Smokers "too much trouble" - that report in full
Thursday, September 30, 2010 I am mortified to find that I am in newspapers today appearing to suggest that smokers are "too much trouble" to employ. I didn't say that at all but this is what happens when you have a slightly unguarded conversation with a journalist who is desperate for a "story".
It happened like this. I received a call on Tuesday evening from a news agency reporter. He was miffed, I think, that he had missed the story about Breckland Council wanting workers to clock out to have a smoke break because it was on his patch. Instead, the story had been picked up by another news agency and had become national news.
He felt, I think, that his judgement had been questioned and the conversation began with us agreeing that this wasn't a "new" story because Breckland isn't the first council to introduce such a policy. Indeed, Breckland is positively liberal compared to some employers where they have banned smoking breaks altogether.
I expressed concern that the next step might be for more employers to ban smoking during office hours or, worse, not employ smokers at all. I may have said that some employers might consider smokers to be "too much trouble" but I don't remember using that phrase, or the word "complicated" to describe smokers' lives at work. In fact, I see it quite differently.
As I have said in interviews several times this week, I have employed smokers myself and their habit has never been a problem (apart from the 300 days a year they take off work - JOKE). It's some of their other habits that I found a bit offensive!!
The Daily Mail has the story online HERE - 137 comments to date.
Reader Comments (12)
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools................."
(Rudyard Kipling)
'Nuff said ?
Don't think it incriminates you, Simon - just reads as a poorly-worded sentence.
Will the obese have to clock in and out for their snack breaks too?
If employees want to smoke outside on their official breaks, this is perfectly lawful.
It is unreasonable for employers to try to stop them, their freetime is theirs.
Malcolm - many places of work do not have 'official' breaks.
The last office job I was in we could drink coffe all day, if we wished to, at our desks, whilst we worked.
I was paid to leave in the end as a new smoking regime was being introduced and there was to be no smoking whatsoever during working hours (yes, there was an hour for lunch, but due to mental health issues I was working through lunch in order to leave an hour earlier).
It was necessary to walk across from one side of the road through the trading estate to the other to our main office, but it would not be permitted to smoke whislt doing so! That was at the beginning of 2009.
Previously I had pointed out to the CEO of the company (who I was PA to) that if he looked into it he would see that the smokers in his company had fewer days off sick than non smokers. He had to agree! This did not stop the MD from changing the smoking policy, however.
Where I currently work there is a staff room but no-one uses it. sadly breaks of any kind these days - even legal ones - are frowned upon. I've had jobs where even taking an hour for lunch will make your life difficult and you then become a target. I don't smoke at work. I go out and grab a sandwich and smoke one on the way there and one on the way back and I don't smoke again until I go home.
The only other worker in that office is also a smoker. He doesn't take any breaks either. We simply don't have time.
But this isn't about smoker losing time at work or being "complicated" to employ. It is about marginalisation and hate campaigning to make employers lose the respect of their smoker employees and hoping that those of us who won't quit will become unemployable and ultimately homeless through lack of income.
Some one should be prosecuted for this hate crime and I've suggested Deborah Arnold as the head of the biggest bigoted organisation in the UK but others says she is the wrong target.
Either way, unless this "movement" does something to stop this lifestyle hatred, then we can only expect things to get much worse for us.
... and I agree with Joyce. Simon, you did Ok. The reporter, I would guess, hasn't got his shorthand yet and that is why your conversation hasn't translated well.
*Arnott, of course. how could I forget :)
It's with great pride that I can say my husband will now only employ smokers. He says they make better team players, have greater initiative and, contrary to popular belief, more stamina. It's surprsing how many non-smokers are quite precious health-wise and the job (geophysical surveying) can be pretty gruelling.
Additionally, as it's outside work they can light up whenever they want.
Hurrah for your husband, Karen! Can we hope to hear some snippets about non-smokers' reactions when they're told the reason they're not wanted?
Karen -
Kindly inform your husband that he can confidently expect to become an honorary member (at least) of my Privy Council when I become Protector of the Realm. And - needless to say - my moated manor house at a secret location in Hampshire will be open to you both at any time.
We badly need such men (yes - and women, too).
Three cheers for Mr Karen !!!
"I expressed concern that the next step might be for more employers to ban smoking during office hours or, worse, not employ smokers at all."
Perhaps you should point out that the overweight could beat smokers to it. See my reference.
@Joyce and Martin
Lol! When can we start packing then, Martin?
Joyce - my husband is genetically hard-wired for diplomacy, sadly. The truth is a lot less satisfying - he's evolved a core team over the years, every member of which smokes. He just thinks that the correlation between being able to do the job well and being a smoker is no accident.
To be fair to one of the non-smokers who joined us for a while, his weakness was a sports' injury. They aren't all physical incompetants with no imagination and 'funny little ways' and some have been really nice - just useless or a bit weird.