Smoking breaks: add a comment

More on smoking breaks, the story that keeps on giving ... Should workers be forced to clock out to smoke? (BBC News Magazine).

Note: this is currently one of the most read stories on the BBC website so it's worth adding a comment.

Update on Tuesday, November 2, 2010 by Simon Clark

Fair play to the BBC website for seeking out and quoting time management expert Clare Evans who pointed out that:

• Smokers are doing the right thing by taking breaks
• People should take breaks every 15-20 minutes while doing intense screen work, because concentration flags
• But some individuals may take advantage and slack off
• It can be distracting if a colleague is disappearing every so often, so it's important non-smokers get up and stretch too
• As long as people maintain a good attitude to work and get the job done, employers shouldn't worry about smoking breaks

Update on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 by Simon Clark

Forest Eireann's John Mallon discussed the issue on The Inbox on 98FM (Dublin) last night and writes about it HERE. The station's website currently has a poll on the subject should you wish to make your views known. Click HERE.

Comments

[Peter Thurgood]

I am a smoker myself, but to be fair about this, I do agree that smokers should clock out, if they wish to smoke during work time.

If someone kept going outside to drink tea or coffee, or eat cakes etc., it would be exactly the same. Why should a boss pay someone for taking non-stop break during work-time?

OK so I know workers cannot smoke in their workplace and for that reason they have to go outside, but there are plenty of trades where a worker could not smoke anyway, no more than he or she could munch biscuits all day long, so what is the big deal?

Smoking shouldn't be treated any differently to any other pleasure or pursuit.

If we, as smokers keep pursuing this so called problem, I think it will only harm our cause, it make us look selfish.

[Pat Nurse]

I think the women talks sense. I don't have a problem with smoking breaks. I don't take them but I don't mind when people do. As long as the work is done. We are all entitled to breaks so what if some choose to take a smoking break?

[Frank]

When I first started work (years ago) we were specifically told that we were not entitled to a 'smoke break'. They knew it went on but we couldn't complain that we hadn't had one. I couldn't disagree so I'd have no problem with it in principle provided you clock off for any other 'unofficial' break. To treat this individually is not on.

[Lone Gasper]

Is it only smokers who "pop" out for a break. How come ,clocking off for a break has only recently(since 1/7/07) become an issue. Anyway if millions of smokers are preapred to lie down and be treated like chimps, they deserve whats coming. When they start standing up to be counted they might get some sympathy, until then they will just have to keep their snouts in the grids. Pass the White Feathers round.

[Junican]

The unpleasant thing about the BBC site is that there is no facility to see what comments have been posted. That really annoys me. But I have posted my comment.

I pointed out that employments have many and varied working systems. Some require sustained effort over a long period of time, although not demanding effort. Others require concentrated, intense and accurate effort over a short period of time. In any case, there are not that many employers who have 'clocks' of the nature required. Also, I said that there is a big difference between clocking OUT and clocking OFF.

Finally, I suggested that people should stop generalising a matter which is, by its nature, specific to the organisation involved. Lastly, if 'clocking out' means 'clocking off' (in the sense of 'no longer working'), then it is only fair that anyone who takes a break should 'clock off'.

Am I wrong in any of the above?

Apropos this subject, may I reminisce for a few sentences? 50 years ago, when I first became a clerk in the bank, at the branch where I worked it was the practice for Delphine (I still remember her name!) to disappear upstairs about half an hour before lunch break (an hour). At 1 o'clock, we all went upstairs and dined on mashed potatoes, chops and veg, or whatever the menu of the day was. And then the Manager lit his pipe and we all sat around talking. A jolly time was had by all, and we were a great team. But get this - all the costs were borne by the Bank!

What happened to civilisation?

[Magnetic]

The next wave in smoker denormalization is the smoking break. The antismoking claim is that smokers waste employers’ time. Yet antismokers NEVER attempt to check all circumstances (other forms of “time-wasting”, productivity). The antismokers only point to smokers standing outside and claim that only that is “time-wasting”. This is how antismokers “reason”. The claim assumes that nonsmokers are comparatively always fully working. However, there are many examples of significant time wasted by all workers and which in most cases are considered acceptable by employers, given that workers are not robots (see links following). In other words, smoke-breaks are offset against other forms of time-wasting (non-productivity) by nonsmokers. Overall, there is no additional time wasted by smokers. Antismokers are committed to the denormalization/persecution of smokers and the eugenics “smokefree world”. Like all antismokers they are not interested in facts or balanced perspective. They cherry-pick information that aligns with their deranged agenda. This information is then used to convince – rabble-rouse, agitate - employers that smokers are wasting precious time and nonsmokers that they are being unfairly treated.
http://www.articlewisdom.com/Article/Reducing-Time-Wasted-at-Work/119631
http://www.tensor.com/news/wasting-time-at-work
http://www.salary.com/sitesearch/layoutscripts/sisl_display.asp?filename=&path=/destinationsearch/personal/par542_body.html
http://www.management-issues.com/2007/5/23/research/time-wasting-costs-uk-UKP7bn-a-year.asp?section=research&id=4194&is_authenticated=0&reference=&specifier= (include '=' sign at end of link)
http://www.trainingmag.com/msg/content_display/training/e3iX2IcJ4yy41vaIyvoZ4Blmw== (include double '=' sign at end of link)

The denormalization/persecution of smokers and indoor/outdoor bans were planned in the mid-1970s, long before the concoction of secondhand smoke “danger” (see Godber Blueprint www.rampant-antismoking.com ). Most countries are signatories to the World Health Organization’s “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” – including Australia. Employment discrimination is recommended against smokers where possible (Since 2005, the WHO refuses to employ smokers). Where anti-discrimination laws prohibit such conduct, the antismokers have to find other ways to persecute those that smoke. Abolishing smoking breaks is one of those ways. The transition may be clocking ON/OFF, but the intent longer-term is to eradicate these breaks altogether. The goal is to sufficiently oppress those that smoke – by banning the opportunities and places that they would typically smoke - to coerce conformity to the deranged agenda.

[chas]

You can also make comments here
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/workers-are-told-to-clock-out-when-nicotine-calls-2122621.html

[ann]

This smoking break ban is just another ploy by the WHO working through ASH to set us back to the days of the Goulag of total control and divide and conquer.
What the stupid headless chickens anti smokers dont reasise is that if they get away with this office smoking ban it means the end of their OWN break.
Dirty politics is now encroaching the work place for purpose and the stupid anti smokers are only too happy to enforce it for their bosses, while shooting themselves in the foot and at the same time creating the ideal Employer enviornment for purpose of roomfulls of industrious worker bees who dont lift their head from 9 to 5.
Smokers are sure coming in handy for the Corporations these days, when the workers themselves vote to introduce their diktat without being aware of it.
Meanwhile John or Mary can shoot or snort up in the loo and not waste any time at all!

[jon]

It's probably best not to make too much fuss about this. I think eventually, these employers are going to regret their decision - whatever motivated it. My stance is that all absences from the work desk should be treated equally; which is not the case here. Firstly, I suspect the estimates of lost time are exaggerated - unless you work in a high rise or in a job with no scheduled breaks apart from lunch. Otherwise even four breaks would add up to only half an hour a day. The smokers will take the hit, there will be a division in the workforce between smokers and non smokers - continual pressure from the smokers to treat other absences in the same way. All the resentments will come out into the open. Ill children, choices of holiday time, dodgy illnesses. Time spent in the bathroom. The sensible solution would be to clock off before every absence from the desk. Then the smokers would be happy and the people who weren't would have to ask themselves why not.

[Lyn]

There is also the issue of how productive someone can be if they need a break but are not permitted one, whether or not that break is for a smoke or to make a coffee.

Some people I have known have popped to the local shop or garage because they had a craving for chocolate and could not concentrate as the thought of chocolate was uppermost in their mind. I am sure the same can be said for some smokers.

So long as smokers are not taking the mickey and popping out every half hour and gathering in large groups for a long chat at the same time, it should not be a problem and should, ultimately, improve productivity. The main problem is being caused by smokers who take frequent breaks, regularly and/or turn them into a drawn out social event as well.

We all have to be conscious of not taking advantage and being sensible about how and when we take smoking breaks. In other words, behave like mature adults which might, in the long term, help our cause, if anything can at this stage!