have. Stepping outside the box.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Does he have a stop watch with him?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I wonder if people would be so understandng if said individual was popping out for a pint every hour or to shoot up?

urban

iTrader: (1)

Probably not a fair comparison to make

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

I'm with F1 on this one - if someone came into work reeking of alcohol, smelling of hash, or stinking of BO, I would be compelled to call them into my office and have a word with them. It seems there is an expectation that turning in reeking of stale smoke is acceptable.

My other pet hate is people who smoke while in transit between the office blocks and on-site smoking area - it seems to me that when one or two start this and it goes unchecked others feel it gives them approval to follow suit. I work in an organisation which has a very hierarchical structure, if managers or senior managers flex the rules, junior members of staff and contractors are very swift to adopt the same malpractices.

I think smoking should be outlawed in the workplace entirely - I have observed a number of 'speed' smokers who if they are on a 5 minute smoke break and can smoke a cigarette in 2 minutes, will ensure they have two or perhaps try and smoke three **** during their break. I pity any non-smoker having to share an office with these people.

I still remember my early days in employment where it was acceptable to smoke while sat at your desk, and ashtrays were available on desks. I worked in a large open plan office where there were around 20 people who smoked, all at varying times, it would have been difficult to identify a point in the day during core hours where there was not someone smoking in the office.

Yes - I am a former smoker.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Cigarettes are legal and addictive

Alcohol is legal and addictive

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Really!

I think the difference is, if somebody was under the influence of alcohol, it could reduce their ability to do their job, perhaps they could even become a health and safety risk depending upon how pissed they are. Smoking, in my experience, doesn't carry those risks, so not really the same thing.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Yes - however.
If a smoker has say 3 cigarettes during the morning and hasn't had any breakfast he'll still be himself by lunch.
In this comparison of yours, said person has 3 pints in the morning - chances are his ability to work will be different by lunch.

SirFozzalot

Sources of ignition (matches, lighters etc.) are banned where I work (Petrochem Industry). The designated smoke "huts" have electric lighters in them but they are on timers and only activate during official break times. This came about after a lot of smokers were just taking the pi$$ and smoking all the time.

urban

iTrader: (1)

What an excellent idea

ScoobySteve69

iTrader: (13)

That`s awesome

Turbohot

Excellent idea. It matches (excuse the pun) my wavelength.


f_1, fagging can't be compared to boozing, but there's no doubt that it is a filthy habit, even when it doesn't turn a fagger into a demon or something. It really is a shame that smoking is bad for health, because smokers will tell that it is actually very enjoyable; often compared to sex. However, it is a filthy and a self-harming habit; due to what it does to the smoker's health. Passive smoking harms others, too. Even if I start to smoke again, I won't disagree with that.

No wonder the Government is tough on smoking, so should it be. I appreciate anyone being tough on it with any excuse e.g. being tight on *** breaks. Anyone discouraging it is really a well-wisher, not a foe. I don't care if the smokers see their @rse on that.

I have no problems with the smokers. There are some very nice and intelligent smokers in this world, although I don't mean to imply that every intelligent person is nice, because that is simply not true. At least tobacco smokers don't lose their heads like a lot of p!ssheads do. But it doesn't mean that smoking is a great habit, and by putting any type of sanction on it, you are curbing people's basic needs, natural functions and their essential human rights. Its not like telling someone not to got for a wee, or have less/shorter wee breaks during work.

Nurse Gladys

Very interesting read - thank you!

I have just started in a company that has recently been taken over. Whereas before the staff were free to wander in and out as and when they liked, the new bosses quickly put pay to that.

First the smoking shelter was removed, then the staff, who all had a '10 minute' break twice a day, were told if they wanted to smoke the breaks would have to come out of their 1 hour lunch break.

As a non smoker it made made for interesting viewing - especially the non smokers kicking off - they were complaining that they needed a break away from their computer - after less than an hour in the office. When I enquired why it was 'because they needed to rest their eyes' which is why they went out with the smokers. I suggested at 18 and less than an hour infront of a VDU they ought to see an optician. I also suggested they take a pile of my filing if they needed a computer break.......

Oh and for the record employers do not have to employ smokers, let alone allow them to have a break for one!

corradoboy

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...ff/DG_10029451

http://www.freelanceadvisor.co.uk/go...bank-holidays/