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
I think that if people are allowed smoke breaks and such, other employees should have some sort of benefit out of that. One suggestion is like some sort of incentive for not taking a smoke break. If you happen to not take any smoke breaks because you don't smoke or you just don't want to at work, for each day that you do so, give them about $1-2 each day for not smoking to make them feel more comfortable with the fact that others get to smoke and yet still get paid for the full 8 hour shift they had.
ReplyDeleteI worked in the IT sector before I joined Sheridan. At our company were allowed any number of breaks to sip coffee, chat, or smoke as they only focussed on the productivity of the person. I think that is a good way to keep employees happy by giving them a choice to control the time they have on their hands and do their job well.
ReplyDeleteGiving monetary incentives probably wouldn't be accepted by management considering companies are trying to cut costs and a reason like this would be too petty for them to consider it. On the other hand, if it was suggested that, they cut a dollar from the smokers’ pay check (to account for the company time lost in their smoke breaks), then probably companies would be readily looking into the subject because now you are talking profits for the company.
In all due fairness, I feel non-smokers should be happy they are not addicted but rather they are utilising their time well. I believe all the smoke breaks they save today would eventually add up to some healthy days at life’s end.
I don’t think there is an absolute answer for this problem. Like what James said in the blog, smokers have to smoke when they want, otherwise they might transfer the anxiety into anger. It really depends on the working environment. In some work place, it is ok whether you take a smoke break as long as it won’t affect your responsibility to finish the work on time. In other situation, if people work together as a group, you can’t just go out for a smoke break when other people are working for the group goal, which is definitely unfair.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Aaron in which that non-smokers should get a benefit. However, I feel there should be a limit on how many breaks smokers can have. Since smoking is considered an addiction companies should offer "help services" for those who may feel like smoking is the only way to calm down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron, the non-smokers employees should get other benefits to be fair for them and that can make all employees agree with that.
ReplyDeleteIts a smoker's problem if he turns his anxiety into anger. I'm a smoker myself and I'm never unjust to others by taking more breaks than co-workers who do not smoke. If a smoker wants to smoke, then he or she can do so on their designated breaks. It would be costly and time consuming to figure out ways to benefit non-smokers.
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard to tell situations like this. Let’s think about this way. Some smokers spend a little bit more break time than non-smokers, but his/her productivities are much better. Can we accuse him/her of time consumption? They had better smoke outside, freshen themselves and concentrate on working. Smokers productivity will go down if they do not smoke. By the way, I am not a smoker.
ReplyDeleteIts very interesting blog by James. I think smokers need some breaks during the work, but it should not be discriminatory for non smokers. Efficiancy is measured how one performed during the working hours. If he is doing well and meeting the deadlines, it could be tolerated.But if still non smokers are feeling some kind of discrimination they should talk it to the management.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Khalid, its not about input, its about output, that is, how much productivity one can squeeze out the hour. If a worker meets deadlines then there should really not be much of a restriction on the smoke breaks he or she can take. In France, workers work significantly few hours in comparison to other nations yet France is a prosperous country because they're relaxed, they don't find it necessary to cage the human condition with 15 minute time frames.
ReplyDeleteWhat Daejoong and Khalid have good points, as in it also depends on the efficiency of the smokers as well. As long as a deadline is met, then the smoker can take as many breaks as they want. However, if they are less productive than the non-smokers, than either there needs to be less smoke breaks, or some sort of benefit for the non-smokers to give them the satisfaction of a well hard day at work.
ReplyDeleteOne solution would be to give non-smokers the same amount of breaks as smokers if both of them are productive.
ReplyDeleteI guess all solutions have their own pros and cons. Giving smokers and non-smokers liberty to take as many smoke breaks/coffee breaks as they wish could either boost their productivity or may not. If a relaxed lifestyle works well for France, there is no guarantee it would work wonders in Canada too. The cultures differ and so do the way one decides how to use their office-breaks or after office hours.
ReplyDeleteI think there is another option that makes a vote among the workers in order to come to an agreement on how to arrange the break for both smokers and non-smokers.
ReplyDeleteThe time wasted by smokers during their breaks means employees are away from their work sites, missing phone calls, reducing sales for the company and unable to meet customer service demands. either non-smokers employees should get other benefits or charge the smokers to be fair.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that it is unfair that smokers get a chance to have smoke breaks, while non smokers sit in office work and try to be more productive. But we can’t blame smokers for this issue, because it’s a personal choice whether they want to smoke or stay in office. Everyone likes a break while working, and in that time if smokers plan to smoke, it is their way to relax their mind. Whereas, non smoker should also try finding something which relaxes their mind while working, because it helps a person to be more productive if his/her mind is calm.
ReplyDelete