The average worker who smokes will take three to four breaks on an eight hour day roughly consuming ten to fifteen minutes each time. For a non smoker who is typically entitled to one fifteen minute break and a half hour "off clock lunch" they're now working roughly a half hour more than the smokers. I would doubt that any employee who doesn't smoke is making more than their co-workers who indulge in this spare time at work due to the issue of discrimination and this sparks an issue about their entitled breaks.
In an article I found called Sucking Down the Breaks: Smokers and the Workplace some smokers made the argument that
"The smoke breaks are used as a time to reflect on work that has been completed and what still needs to get done, thus making them more productive than non-smokers"http://blog.lawinfo.com/2008/06/13/sucking-down-the-breaks-smokers-and-the-workplace/
The article continued to break down a few statistics on this argument such as employee's who smoke tend to call in more sick days and employees who smoke tend to have a poorer than average work performance.
Although people cannot smoke in the work place nothing states they can't smoke in a designated areaor choose to do so on their breaks.
So what about those employee's who don't smoke? Should they be given an equal opportunity to go outside and enjoy some fresh clean air? Some people would argue the best method to treat all employee's equal would be to just give everyone the same amount of breaks and I agree that sounds fair. I know of a large wholesale distribution warehouse where their employees have a similar plan set in place how they operate their breaks all employees close down for an hour at lunch and about two twenty minute breaks, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. With a system like that everyone is treated equally in terms of a break but does that business operate any better when for nearly an hour and a half nobody is working?Perhaps some places of business can operate like this but could you picture if McDonald's allowed everyone to leave for an hour so they too could allow their employees to all have an equal break?
I work in a small parts store where we have no more than six people working at a time but are sometimes reduced to two. Not all of us smoke there but those of us who do take smoke breaks we take them freely and sometimes abundantly in a day. Being a small store we recognize when is a appropriate for a smoke break and when they're over (primarily when we see customers pull into the parking lot) We have never had any complaints from the manager who is a non smoker nor from any of the other non smoking employees and I believe that to be because we recognize their is a time to work, and a time to relax.
Obviously not all businesses can operate similar to these examples. I think in the case of inequality their are two responsibilities. Number one is for the smokers to take these breaks when they need them and not just every hour. As a smoker I know there are times when it comes down to having a smoke, or lashing out on the next person I talk to. Number two falls into the managers position of deciding when is an appropriate time for a second break for that cigarette, and how they can keep the morale of the employees up. For example allowing the non smokers to take a second break too.
If you have any thoughts or opinions of the inequality smokers and non smokers have when it comes to their breaks I'd love to read them. Any stories or scenarios you've seen or be faced with at your job or even if you have any ideas of what managers could do to help make breaks more equal for both smokers and non smokers feel free to post
James Smith
