a question about rights at work...

first of all fishchitter, welcome to A2k!

i'm not sure i understand the question...

if the law states that smoking is not allowed in an office, employees who smoke have the right to go to the designated smoking area, outside the office building.

Too often, employers provide additional breaktime to those who smoke. This practice is unfair. Establish uniform break rules with no consideration whatsoever as to whether a person smokes and you can avoid the petty arguments that will ensue if you don't. What kind of business do you manage?

Oh, and welcome to A2K

I think I misunderstood the question. Everyone is talking about breaks, but smokers and non-smokers can both be accommodated as far as breaks are concerned. There are situations where smokers and non-smokers truly can not both be accommodated. For example, flight attendants, or even the extreme case of astronauts. I was thinking of situations like that when I said that if both could not be accommodated it is only fair that non-smokers receive priority accommodation.

Welcome fishcutter. Can you provide a little more detail on your question? I can't really think of a situation where accomadations can't be worked out reasonably.

Last place I worked at, the smokers took extra breaks. I started taking no-smoking breaks, and no one said anything about it. But then, our work flow was such that I really only worked about 22 hours a week, and was there for 40. So long as no jobs were missed, no one cared.

Current job, well, I'm the only guy here at night. But when I was working during the day, I'd take non-smoking breaks when the guys would take smoking breaks, and no one cared. Including the boss-man who joined us. But then again, it's not like we were out there every five minutes.

Looking back at a lifetime at work, breaks are good things. It is ridiculous to never stop.

Firstly, thanks for your welcome, Region Philbis. I'm afaid I didn't express the question clearly. As to a company, the employees might include smokers and non-smokers. It is hard to avoid not smoking during the worktime, because smoking is a such a strange habit, smokers are difficult to go without a tobacco. If emplyers take the issue into account and offer the break time for smokers, but what about non-smokers? Do you think it is fair to them? So, if this kind of problem would happen, employers cann't meet the needs of both smokers and non-smokers, what should employers do?

Smokers can quite easily go without a cig for 2-3 hours - If you can get 5mins in every couple of hours it's not really a problem. Most jobs can accomodate that. What kind of job are you talking about?

I'm afraid I haven't got a business yet. I'm still learning on the business. and hope to gain more knowlege about this field

hmm I pretty much work the whole day but then - I get my smoke time - you know where

not specific. just a general topic. supposing in a multinational corparation with a high work tension. what do you think? Jer.

I don't know...in office jobs I've generally found that you just need to get your work done - there aren't a lot of pre-set breaks. You take a break when you need one, smoker or not.

The only time I've ever had any smoking/working issues was when I worked on a production line at a mill. You couldn't stop unless it was break time because the whole line would stop.

I'm a regular smoker and have never found it to be a problem in a work environment.

My two cents.

Besides, I think people who have regular breaks probably perform better at work anyway, smoker or not.

I haven't smoked since before they started outlawing smoking in the work enviroment. So, I and many others smoked on the job. Cough. Frankly, I loved it.

Now I don't smoke, but I take breaks, going down the street for a latte, or a walk around the block. But then I am an "owner".

As a landscape architect, I am sort of unhappy about seeing smokers huddled in the alley braving wind or rain (I live in a place where the temp varies in daytime from about 48 t0 63.

If a company has some outdoor space, I'd like to see them develop a rest area, with benches, perhaps an outdoor heater, some shelter, say an overhead trellis with a nice vine, somewhere pleasant to go to. Smokers aren't thugs to be isolated in siberias, though I agree that I don't want to breathe smoke inside anymore myself.

Tangentially, I wish companies would make rest spaces nice anyway. I don't think it would cause that much more sloughing off of work duties and would make for somewhat happier people.

Actually, this is sort of a favorite rant. I don't like suburbs without town squares, and I don't like business parks without little plazas with what, oh, pretzel vendors, roasting chestnuts, ice cream bars, whatever. I don't like the cold divisions of work from comfort.

Osso,

One question and one statement:

Question:

Did you mean "aren't" as opposed to "are" when talking about smokers/thugs?

Statement:

Agree with your plaza/park ideas - great post!

sounds reasonable. it depends on what type of job employees taken. So they don't be allowed to have breaktime automatically, right? a kind of break time rules should be made, all staff can take break simultaneously. smokers have smoke time; perhaps non-smokers have washroom time. :wink:

being a non-smoker working in an engineering office, i can always find ways to take a break if i need one:
if the weather's nice, i'll go out for a 5-minute walk around the block...
if its not, and i wanna get the blood flowing, i'll walk down a few flights, then walk back up.

right now i'm taking a little ol' A2k break! ahhhhhhh... i feel refreshed

Jer, I thought I posted to thank you for pointing my typo out (yikes!) but don't see it this morning. Up in smoke..

I think I misunderstood the question. Everyone is talking about breaks, but smokers and non-smokers can both be accommodated as far as breaks are concerned. There are situations where smokers and non-smokers truly can not both be accommodated. For example, flight attendants, or even the extreme case of astronauts. I was thinking of situations like that when I said that if both could not be accommodated it is only fair that non-smokers receive priority accommodation.

(I accidentally edited my above post to be the same as this one, but it is pretty easy to tell what it said)

Well, scotey, you are right, it would be tough in space...