I take it that it's office workers who are given this smoke "perk"?
because as a factory worker, I have never worked anywhere that allows US to just nip off for a quick ****,
the only place I HAVE worked that allowed such a thing was when I was working in the republic of Ireland, and then we had to ASK a supervisor for permission and IF said supervisor granted such permission,
(quite often it would depend on the mood of the supervisor, and or if they themselves were a smoker or an anti smoking Nazi)
we had to "clock off" and at the end of the week the smoke breaks would be deducted from your pay,
but then us factory workers ARE "lesser" human beings,
I mean WE only need 30 mins for a lunch break, where office workers, for some reason, need an hour to recover from all that sitting down staring at a computer monitor,
I've never smoked, but I used to work for a large electronics development and design company where smoking in the labs / offices was banned, but there was a smoking room.
The smoking room was a haven of cross-project intellectual property sharing; and was undoubtedly of a net benefit to the company at the time!
That's actually pretty much the same wherever I have worked in the past too. You can sit down in a meeting for two hours raking over the same crap as the day before, get nowhere and then adjourn.
Within seconds the smokers will all be outside going over what was said and have a solution in place by the time they get back to their desks.
I get the hump becuase the people that do it come down to my warehouse and do it abotu a foot from my desk by the back door and the smoke blows right in to me. They don't care if I am eatingmy lunch at my desk or anything I just get to enhale their lovely smke.
If you calculate the time lost by smokers taking smoking breaks, they technically should only be on 11/12th their annual salary, as you lose almost a months productivity by taking smoking breaks.
(Calculation: 8 x 5 minute smoking breaks per day = 40 minutes lost per day.
= 200 minutes per 40 hour week, or 3 1/3 hours per week.
Assuming no holiday taken, this amounts to just over 171 hours per year, or just over 4 working weeks!)
Now do the same for those who stand around chatting while making coffee. 6 cups a day, 10 minutes chatting each time = 1 hour lost per day etc
Or for those who surf the web or chat over email or text friends. 8 times a day, 10 minutes each time = 1 hour 20 mins lost each day.
I'n my experiance, smokers are some of the most productive people in a company because they know that their smoking time is looked down upon. So they make up for it in other ways.
It's a physical addiction, you wouldn't give a diabetic shit for goin to sort out their insulin levels eh?
I know that's a more extreme example but it's the same principle...Besides would you really wanna be stuck in the office with a bunch of stressed out moody bastards?
Hey mathertron, I don't want to pile on smokers, as my dear mother is most definitely addicted, and I don't actually have a problem with smokers having little breaks as long as it doesn't hamper productivity. However, and with due respect, I have to say your comparison here blows, and I've seen you make it before. First of all, I am not addicted to insulin, I am dependent on it to live. Secondly, being diabetic is not something I chose for myself, nor could it have been avoided. Thirdly, I think you'd be surprised how discretely and efficiently I can sort out my levels, with minimal disruption.
I was going to add, the law doesn't give smokers any rights to take additional breaks, if an employer says you can't go for a smoke break, then you can't go for a smoke break - you have no legal right to one.
And if an employer says you can then why the moans here?
It depends where you work, and all is needed is a little common sense. If you work in a factory you cannot leave the place other than on designated tea/smoke breaks, or for that matter in shops, hospitals, schools , many jobs , other than working in an office.
If you work in an office many non smokers will take time out to chat to mates, on the phone, or in person to the lass next door or whatever. Unless smokers are abusing the system by going out every half hour I don't see a problem.
I love these moaning about smoking threads. The same guff posted by different usernames. Its hilarious
Yeah,it's the same posters in every thread.I just couldn't allow myself to have such a strong opinion on something that doesn't really affect me that much.I imagine them trying to convert people on the streets like preachers.Just sod off and leave us alone because you're misery is probably taking years off your life just as smoking is with us.
Hey mathertron, I don't want to pile on smokers, as my dear mother is most definitely addicted, and I don't actually have a problem with smokers having little breaks as long as it doesn't hamper productivity. However, and with due respect, I have to say your comparison here blows, and I've seen you make it before. First of all, I am not addicted to insulin, I am dependent on it to live. Secondly, being diabetic is not something I chose for myself, nor could it have been avoided. Thirdly, I think you'd be surprised how discretely and efficiently I can sort out my levels, with minimal disruption.
Firstly a physical dependance is most certainly a medical condition the clue is in the name...Secondly I explicitly explained that my example was not like for like, thirdly the morality of how and why people are dependant on anything is of no consequence, if a person became diabetic because they laid on the mars bars would I have the right to deny them their treatment? Of course not......
Furthermore I was not comparing the ability to access the drug you need with that of a smoker as regard to work output.
No need to get defensive I wasn;t having a go at people who happen to be diabetic, I was just explaining that as a dependant on a drug (which is what both smokers and diabetics are) it is both your right and in the interests of productivity to enable fair access to that substance.
In my first job everyone had the same 15 minute break. It was such a boring tedious job that I often nipped to the loos for a smoke and to rest my aching feet. The other staff must have thought I suffered from a teriible affliction as I went to the toilet so often. It was boredom more than addiction.
In my second job we were only allowed to smoke at lunch as long as we left the premises and were out of sight. It was a pain as we could only flout the rules if the boss was away.
Firstly a physical dependance is most certainly a medical condition the clue is in the name...Secondly I explicitly explained that my example was not like for like, thirdly the morality of how and why people are dependant on anything is of no consequence, if a person became diabetic because they laid on the mars bars would I have the right to deny them their treatment? Of course not......
Furthermore I was not comparing the ability to access the drug you need with that of a smoker as regard to work output.
No need to get defensive I wasn;t having a go at people who happen to be diabetic, I was just explaining that as a dependant on a drug (which is what both smokers and diabetics are) it is both your right and in the interests of productivity to enable fair access to that substance.
I'm not defensive, and I didn't think you were having ago and as I already stated, I'm not out to deny anyone, anything. However, I'm not particularly interested in being compared to a smoker or any other addict unless your life actually depends on your drug of choice. Furthermore, mars bars have nothing to do with me, and if I could done anything to avoid this dependency I have, you'd better believe I would have. That's all. I'm genuinely sorry if that offends you.
At the place i work now i was advised when i first started to take regular breaks away from the computer screen. A five min break every hour was suggested this is regardless of if you smoke or not. Therefore as a smoker, i get no more or no less breaks than anyone else in the company. I also dont get headaches from looking at a computer screen all day every day.
Just off for a smoke break now, whilst all my non smoking colleagues are fiddling with their Iphones. my productivity is the highest in the team, fuelled on by the power of Mayfair Menthol Superkings
As a smoker, I don't consider that to be particularly fair. As it happens, I've never worked anywhere that would allow that kind of thing anyway and have always had to smoke during a scheduled tea-break that everyone gets. I'm fine with that.
nor me...you constantly read about it on ds tho!! who are the employers who let smokers nip out all the time??
I've never worked for a company where you get separate **** breaks. People have always just waited until their breaks like everyone else where I've ever worked. Or before the smoking ban people just smoked as they worked.
Comments
Wow. Bitter.
That's actually pretty much the same wherever I have worked in the past too. You can sit down in a meeting for two hours raking over the same crap as the day before, get nowhere and then adjourn.
Within seconds the smokers will all be outside going over what was said and have a solution in place by the time they get back to their desks.
Now do the same for those who stand around chatting while making coffee. 6 cups a day, 10 minutes chatting each time = 1 hour lost per day etc
Or for those who surf the web or chat over email or text friends. 8 times a day, 10 minutes each time = 1 hour 20 mins lost each day.
I'n my experiance, smokers are some of the most productive people in a company because they know that their smoking time is looked down upon. So they make up for it in other ways.
So you're not even allowed to go to the toilet?
Hey mathertron, I don't want to pile on smokers, as my dear mother is most definitely addicted, and I don't actually have a problem with smokers having little breaks as long as it doesn't hamper productivity. However, and with due respect, I have to say your comparison here blows, and I've seen you make it before. First of all, I am not addicted to insulin, I am dependent on it to live. Secondly, being diabetic is not something I chose for myself, nor could it have been avoided. Thirdly, I think you'd be surprised how discretely and efficiently I can sort out my levels, with minimal disruption.
Seems fair to me? Not hard is it to come up with such a solution?
I like that solution and would guess that little breaks here and there are probably good for overall productivity.
And pubs stink worse now smokers are outside.
And if an employer says you can then why the moans here?
If you work in an office many non smokers will take time out to chat to mates, on the phone, or in person to the lass next door or whatever. Unless smokers are abusing the system by going out every half hour I don't see a problem.
Yeah,it's the same posters in every thread.I just couldn't allow myself to have such a strong opinion on something that doesn't really affect me that much.I imagine them trying to convert people on the streets like preachers.Just sod off and leave us alone because you're misery is probably taking years off your life just as smoking is with us.
Firstly a physical dependance is most certainly a medical condition the clue is in the name...Secondly I explicitly explained that my example was not like for like, thirdly the morality of how and why people are dependant on anything is of no consequence, if a person became diabetic because they laid on the mars bars would I have the right to deny them their treatment? Of course not......
Furthermore I was not comparing the ability to access the drug you need with that of a smoker as regard to work output.
No need to get defensive I wasn;t having a go at people who happen to be diabetic, I was just explaining that as a dependant on a drug (which is what both smokers and diabetics are) it is both your right and in the interests of productivity to enable fair access to that substance.
In my second job we were only allowed to smoke at lunch as long as we left the premises and were out of sight. It was a pain as we could only flout the rules if the boss was away.
I'm not defensive, and I didn't think you were having ago and as I already stated, I'm not out to deny anyone, anything. However, I'm not particularly interested in being compared to a smoker or any other addict unless your life actually depends on your drug of choice. Furthermore, mars bars have nothing to do with me, and if I could done anything to avoid this dependency I have, you'd better believe I would have. That's all. I'm genuinely sorry if that offends you.
No they don't.
Not even close.
Why should you be able to smoke in more places than that?
'course not.
Thanks for the reminder BTW - I'm about due.
nor me...you constantly read about it on ds tho!! who are the employers who let smokers nip out all the time??