The unfairness of smoking breaks!!!

vyle

Azari wrote: »

The crux of this matter is whether or not the smokers are pulling their weight within the organisation.

In situations such as the one you described earlier, where your workload increases dramatically to accommodate the smokers then you clearly have a legitimate grievance. Similarly in the case of the person who never got a break whilst the smokers did. (Although, to be honest, if that person cannot tell their supervisor that they would appreciate a similar break to the smokers and have that arranged there is something amiss with their working environment).

Where people are assigned a set amount of work and are allowed to arrange the timing as they see fit and succeed in doing so, whining about breaks they take is petty, small minded and, to be blunt, none of the business of the whiner.
.

I agree, saying much the same in post #42

There will be lazy smokers and hard working smokers, the same as lazy and hard working non-smokers. In fact back in my office days I did work with a guy and had no idea he was a smoker because he never once had one during work hours. I only found out when he mentioned that he would never do it at work because he was paid to do a job, and while on company time, he'd DO the job.

he looked at smoking as something he did to unwind after work, much like having a drink. He was really old school.

Then again, I've worked with people who have shown up to work !!!!ed, as well. Takes all sorts.

nicknak123

Some of the replies sound very childish, replies like 'it's not fair', 'He/she's had a longer break than me'

Some comments like 'smokers will die sooner' are unkind..Ok some smokers will get health problems, but many won't - Seems like some people almost wish bad things upon smokers. Could this possibly be to make themselves feel better about not smoking ?

Smokers are doing nothing to hurt others. No longer can you use the old passive-smoking argument anymore as non-smokers have forced smoking to become almost discrimated against.

Smokers stand outside in the rain (yes this is their choice) but they haven't really got a choice have they ? & before someone says it YES smokers could give up but this is their CHOICE. It is not easy to justify smoking but it is an individuals choice.

What are you going to find objectionable next ? Should overweight people be forced to eat in private ?? Should people who like a drink be made to stand in the corner ?

As for smoking breaks..It is possible for staff to be treated as grown ups at work. Many workplaces could become (and are) places where staff are allowed to have breaks when they want/need one. The work need not be affected. Obviously this may not be suitable for all types of workers but there are places like this.

To all the smoker-haters - Is smoking really the problem ? or is it possible that you are making a problem where one wouldn't exist otherwise ?

cavework

I like the last post.
We smokers put up with the health freak ' I must eat my Bio degradible Yoghurt before I can even contemplate work' mindset or the' OHH I am so healthy , give up the terrible weed' ranters every time we step out of the door.
Then they spout 'NHS costs .. smoking related deseases and we are paying.. while some consume vast amounts of anti depressants , paracitamol .. or ask their employer for the special chair and knee rest to enable them to use a computer for 8 hours a day.
Getting up and walking about has proved to be cheaper!
Then we get the 'Oh my bio degradable yoghurt and healthy lifestyle means I have a far worse cold than you nicotine inhaling addicts and I need 2 weeks off work with a huge dose of vitamins (here come the girls) , organic broccoli soup and a smog free enviroment to recover .. because my body is a temple.
Lay off the smokers ..until the Gov can afford to ban it, which they never will.. ask yourself?
If someone came up with a tablet that meant no one had any vices, fags , drink, over eating .. How long before there would be a tax on breathing?

missesther

davidlizard wrote: »

The more they smoke, the more tax they are paying. Which means that is less tax you will need to pay. And many of them kindly turn up their toes earlier in life keeping pension contributions down.

Smokers contribute £10bn in tax to the economy, but require just £2bn in NHS treatment. Divide this £8bn around the UKs 26 million income tax payers and that means £300 less tax we pay.

Enough for a weekend break away in Europe.

Ha!

The idea that the government would REDUCE tax because it's getting enough in from smokers....

Ha!

proactive

cavework wrote: »

Then they spout 'NHS costs .. smoking related deseases and we are paying.. while some consume vast amounts of anti depressants , paracitamol .. or ask their employer for the special chair and knee rest to enable them to use a computer for 8 hours a day.

although i'd venture that there are some smokers who consume anti-depressants, paracetamol and use special chairs and knee rests as well, just as there are non-smokers who don't do all the things you've kindly mentioned.

Dognobs

I am a ex smoker and the department I work in at ASDA is VERY busy. all but two of us smoke and we always have to hold the fort while the others pop off for a fag break It take 5 mins just to walk out there remember they have to get a coffee to go with the fag. I got moand at the other day as I was 5 mins late back from my 20 min break (which the smokers also take) because god forbid I went to the toilet after my break! Because most of the managers smoke a blind eye is turned! This is changing as the new GSM hates smokers!

Tigsteroonie

There seems to be a sensible attitude in my workplace of allowing smoking breaks, but taking them into account when measuring performance (i.e. the person who takes 3x 10minute smoking breaks a day is effectively 30minutes less effective a worker).

proactive

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

(i.e. the person who takes 3x 10minute smoking breaks a day is effectively 30minutes less effective a worker).

such a method requires a fixed productivity per minute by all workers though, and since everyone is by nature different (some work harder, some work less, some work faster, some work slower and so on) it is essentially a meaningless calculation.

custardy

Valli wrote: »

You know when you're drawing your pension at 80 and they're 6 feet under and part of the reason your pension is as good as it is is because the pension provider isn't paying their pension, will you be moaning then?

And no, I don't smoke! It's swings and roundabouts, dearie!

what if i get hit by a car driven by a smoker and die.
they get the breaks and the pension!

on a serious note. smoke breaks should be part of the shift/contract break allowance

Tigsteroonie

proactive wrote: »

such a method requires a fixed productivity per minute by all workers though, and since everyone is by nature different (some work harder, some work less, some work faster, some work slower and so on) it is essentially a meaningless calculation.

Given that performance measures (when not statistics-based) are purely subjective anyway, does that matter? The managers decide whether someone is a good performer, an average performer, or a poor performer. Being seen taking 30 minutes out of the paid working day is going to affect that opinion.