is your boss going to give you smoking breaks next year?

rubadub

when the ban comes in are you going to be allowed smoking breaks? if so how long and how frequent? are non-smokers going to get breaks too?

also do you know anybody here or abroad whose company tolerates drinking while working, just talking one or 2 pints a day.

i heard its done in germany and some in australia too.

most here tolerate nicotine and caffeine use on the job

Bard

You're entitled to a certain amount of break time in a working day - if I recall correctly, it's 20 minutes for every 4 hours worked (I could be wrong there). Whether or not you smoke has no affect on this - and rightly so. In fairness, everyone is at their job to work. Why should smokers get more breaks than non-smokers?

When the ban comes into force next year it won't be up to employers whether employees will get "smoke breaks" or not. They'll still have to get the breaks that they are legally entitled to and they can use those breaks to smoke if they wish. The difference will be that the law will state that they'll have to leave the premises if they wish to use them to smoke.

And no, most employers will not allow you to drink alcohol while working - and again, rightly so. Like it or not, believe it or not, alcohol impairs judgement and co-ordination. Allowing your employees to drink while on the job is a recipe for disaster.

Coffee is a different matter, as caffeine is a natural stimulant - keeping you more awake - and it's obviously useful therefore, for certain employers to have their coffee drinking employees.

BuffyBot

I don't think I've ever worked anywhere that allows extra smoke breaks over and above your normal breaks. It's a case of what you do with your normal breaktime is your desicion!

BKtje

Used to work in BK (nothing to do with my nick ), infact i was an assistant manager there. All the managers apart from myself were smokers, therefore they got smoke breaks. When the crew saw this (before my time) they demanded smoke breaks and got them. So after that any crew member who was a smoker (with a smoker manager on duty) were given smoke break while the none smokers didnt. Now as the only non smoking manager there i felt a little odd not giving smoke breaks (so eventually i did), however i gave the non smokers a 'get away from the smokers' break

Now tbh if you wanna smoke use your break time, i dare say a lot of people will get a special smoke break and the none smokers will lose out. We'll see tho.

woolymammoth

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/employment_rights/hours_breaks_sundays.html

you should call in to your local citizens information centre for
something more up to date though.

tbh, i don't think it'll ever happen, nomatter how much somkers
complain. you get your break to do what you want.

DapperGent

My workplace isn't regimented at all anyone can wander off a break whenever they want, theres a TV room, relaxation/reading room and a smoking room where yours truly spends most of his break time.

The break system is free and easy so I think because of that nobody takes advantage at all. I might go for a smoke once every two hours which I suppose broadly coincides with the legislation.

I think they have to take away the smoking room from next year though so I guess it'll be outside I'll be. Hope the ****ing lift doesn't break again. These lungs no longer have the moxy for stairs.

Bard

Originally posted by DapperGent
Hope the ****ing lift doesn't break again. These lungs no longer have the moxy for stairs.

If you're that bad,... have you considered giving up smoking?

A gin and orange, a lemon squash and a scotch and water please!

Ice and lemon in the gin? Orange juice, sparkling orange or Club Orange? Ice in the scotch?

Yes, I know it's from Fawlty Towers...

Victor

Originally posted by Bard
Coffee is a different matter, as caffeine is a natural stimulant - keeping you more awake - and it's obviously useful therefore, for certain employers to have their coffee drinking employees.

While a stimulant, the pronglonged use of coffee does not improve overall productivity.

mechanima

And no, most employers will not allow you to drink alcohol while working - and again, rightly so. Like it or not, believe it or not, alcohol impairs judgement and co-ordination. Allowing your employees to drink while on the job is a recipe for disaster.

Coffee is a different matter, as caffeine is a natural stimulant - keeping you more awake - and it's obviously useful therefore, for certain employers to have their coffee drinking employees.

Problem here, you see for a smoker not to smoke impairs judgement, co-ordination and concentration. That is a measureable medical reality.

Now don't all the "anti-smokers" look at me, because I don't smoke, I can't, I have early onset emphysema from smoking (and as I am a lady, exactly HOW early is my own business ;o) ).

However the fact that I cannot smoke, and rather unusually managed to give it up first try, does not change the reality of smoking as an addiction and how it affects the performance of the individual.

Recently I have been doing some work for a company that has long intensive shifts and does not allow "smoke breaks". I honestly feel this impairs productivity.

When I smoked, after 4 hours I would have been certifiable! That's just the reality of addiction.

I believe companies need to think outside the box on this one and be prepared to offer smoke-breaks in return for either extra hours or appropriate wage deduction.

The truth is that if they are prepared to do so they will get more and better work out of their smokers AND a little bonus in terms of deductions/extra hours to make up for the inconvenience.

G

DapperGent

Originally posted by Bard
If you're that bad,... have you considered giving up smoking?

No I'm actually the only smoker in the entire world who's never considered giving up smoking.

Trebor

Originally posted by mechanima
Problem here, you see for a smoker not to smoke impairs judgement, co-ordination and concentration. That is a measureable medical reality.

Now don't all the "anti-smokers" look at me, because I don't smoke, I can't, I have early onset emphysema from smoking (and as I am a lady, exactly HOW early is my own business ;o) ).

However the fact that I cannot smoke, and rather unusually managed to give it up first try, does not change the reality of smoking as an addiction and how it affects the performance of the individual.

Recently I have been doing some work for a company that has long intensive shifts and does not allow "smoke breaks". I honestly feel this impairs productivity.

When I smoked, after 4 hours I would have been certifiable! That's just the reality of addiction.

I believe companies need to think outside the box on this one and be prepared to offer smoke-breaks in return for either extra hours or appropriate wage deduction.

The truth is that if they are prepared to do so they will get more and better work out of their smokers AND a little bonus in terms of deductions/extra hours to make up for the inconvenience.

G [/B]

then wear the patch that's what it is for, that and to help you give up smoking.

i think they should really just come out with a patch that is as strong as a cigerette and let them use them.

and to offer someone less pay and/or more hours because they are a smoker would be discrimination(sp?) so they would not be able to offer that.

My workplace isn't regimented at all anyone can wander off a break whenever they want, theres a TV room, relaxation/reading room and a smoking room where yours truly spends most of his break time.

The break system is free and easy so I think because of that nobody takes advantage at all. I might go for a smoke once every two hours which I suppose broadly coincides with the legislation.

I think they have to take away the smoking room from next year though so I guess it'll be outside I'll be. Hope the ****ing lift doesn't break again. These lungs no longer have the moxy for stairs.

AFAIK they will be able to keep the smoking room as long as nobody is forced to work in the room.

not too sure about that though.

mechanima

then wear the patch that's what it is for, that and to help you give up smoking.

I'm not sure that would be medically very wise unless a person is actually trying to quit. Between patches and smoking the nicotene in the system could easy reach unacceptable levels, and when the body adjusted the addiction would be worse.

Absorption into the system is far slower from a patch than from smoking.

In the past I took nicotene gum with me to sit exams but it wasn't ideal, just better than climbing walls.

and to offer someone less pay and/or more hours because they are a smoker would be discrimination(sp?) so they would not be able to offer that.

Not if it is offered as a voluntary option to any worker. The option of less pay and/or more hours in return for more frequent breaks is not discrimination.

However you raise an interesting point, SHOULD companies (or landlords as I have seen in Europe) be allowed to discriminate against smokers?

And before that, how likely is it that they will try to?

G

Trebor

Originally posted by mechanima
I'm not sure that would be medically very wise unless a person is actually trying to quit. Between patches and smoking the nicotene in the system could easy reach unacceptable levels, and when the body adjusted the addiction would be worse.

Absorption into the system is far slower from a patch than from smoking.

In the past I took nicotene gum with me to site exams but it wasn't ideal, just better than climbing walls.

Not if it is offered as a voluntary option to any worker. The option of less pay and/or more hours in return for more frequent breaks is not discrimination.

However you raise an interesting point, SHOULD companies (or landlords as I have seen in Europe) be allowed to discriminate against smokers?

And before that, how likely is it that they will try to?

G

ahh but then the return of that is should they be allowed to dicriminate against non smokers by not allowing them the same breaks as the drug addicts?

regarding the patch and gum AFAIK they have only small amounts of nicotine in them as they are to help you give up, what i am suggesing is a patch that is the same level as a cig's, possible with a faster method of delivery ( maybe an inhaler?), so that those people who want to be addicted to them can do so without causing the secondary effects of passive smoking.

mechanima

ahh but then the return of that is should they be allowed to dicriminate against non smokers by not allowing them the same breaks as the drug addicts?

This is why I am saying that a voluntary option should be offered of extra breaks in return for extra hours or an appropriate reduction in pay.

That doesn't discriminate against non-smokers at all. Whoever wants the breaks has to pay for them!

I just think it would be more pleasant for everybody if the option was offered...personally, though it's probably very bad for me, I couldn't give a hoot about passive smoking (unless in a badly ventilated area where I would feel suffocated ANYWAY, and could probably use a "smoke break" to go get some natural, organic O2!), but I know others do...HOWEVER, you can't tell me they are crazy about working with smokers withdrawing and getting cranky either...
:rolleyes:

It seems to me that changes in attitudes towards the workplace and smoking (seperately and together) are heading towards a situation that is a long way from optimal for the kind of work we do today.

Physical labor can be sustained without a break for quite some time, and that is quite healthy, but much of the work we do today is NOT physical.

I believe that to function at optimum we need short periods of total relaxation throughout the day (which for a smoker means to be free to smoke) in order to recharge. When smoking in the workplace was common and accepted this happened naturally when people "sat back for a smoke" - which would last ten minutes, they tended to do it together, maybe chatted a little...then went back to work. People who didn't smoke tended to join in.

It's a small thing but I think it makes a significant difference to our ability to function effectively, whether we smoke or not.

Now it's not a civil rights issue, but I think any company that is really interested in productivity levels will give it some consideration.

Cultural adaptation is always better than blind cultural change.

G

Trebor

i understand where you are coming from but the modern laws for employee breaks is that you are entitled to a 15 min break for 4 hours work and then it increases for every additional hour.

now it has been proven that smokers can go without a cigerette for 6 hours without having withdrawl symptons as long as they are kept occupied, i.e. working and not just standing around

this is why smokers go made when they get on planes to america as they asre sitting for 6-8 hours with nothing to do and can't have a smoke.

In the end then it might lead to discrimination as people might be asked if they smoke and if they do then a candidate that is a non-smoker might be chosen for the job as they would not need to go for smoke breaks. but this could have a positive effect of people giving up smoking in order to be happy while working or in order to get a job in the first place. trust me us non-smokers don't go around getting grumpy without a smoke so why do smokers put themselves through it?

mechanima

In the end then it might lead to discrimination as people might be asked if they smoke and if they do then a candidate that is a non-smoker might be chosen for the job as they would not need to go for smoke breaks.

Now this would be EXACTLY where my head is going too.

It makes sense from the point of view of an employer.

Hard to argue against it...and yet...I cannot feel comfortable with the jobs market coming to dictate such personal matters...and YET...who is going to give a junkie first preference for a job? Even if he is stable on methodone? And a smoker is JUST as addicted, and his head is equally bent by that addiction...I had to quit to realise that...

Even in a relationship, for a heavy smoker, a smoke takes priority over the needs of their partner...and that is not entirely acceptable...

I know people who are on constant oxygen with Emphysema and STILL CAN'T QUIT...no matter how hard they try...

And some of them are trying to quit to be accepted on transplant lists... which means they are pretty much "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by smoking.

now it has been proven that smokers can go without a cigerette for 6 hours without having withdrawl symptons as long as they are kept occupied, i.e. working and not just standing around

Have you got a reference for this because there is some truth in it. It would certainly go a way to explaining why I found out that time after time the people who succeeded in quitting smoked their last between 3 and 5pm...

By the time you add six hours to that and you realise that the metabolism is slowing down to it's lowest point and full blown withdrawals are likely to hit relatively gently, just as sleep is about to take over...(with a little help from a pill if you have any sense) and by morning your system has already begun to adapt.

But it is not the whole story.

The cravings begin after about 90 minutes, considerably impairing concentration in their own right, and regarding concentration, quiting smoking is a two edge sword.

You see, smoking actually ENHANCES concentration, while withdrawals and cravings DETRACT from concentration.

That can become quite a deficit in the workplace!

If I could sum up the effect of quitting smoking in a single word it would be "FREEDOM"...but I wasn't expecting that...just to stop coughing and swelling like a giant water ballon, and avoid disgusting medical proceedures in the future...oh and of course quitting smoking pays well!


After quitting and realising how bent my head was by smoking, smoking as a CHOICE feels about as rational as injecting heroin or marrying a partner who beats you up every saturday night to "show how much they love you"...but smoking as an addiction is still very real to me...the luckiest break I ever got in my life was that I was able to quit at all, let alone first try.

Not everybody GETS that lucky...and what kind of sense does it really make to marginalise smokers? Ultimately creating a new disadvantaged underclass.

• We make it hard for smokers to work
• We make it harder for smokers to get accomodation
• We make it harder and more expensive for smokers to get healthcare
• We steadily raise the price of tax on cigarettes through the roof

Is this a good idea?

What are the smokers that CAN'T quit likely to do eventually?

WOW!! That was some sermon! Anybody still awake?

G

Trebor

sorry can't find a link for it, will keep looking, i remember that it was on a documentary but can't remember which one.

Lafortezza

Originally posted by mechanima
Not everybody GETS that lucky...and what kind of sense does it really make to marginalise smokers? Ultimately creating a new disadvantaged underclass.

• We make it hard for smokers to work
• We make it harder for smokers to get accomodation
• We make it harder and more expensive for smokers to get healthcare
• We steadily raise the price of tax on cigarettes through the roof

Is this a good idea?

What are the smokers that CAN'T quit likely to do eventually?

G

nice post by the way,


Is there such a thing as a smoker that can't give up?
but how much of giving up smoking is actually willpower?
I smoke a bit probably 10-15 a day, but I'm still pretty sure I could go cold turkey if I really really had to, say for urgent health reasons.

I know it would be difficult at this stage, been smoking about 4 years now, but I think I could stop or at least take the first step of reducing to a few cigs a day without too much personal pain. Its probably much more difficult if you've been a heavy smoker for years.

But I do think plain old willpower has more to do with it than patches/gum etc

rubadub

Originally posted by mechanima
And no, most employers will not allow you to drink alcohol while working - and again, rightly so. Like it or not, believe it or not, alcohol impairs judgement and co-ordination. Allowing your employees to drink while on the job is a recipe for disaster.

Coffee is a different matter, as caffeine is a natural stimulant - keeping you more awake - and it's obviously useful therefore, for certain employers to have their coffee drinking employees.

Problem here, you see for a smoker not to smoke impairs judgement, co-ordination and concentration. That is a measureable medical reality.

Now don't all the "anti-smokers" look at me, because I don't smoke, I can't, I have early onset emphysema from smoking (and as I am a lady, exactly HOW early is my own business ;o) ).

However the fact that I cannot smoke, and rather unusually managed to give it up first try, does not change the reality of smoking as an addiction and how it affects the performance of the individual.

Recently I have been doing some work for a company that has long intensive shifts and does not allow "smoke breaks". I honestly feel this impairs productivity.

When I smoked, after 4 hours I would have been certifiable! That's just the reality of addiction.

I believe companies need to think outside the box on this one and be prepared to offer smoke-breaks in return for either extra hours or appropriate wage deduction.

The truth is that if they are prepared to do so they will get more and better work out of their smokers AND a little bonus in terms of deductions/extra hours to make up for the inconvenience.

G

i agree with you. so do you think alcohol addicts should be allowed a drink? i am not talking going about pissed but one or 2 pints in the day to stave off the withdrawl symptoms (which is suggested for smoking too, not smoking to the point of intoxication) leaving the addict actually functioning better than without alcohol. illegal drugs are illegal to use so the workplace cannot condone them but what about legal drug addicts?

Trebor

Originally posted by lafortezza
Is there such a thing as a smoker that can't give up?
but how much of giving up smoking is actually willpower?
I smoke a bit probably 10-15 a day, but I'm still pretty sure I could go cold turkey if I really really had to, say for urgent health reasons.

I know it would be difficult at this stage, been smoking about 4 years now, but I think I could stop or at least take the first step of reducing to a few cigs a day without too much personal pain. Its probably much more difficult if you've been a heavy smoker for years.

But I do think plain old willpower has more to do with it than patches/gum etc

it's not willpower that help's you give up it's the realization that you don't need to smoke anymore and that you are better off without them. the people who stop smoking by will power and believe that they must struggle with it the rest of their lives or that it is going to be painful to stop are people who don't really want to stop so they come up with reason not to stop like:

I have been smoking for 20 years i can't give up my body needs it.
It is too much pain for somthing that makes me happy.
I will give up in the new year/next week/tomorrow.

btw if you have urgent health reasons then it is already too late.

amp

We're drifting here people. It's about smoke breaks in the workplace. You wanna talk about giving up smoking, start a new thread.

mechanima

Is there such a thing as a smoker that can't give up?
but how much of giving up smoking is actually willpower?
I smoke a bit probably 10-15 a day, but I'm still pretty sure I could go cold turkey if I really really had to, say for urgent health reasons.

I can only speak certainly for myself, and I managed to give up, but I know people who are dying and can't quit, and it isn't just that they are dying, they seem psychologically devastated every time they try and fail.

A big part of the REALLY wants to quit, another big part of them despises themselves because they can't.

Trebor raised some important stuff:

it's not willpower that help's you give up it's the realization that you don't need to smoke anymore and that you are better off without them.

That's how it worked for me. Doctor told me I had definate Emphysema, I just said "Ok, write me a script for Zyban" and yet...

Behind that statement there were a couple of years hard work on understanding my personal addiction, how it worked, what reinforced it, and dismantling those psychological underpinnings one by one

the people who stop smoking by will power and believe that they must struggle with it the rest of their lives or that it is going to be painful to stop are people who don't really want to stop so they come up with reason not to stop

I see these people on the lung forums. Some of them haven't smoked in 10 years, but they live to HATE "big tobacco" and are really cruel about anybody who still smokes.

They are inverted addicts and they cannot see it. "Anti-smoking", and FORCING others to quit (and suffer with them I assume?) , is all they ever think of.

That was my dread, that if I quit I would be craving a cigarette the rest of my life...and hating anybody that smoked.

Seem to have beaten THAT rap.

Since I conquered my own addiction I have come to have a far better understanding of addiction in general.

Addiction hijacks things like your survival instinct, and whatever you know on the surface, feeds your unconscious a line that your SURVIVAL depends upon satisfying the craving.

I used to think alcoholism was largely about willpower...I don't now...

Still, I have known a LOT of alcoholics and in all of those, I have never known a single one who could drink enough to stabilise and HOLD IT THERE occasionally, let alone on a daily basis.

That is the only problem I have with alcohol in the workplace.

What makes smoking different is that, while a very severe, mindbending addiction, it never leads to intoxication or impaired judgement in itself of itself.

And yet...a lot of professions take a "liquid lunch" almost for granted...and nobody dies...

G

(Sorry about that amp, I was writing this offline. But still, I reckon, with a clear head, that the difficulty, or not of quitting smoking IS relevant to smoking in the workplace.

Simply put, if it was like eating chocolate, and just a matter of a little self control, there is no reason on earth to accomodate smokers, but if it is not, and deprivation results in impaired performance, then it is a serious productivity issue, and alternatives need to be found.)

Trebor

Originally posted by mechanima

(Sorry about that amp, I was writing this offline. But still, I reckon, with a clear head, that the difficulty, or not of quitting smoking IS relevant to smoking in the workplace.

Simply put, if it was like eating chocolate, and just a matter of a little self control, there is no reason on earth to accomodate smokers, but if it is not, and deprivation results in impaired performance, then it is a serious productivity issue, and alternatives need to be found.)

I disagree, if you engourage people to give up smoking then it would improve performace by them not needing to smoke. it only takes about a week to get over the really bad cravings, and if they quit the right way then they won't suffer. thereby creating a better working envoirnment and then there would be no need for them to have to offer breaks to smokers.

they should not be catered to, they chose to smoke so they must live with the fact that what they do is harmful to those around them and so it must not be encourage.

(cutting it close, sorry amp )

mechanima

I disagree, if you engourage people to give up smoking then it would improve performace by them not needing to smoke. it only takes about a week to get over the really bad cravings, and if they quit the right way then they won't suffer. thereby creating a better working envoirnment and then there would be no need for them to have to offer breaks to smokers.

Yeah but "forcing" and "encouraging" are two different things.

The former never works...and if you know a "right way" to quit that involves no suffering then I DEMAND you take that to RTE and have it explained on the six o'clock!



I hate to say anything negative about smoking cessation, but as that's not the topic under discussion maybe it won't matter? But my own experience (and that of others) says it takes TWO WEEKS to be functional...and after almost two years my concentration is STILL well below par.

And then there is the "rights" issue...SHOULD an employer have the right to force a serious medical issue...and any drug withdrawal IS a serious medical issue.

Also, force generates defiance...remember, smoking in the workplace should NOT be a CONTROL issue, it should be a "rights, welfare and productivity" issue...and I truly feel all three will be better served if employers offer an option on "buying" the right to extra breaks.

G

Trebor

Ok then i will agree with that, as long as the company does not have to provide special facilaties as well, as that could effect productivity if they have to give up room for a smoking room and remove a machine or other nessecary object.

now how do we get them to do this?

rubadub

i often think it strange that people have become so complacent and used to cigarettes being a "normal" part of life. almost every user of the drug is automatically considered an addict, not even heroin has this reputation. there relatively no stigma attached to being a cigarette addict compared to say an alcoholic or heroin addict. if people started using more potent strains of tobacco, which can be got in dublin, maybe people will question it more. there are potent strains which cause extreme intoxication. if they do start using them i wonder what peoples view of these "potent strain" users will be.

Trebor

Originally posted by rubadub
if they do start using them i wonder what peoples view of these "potent strain" users will be.

about the same, as in:

"I don't care what people do to themselves as long as it does not effect me"

so unless the government makes them illegal the general public won't care aslong as they don't have to put up with it in front of them.

mechanima

Hmmmmm,

I have never heard of any "potent strains" of tobacco, and my ear is pretty close to the USA tobacco lobbys (some of which come from Virginia) and a search on Google doesn't disclose any either...

But what I HAVE heard of many times over is an hypothesis that suggests additives other than nicotene are used to enhance, or even create, addiction.

Tobacco has the dubious distinction of having few noticeable effects EXCEPT addiction, and everybody who smokes regularly becomes dependent very fast. The pattern of dependency upon heroin is similar, but not so extreme.

G

Victor

Originally posted by Trebor
and to offer someone less pay and/or more hours because they are a smoker would be discrimination(sp?) so they would not be able to offer that.

It's not discrimination - less work, less pay.

Originally posted by Trebor
AFAIK they will be able to keep the smoking room as long as nobody is forced to work in the room.

Doubtful, who would clean the room?

Originally posted by mechanima
However you raise an interesting point, SHOULD companies (or landlords as I have seen in Europe) be allowed to discriminate against smokers?

They already do. Many employers decline to employ smokers as they have a reputation of being volatile employees. Many landlords decline to take smokers in their premises as it means redecorating (for certain) when they move out.

Originally posted by mechanima
This is why I am saying that a voluntary option should be offered of extra breaks in return for extra hours or an appropriate reduction in pay.

Which will be resisted by employers as it means (a) the factory revolves around the individual, not he other way around.

Originally posted by mechanima
I believe that to function at optimum we need short periods of total relaxation throughout the day (which for a smoker means to be free to smoke) in order to recharge.

Fair enough, 4 hours work with a 5-10 minute break (even if it means doing other work) half way is likely to be better than 4 hours straight work. However, it is a false economy to allow a smoker to continue the up-down momentum of the addiction, where if they don’t get that 5-10 minute break, productivity starts to seriously deteriorate.

Originally posted by mechanima
When smoking in the workplace was common and accepted this happened naturally when people "sat back for a smoke" - which would last ten minutes, they tended to do it together, maybe chatted a little...then went back to work. People who didn't smoke tended to join in.

Which disturbed the work. It’s like the water cooler syndrome gone mad.

Originally posted by mechanima
You see, smoking actually ENHANCES concentration, while withdrawals and cravings DETRACT from concentration.

Just to be clear, when a smoker smokes, they approach the productivity level of non-smokers, they never exceed it.

Originally posted by mechanima
Not everybody GETS that lucky...and what kind of sense does it really make to marginalise smokers? Ultimately creating a new disadvantaged underclass. .... Is this a good idea? What are the smokers that CAN'T quit likely to do eventually?

They will most likely die early following long illness.

Originally posted by rubadub
i agree with you. so do you think alcohol addicts should be allowed a drink? i am not talking going about pissed but one or 2 pints in the day to stave off the withdrawl symptoms (which is suggested for smoking too, not smoking to the point of intoxication) leaving the addict actually functioning better than without alcohol.

No this cannot be condoned. Many people will have substantial impairment after 2 pints, especially in the case of anything that involves time-important judgement and reactions (ooo, like most jobs).

Originally posted by mechanima
But my own experience (and that of others) says it takes TWO WEEKS to be functional...and after almost two years my concentration is STILL well below par.

Nah, my brother-in-law says it just age killing our brain cells.

Originally posted by mechanima
And then there is the "rights" issue...SHOULD an employer have the right to force a serious medical issue...and any drug withdrawal IS a serious medical issue.

Not force a result, but to force an employee make the decision between work and smoking. Would it be acceptable for an employer to allow beer breaks 3-4 times a day? That employer would be sued for allowing (and tacitly approving) such behaviour.

Originally posted by mechanima
Also, force generates defiance...remember, smoking in the workplace should NOT be a CONTROL issue, it should be a "rights, welfare and productivity" issue...and I truly feel all three will be better served if employers offer an option on "buying" the right to extra breaks.

Which will be difficult and costly to implement. Employers want and standard commitment from employees, not “opt out of work” clauses.

mechanima

Doubtful, who would clean the room?

The smokers who use it I should hope!

G

rubadub

Originally posted by Victor
Originally posted by rubadub
i agree with you. so do you think alcohol addicts should be allowed a drink? i am not talking going about pissed but one or 2 pints in the day to stave off the withdrawl symptoms (which is suggested for smoking too, not smoking to the point of intoxication) leaving the addict actually functioning better than without alcohol.

---

No this cannot be condoned. Many people will have substantial impairment after 2 pints, especially in the case of anything that involves time-important judgement and reactions (ooo, like most jobs).

the original poster said smokers will work better if smoking. an alcoholic may too, as it gets rid of withdrawl symptoms. you would have to have a medical cert or something to say that you are an alcoholic. nicotine is such a horrendous drug that everybody is presumed an addict! pointless drug.
i am talking about using enough alcohol so that their "impairment" is not as bad as the withdrawl symptoms. as in their work will suffer worse if they dont have a drink

rubadub

Originally posted by mechanima
Hmmmmm,

I have never heard of any "potent strains" of tobacco, and my ear is pretty close to the USA tobacco lobbys (some of which come from Virginia) and a search on Google doesn't disclose any either...

But what I HAVE heard of many times over is an hypothesis that suggests additives other than nicotene are used to enhance, or even create, addiction.

Tobacco has the dubious distinction of having few noticeable effects EXCEPT addiction, and everybody who smokes regularly becomes dependent very fast. The pattern of dependency upon heroin is similar, but not so extreme.

G

what do you think native americans smoked in their peace pipes?

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/cultivation/cultivation_growing-the-hallucinogens.shtml#TOBACCO

mechanima

Now that IS an interesting link...

However, due to it's perishable nature, uncured tobacco, is never likely to make it as a commercial product.

However, perhaps (considering one or two other things I assumed went into "Peace Pipes") it might be wise to specify WHAT a person can smoke during a smoke break? (Poppy derivatives, for instance would NOT be good)


(And I would still LOVE to know how anybody plans to hold an alcoholic's consumption within the bounds of reason on a daily basis!)

G

Trebor

Originally posted by mechanima
(And I would still LOVE to know how anybody plans to hold an alcoholic's consumption within the bounds of reason on a daily basis!)

G

simple,

when they stop shaking then they have had enough.

mechanima

when they stop shaking then they have had enough.

I know that Trebor...but the problem lies in communicating that to the alcoholic...EVERY DAY....

G

Trebor

you don't let them go to the pub, you have someone give them say two cans and if they don't stop you give another. so it takes the responsiblity away from them, as being an alcholic they would not know when to stop.

still i think it's a bad idea to do allow drink in the workplace. i know it is another form of addication but it is a substance that actually has an effect on people other than the craving for more of it. so it can not be classed as the same type of addication as smoking.

mechanima

Yeah,

I am getting to LIKE this idea. I can invision a kind of "sick bay" with a DDA cupboard and a locked refrigerator where the "cure" is carefully administered by a "big nurse"....

G

rubadub

Originally posted by Trebor
still i think it's a bad idea to do allow drink in the workplace. i know it is another form of addication but it is a substance that actually has an effect on people other than the craving for more of it. so it can not be classed as the same type of addication as smoking.

just goes to show how pointless a drug it really is, it doesnt even have an effect on people! it is just the most addictive drug known

it doesnt make you feel good or relaxed, the relaxation is really just not having to deal with the withdrawl symptoms

seamus

It's nigh on impossible to throw alcohol and cigarettes in the same boat. If you must use something, use coffee.

Alcohol is a state-altering substance, like Hash or Cocaine. However, alcohol isn't physically addictive. There are no addictive substances in alcohol. The addicition is purely psychological - the need for an 'escape' or the need to feel drunk to feel better or whatever.

You rarely hear a drunk repent about how much they wished they didn't drink anymore, but you hear most smokers do it (wish they didn't smoke obviously).

Smokers smoke to feel calm and reduce the cravings, not to get high. Alcoholics drink to get drunk.

6 cigarettes in 2 hours won't have much effect on a smoker in the workplace. He'll be more calm and alert, like if he had drank 6 cups of coffee in the same time period. 6 pints in 2 hours however, and he is drunk and not able to carry out his function as an employee.

So comparing alcoholics to smokers is pointless tbh.

Nothing should change. I'd never work anywhere where people are allowed smoke as they work, and in most places nowadays people can't smoke while they work. What do these people do? Smoke on their breaks. You get one every 2 hours. If you don't like it, stop smoking.

To adequately use the smoker/alcoholic comparison, giving smokers extra breaks to smoke is akin to allowing alocholics off work an hour early, at full pay, to go and get drunk.

mechanima

Alcohol is a state-altering substance, like Hash or Cocaine. However, alcohol isn't physically addictive. There are no addictive substances in alcohol. The addicition is purely psychological - the need for an 'escape' or the need to feel drunk to feel better or whatever.

Hi Seamus,

Although you are saying a lot of valid things, the above is not very accurate. Physical addiction to ethyl achohol is established and well documented.

Most alcoholic drinks also contain highly refined sugars too, that, in large quantities, could be considered addictive and generate withdrawal symptoms.

However it is different from many other addictions in that prolonged excessive use is required to become physically addicted. 10 months is suggested as a minimum.

I cannot find a suggested minimum time for smoking to become addictive.

The problem is more that you do NOT get a break every 2 hours but rather every 4 hours by law. A break every 2 hours would probably be sufficient.

G

The Sweeper

I don't think staff should be allowed smoke breaks in work. I used to smoke, and never took a smoke break during the day (other than smoking about five at lunchtime) other than when someone near me dragged me off for one.

Now I don't smoke, and I watch our customer services department get up from their desks, high with backlogged orders and other sh1t they should be doing, and they wander off downstairs twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon to smoke. These breaks take over ten minutes. It makes me want to smack them.

DapperGent

It seems a little harsh to get rid of smoke breaks altogether, most businesses will have coffee breaks in the morning and the evening - thats the appropriate time to smoke.

Going for smoke breaks and then going on a coffee break just like any other worker is taking the piss though.

Taking 40 minutes to smoke 4 cigarettes during the course of a day is taking the piss all ends up. You should smack them. In the face.

mechanima

Now I don't smoke, and I watch our customer services department get up from their desks, high with backlogged orders and other sh1t they should be doing, and they wander off downstairs twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon to smoke. These breaks take over ten minutes. It makes me want to smack them.

I so empathise...and yet, there is a reality that says, unfair and all as it is, they are likely to return from those breaks far better able to cope with the mess more effectively.

It seems to me that without smokebreaks a lot of smokers are going to spend more time and effort on actually achieving a lot less...which really doesn't make a lot of sense from anybody's point of view.

In the long term that is definately a very good reason not to smoke, but in the short term, what counts?

a) The form of how many unbroken hours a person spends at their desk.
or
b) The substance of the quality and quantity of work that they achieve?

I know, for me that when I did smoke, it played an important part in pacing my work. I get too absorbed, even obsessed with what I am doing at times (whatever, web-programming, fixing an appliance, cleaning a drain, it's all perseveration fodder to me ;o) ), and the addiction to smoking FORCED me to take a break, sit back and smoke from time to time. That break IN ITSELF often prevented me making serious mistakes and caused me to see things in a new perspective and solve them faster.

Even after two years I am STILL looking for a substitute to replace that...

...but it does make me wonder if, under pressure, many of us would benefit from a few ten minute breaks? WHATEVER we choose to do with them?

G

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by mechanima

I so empathise...and yet, there is a reality that says, unfair and all as it is, they are likely to return from those breaks far better able to cope with the mess more effectively.

i may well take up smoking again if it has the magical ability to increase my work performance


i dont see why anyone should have a smoke break though.
if you have alloted break times, smoke during those, otherwise, what is so special about someone who smokes over someone who doesnt?

mechanima

what is so special about someone who smokes over someone who doesnt

Absolutely nothing, but the fact remains that as long as they are allowed adequate smoke breaks their effectiveness and productivity will, overall, be higher than if they are not...so that in effect, there is a good chance that the non-smokers will have to make up a GREATER deficit if they are not allowed to smoke anyway.

Those ARE the horns of the ethical dilemna here as far as I can see.

G

WhiteWashMan

so youre basically saying that if you dont get a smoke break, you will perform worse, and your colleagues have to work harder to cover you, or otherwise you work the same as your non smoking colleagues, but have more break times?

is that it?

why not just sack those who take too many unauthorised breaks?

or...

maybe those who smoke will just have to pull up their socks and make an effort in work.
smoking isnt a license to skive off, nor does it allow you to underwork, and if you have to through a bit of pain to do it, then so be it.
hey, you dont have to smoke you know....

mechanima

so youre basically saying that if you dont get a smoke break, you will perform worse, and your colleagues have to work harder to cover you, or otherwise you work the same as your non smoking colleagues, but have more break times?

No, cos I don't smoke! I can't, I have early onset emphysema and only about 65 - 70% lung function and falling.

It's not about ME, it's about an objective reality. A smoker will underperform while withdrawing, that's involuntary, not a choice.

If you look earlier in the thread, you will see that I have been suggesting that smokers take an appropriate wage cut, or put in extra hours to pay for the breaks...

...because the objective reality is not about socks, or effort or skiving, it is about the involuntary effects of addiction to nicotene...and even if you quit you cannot recover from the impairment to your performance overnight...depending upon which aspect, that recovery can take months or years.

Success in business is about making best use of that kind of reality.

G

Victor

Repeat: Smoking does not improve performance - if may bring withdrawing smokers back to normal, but it does not improve performance.

Originally posted by mechanima
If you look earlier in the thread, you will see that I have been suggesting that smokers take an appropriate wage cut, or put in extra hours to pay for the breaks...

So what if the smokers"needs" a break during peak sales / calls time? Are customers meant to revolve around the smoker's breaks?

mechanima

if may bring withdrawing smokers back to normal, but it does not improve performance.

Actually, one of the few measureable effects smoking has is to enhance concentration.

Withdrawing, however, measureably impairs performance.

That's a reality, and good business revolves around realities.

Your smoking employees will inevitably perform better, for two different reasons, outside of their conscious control, if they have adequate smoke breaks.

As the objective of business is to profit from those it employs, the best interests of the company are rather obvious.

G

Victor

I really dislike the way you are saying things, while my quotes are selective, it really feels like you are deliberately misphrasing your words.

What you wrote:

Originally posted by mechanima
Actually, one of the few measureable effects smoking has is to enhance concentration. Withdrawing, however, measureably impairs performance.

How it reads:

Originally posted by mechanima
Actually, one of the few measureable effects smoking has is to enhance concentration.

The reality:
Smoking only brings the smokers back to something approaching normal concentration - they never acheive 105% concentration.

What you wrote:

Originally posted by mechanima
Your smoking employees will inevitably perform better, for two different reasons, outside of their conscious control, if they have adequate smoke breaks.

How it reads:

Originally posted by mechanima
Your smoking employees will inevitably perform better,

The reality:
Smokers doss and disturb other peoples work.

mechanima

they never acheive 105% concentration.

As a matter of, unfortunate, measureable, fact they do and more, of their own personal capacity for concentration.

I really dislike the way you are saying things, while my quotes are selective, it really feels like you are deliberately misphrasing your words.

I don't suppose I'll ever be a big fan of your capacity for projection, or your creativity with "facts". *shrugs* Nothing personal, those tendencies never DID appeal to me in anybody.

The reality:
Smokers doss and disturb other peoples work.

I shouldn't think so, but of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

G