Should Smoking Breaks be Banned in the Workplace?

starbelgrade

I just half caught the end of a news item about banning smoke breaks in the workplace.

Seems like an odd thing to try to do... I encourage people to take breaks in my office & if they choose to just take a walk around the block to get some fresh air to get some fresh air, or to have a smoke, then it's their business.

So what's your take on it?

The King of Moo

Allow them, maybe a set number per day, but also allow anyone, smoker or not to pop out for a few minutes an equal number of times. Like you do, basically.

You should also allow regular breaks for Boardsies who've posted something they think is funny and want to check how many thanks they got.

Local-womanizer

starbelgrade wrote: »

I just half caught the end of a news item about banning smoke breaks in the workplace.

Seems like an odd thing to try to do... I encourage people to take breaks in my office & if they choose to just take a walk around the block to get some fresh air to get some fresh air, or to have a smoke, then it's their business.

So what's your take on it?

I don't smoke and any place I worked in the past I never got a 5 minute walk around have a think to myself break.

I was expected to work on as my co-workers slowly killed themselves, the mental trauma was awful!

Also have you any jobs going?!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

smokers shouldn't get breaks other workers aren't entitled to

either everyone gets a few minutes of the day to nip off for a recharge or no one does

Hande hoche!

Some people take smoke breaks, others tea breaks. Once it's not excessive.

WoollyRedHat

Smoking breaks should defintely be allowed but sex breaks are a bit too much

P.s can I have a job? I'll clean your shoes for money

starbelgrade

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I don't smoke and any place I worked in the past I never got a 5 minute walk around have a think to myself break.

I find that attitude really odd from employers. Surely it's better that someone works hard for an hour, takes a break & comes back fresh, than slowly melt for 5 hours in front of a computer?!

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Also have you any jobs going?!

I hope that's not a steak related question.

MickySticks

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Smoking breaks should defintely be allowed but sex breaks are a bit too much

P.s can I have a job? I'll clean your shoes for money

Starbelgrade uses free labour i.e jobbridge.

jam_mac_jam

Can we not just shoot smokers? How about people who go for long ****es while at work? can we time people going to the toilet or who talk to much or stare off to space.

FFS

WoollyRedHat

MickySticks wrote: »

Starbelgrade uses free labour i.e jobbridge.

I'm offering to clean his shoes, my standards aren't high.

Lumbo

****s sake. Do they not have enough control over us as it is?

I take one smoke break in work during the day. They can pass what ever law they want, I'll break it (and I'm usually such a good citizen).

Local-womanizer

starbelgrade wrote: »

I find that attitude really odd from employers. Surely it's better that someone works hard for an hour, takes a break & comes back fresh, than slowly melt for 5 hours in front of a computer?!




I hope that's not a steak related question.

I know, if the staff taking the break are covered then what odds is it. It actually really annoyed me. Annoyed with the employer not the smoker. I used to take 5 minutes extra for my lunch after a awhile, once they complained I pointed out the fact the smokers were going out for a smoke either side of their lunch hour.

And no, unless you work in the beef industry!

jam_mac_jam

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I know, if the staff taking the break are covered then what odds is it. It actually really annoyed me. Annoyed with the employer not the smoker. I used to take 5 minutes extra for my lunch after a awhile, once they complained I pointed out the fact the smokers were going out for a smoke either side of their lunch hour.

And no, unless you work in the beef industry!

Well that's not fair, they should be taking it as part of the hour. That would annoy me also

squod

It's an opportunity to chat chicks up. Anyone involved in inventing this law is a quear.

Local-womanizer

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well that's not fair, they should be taking it as part of the hour. That would annoy me also

Exactly but anywhere I worked they got the hour and an extra 2 smoke breaks. Yet I was required to work on as I don't smoke! I'll tell them next time I am away for my 5 minute pint break!

jam_mac_jam

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Exactly but anywhere I worked they got the hour and an extra 2 smoke breaks. Yet I was required to work on as I don't smoke! I'll tell them next time I am away for my 5 minute pint break!

You should have gone and made tea while they were smoking. I waste lots of time in work with tea making much more than smoking..

Pottler

I take breaks from smoking every so often to so some work, but I try to keep it to a minimum. It's very aggravating, the whole, "but we are paying you to work, not stand around smoking all day" whingey shyte.

hondasam

Yes banned during work but you can smoke on your break, no going out for 5mins every hour.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

starbelgrade wrote: »

I encourage people to take breaks in my office

Not trolling here, genuinely curious, but what kind of company do you run where you hire and manage employees and *still* have time for close to 20k posts on boards.ie in 4 years?

Bullseye1

Are these additional breaks to normal coffee and lunch breaks? If so they should be banned. If they are simply people using their normal breaks to have a smoke then no they shouldn't be banned.

grindle

hondasam wrote: »

Yes banned during work but you can smoke on your break, no going out for 5mins every hour.

This happens?!?

jsd1004

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Exactly but anywhere I worked they got the hour and an extra 2 smoke breaks. Yet I was required to work on as I don't smoke! I'll tell them next time I am away for my 5 minute pint break!

Surely you just go and buy those esmoking things or go and chew gum and pretend you smoke..cant see the issue

Pottler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Are these additional breaks to normal coffee and lunch breaks? If so they should be banned. If they are simply people using their normal breaks to have a smoke then no they shouldn't be banned.

Any job that has "defined breaks" is crap. I take a break whenever a break seems apt and funnily enough, "apt time for a break" seems to occur rather a lot. Not gone bust yet, nobody's complaining and we get a lot done, far more than most with their"defined breaks". If theres nothing to do, have a break, if it's busy, don't. Simples. I smoke, most of my staff smoke, many smoke when working. This is LIFE, that thing we all get to do once. People love rules but funnily enough, the best life is usually when you ignore them all and just do your own thing. As long as you do it well, who cares how many breaks you take?

jsd1004

jsd1004 wrote: »

Surely you just go and buy those esmoking things or go and chew gum and pretend you smoke..cant see the issue

Its like women who dont have kids..stick a pillow to your gut and take loads of time off..the other nymphos are..so why not you

stupidusername

I voted no and i'm a non smoker. I don't think they need to be banned exactly, but non smokers should get the same break time. the fact that they don't already is complete and utter bollocks.

And I don't drink tea or coffee either so it's not like I'd get a significant break time in that way.

Bullseye1

Pottler wrote: »

Any job that has "defined breaks" is crap. I take a break whenever a break seems apt and funnily enough, "apt time for a break" seems to occur rather a lot. Not gone bust yet, nobody's complaining and we get a lot done, far more than most with their"defined breaks". If theres nothing to do, have a break, if it's busy, don't. Simples. I smoke, most of my staff smoke, many smoke when working. This is LIFE, that thing we all get to do once. People love rules but funnily enough, the best life is usually when you ignore them all and just do your own thing. As long as you do it well, who cares how many breaks you take?

Ive no problem with flexible breaktimes but as long as there is sufficent staff still available to do the work.

Mushy

I voted yes, and non-smoker. When I worked in a pub, the amount of smoke breaks people got when I had to continue working. Took it upon myself to take my own breaks, explained it straight-faced to the boss....nothing much could be done. Only fair way.

mackg

As a smoker who smokes a cigarette about once an hour roughly I never had a problem just having a cigarette on my lunch break in work, usually would smoke two. If you want to give smoking breaks just give everyone the same regardless of if they smoke or not, can't really see there being too much debate on this one.

Pottler

Even the American army believe that people get more done with regular, short breaks - I try my best to get a short break from doing nothing every hour to get at least 10 minutes work done. It breaks up the day and keeps me fresh - all play and no work makes jack a poor boy.

Dudess

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Can we not just shoot smokers? How about people who go for long ****es while at work? can we time people going to the toilet or who talk to much or stare off to space.

FFS

That looks kinda disingenuous IMO.

What's being referred to here is the way in some workplaces, smokers nip out for a fag say every 90 minutes and it can take nearly 10 minutes at a time, sometimes they'll make a cuppa with it too, whereas non smokers just don't spend as much time away from their desks, even if they go out to make a cuppa now and again.
That's not an anti smokers thing - just something that needs to be addressed for the sake of fairness. Limit the number of fag breaks and ensure non smokers are allowed the same amount of time to walk around, get some air, make a cuppa etc - IMO.

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

Yes banned during work but you can smoke on your break, no going out for 5mins every hour.

I'm pretty sure than everyone is entitled to 5 minutes away from their computer under Health Laws. Something about VDU's and eye tiredness.

My name is URL

Just stop calling them smoking breaks and everyone's a winner. The fact that some/most employers will allow for 'smoking breaks' and not just 'breaks' is what seems stupid considering how it has being shown that regular breaks increase productivity.

ArmaniJeanss

Whats the problem as long as the smoke-break-taker is doing enough work to fulfil the output requirements of their job?

If they are getting 10% less of whatever it is they are supposed to be doing done then surely they will be pulled up by their immediate boss anyway.

Pace2008

Pottler wrote: »

People love rules but funnily enough, the best life is usually when you ignore them all and just do your own thing. As long as you do it well, who cares how many breaks you take?

Hear me now.

Alan 1990

Dam right they should be banned, why should smokers get a break other workers who don't smoke aren't entitled to? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

starbelgrade

georgiecasey wrote: »

Not trolling here, genuinely curious, but what kind of company do you run where you hire and manage employees and *still* have time for close to 20k posts on boards.ie in 4 years?

I rarely post during the day - I don't spend a lot of time in the office. Most of my posting is done when I get home. I also type pretty fast.

Logical Fallacy

Alan 1990 wrote: »

Dam right they should be banned, why should smokers get a break other workers who don't smoke aren't entitled to? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

This is from the HSA site...

"Employers must plan work so that daily work at VDU's is interrupted periodically by breaks or changes in activity which reduce the work at the screen. Although the Regulations set no frequency for breaks, no single continuous period of work at a screen should, in general, exceed one hour."

So i guess people that work with VDU's are covered unless they are really pulling the piss.

ProudDUB

No problem with EVERYONE getting decent breaks, but not smokers getting to take more than everyone else just because they smoke. That's not fair, not when their co workers have to pick up their slack when they are out back having a fag. I used to run a restaurant in the US. The worst waiters/waitresses were the smokers who couldn't make it thru a busy lunch or dinner shift without needing to stop for a fag. They never could be found when they were needed most as they were usually out back taking a ciggie break. They were the ones that had the most complaints from their customers about having to wait for their food or their bill & were the worst at pitching in doing the back of house tasks that have to be done. Others had to step in and pick up their slack. All because they were out back giving themselves lung cancer when every one else was working. Drove me effing mental !

SouperComputer

Years ago a company I worked for gave "smokers" 3x5min breaks a day. I started taking 15min naps at my desk instead and got pulled aside. Told them I was smoking in my sleep and basically GFY.
Later on I filed some paperwork to HR requesting a Guiness break, it was rejected.

loadabollox.

Sinfonia

stupidusername wrote: »

I voted no and i'm a non smoker. I don't think they need to be banned exactly, but non smokers should get the same break time. the fact that they don't already is complete and utter bollocks.

And I don't drink tea or coffee either so it's not like I'd get a significant break time in that way.

You do get an extra decade or so of life, so it's your choice really.

Logical Fallacy

Sinfonia wrote: »

You do get an extra decade or so of life, so it's your choice really.

Yeah but it's a **** decade in fairness.

stupidusername

Sinfonia wrote: »

You do get an extra decade or so of life, so it's your choice really.

Ah right,so I can retire 10years earlier? Sweet

Sinfonia

stupidusername wrote: »

Ah right,so I can retire 10years earlier? Sweet

Probably, with the price of cigarettes as it is, smokers will need the extra money..!

Logical Fallacy wrote:

Yeah but it's a **** decade in fairness.

Depends how you spend it, Clint Eastwood's 81 and still livin' it up!

Edit: Actually, Hugh Hefner's 85, even better!

GoldDustWoman

It's their business. I think when you start telling people if they can or cannot have a smoke, you are no longer a boss but a dictator!

Yakult

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

smokers shouldn't get breaks other workers aren't entitled to

Maybe they are, but just don't seize the opportunity. I used to have 2 or 3 non smokers come outside with me for a quick break most times.

ProudDUB

GoldDustWoman wrote: »

It's their business. I think when you start telling people if they can or cannot have a smoke, you are no longer a boss but a dictator!

Rubbish. All I wanted to do was run a restaurant where people came in, had a meal and got out again in decent enough amount of time. I couldn't do that if half my waiters, cooks, bartenders & dishwashers were out back having a fag when the restaurant was packed & we needed all hands on deck. A busy "no smoke breaks allowed" lunch shift only lasted from noon to 1.30. It's not like I was asking them to work 10 hours down in a a coal mine without a break or a breath of fresh air.

Alan 1990

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Alan 1990 wrote: »

Dam right they should be banned, why should smokers get a break other workers who don't smoke aren't entitled to? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

This is from the HSA site...

"Employers must plan work so that daily work at VDU's is interrupted periodically by breaks or changes in activity which reduce the work at the screen. Although the Regulations set no frequency for breaks, no single continuous period of work at a screen should, in general, exceed one hour."

So i guess people that work with VDU's are covered unless they are really pulling the piss.

I've never worked in an office or behind screens so work with vdu's doesn't apply to me or my past colleges that went for a 'smoke' every 15 minutes.

Jev/N

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Some people take smoke breaks, others tea breaks. Once it's not excessive.

The problem is some people take both

GoldDustWoman

ProudDUB wrote: »

Rubbish. All I wanted to do was run a restaurant where people came in, had a meal and got out again in decent enough amount of time. I couldn't do that if half my waiters, cooks, bartenders & dishwashers were out back having a fag when the restaurant was packed & we needed all hands on deck. A busy "no smoke breaks allowed" lunch shift only lasted from noon to 1.30. It's not like I was asking them to work 10 hours down in a a coal mine without a break or a breath of fresh air.

It's not rubbish.

I meant that when you allow an employee to take their break you shouldn't be monitoring whether they smoke or not. That's their decision.

I didn't mean an employee should be asking for a cigarette break every hour. That'd be ridiculous.

Nailz

Leave it up to the company and put it in their contracts if need be, this is a type of subject which should not be dictated by the state. If the employer is happy for the employees to have smoking breaks then so be it.

[non-smoker]

pragmatic1

If I dont get a cig break every few hours my I'll start getting violent.