not having that 5 mins break every couple of hours is killing me a little bit.

Anything stopping you from just taking that break anyway? Replace your nicotine addiction with a caffeine addiction. (-:

I’ve been drinking more coffee than I though was humanly possible. Speaking of which, time to stand in the kitchen watching the kettle boil. I have cracked once on the smoking front, due to not having had one for over a week it was both fantastic and disgusting in equal measure.

Just need to work on the crap job thing.

Whenever I have started a new job, I’m ready for the “do you smoke” question. My answer has always been “no, but I’ll take non-smoking breaks”.

This policy would stop my non-smoking breaks, should my current work have had a similar attitude to smoking breaks.

I wouldn’t employ smokers to start with

That’s my company policy. I employ freelancers but not those that smoke.
If I worked in an office I would take my old tyre pressure gauge* with me and stand outside holding it for 15min upwind from the smokers/douche-flute wheezers.

*it looks a bit like a vape thingy.

As an ardent anti smoking type I’m still not convinced. For many work places the fag break has an element of ‘crafty’ about it. It is not sanctioned, it just happens. Giving extra leave will, given time, be perceived as denying leave to smokers – i.e. the standard leave is now 24 days but if you smoke we dock you 4 of those. That then legitimises the fag break – ‘if they are going to knock 4 days off my leave I’m going to be blatant and take the piss’.

I would far rather see every employee get (and be encouraged to take) three ten min breaks a day regardless of if you are a smoker of not. Smokers who want to smoke go outside, everyone else chats in the kitchen or goes outside to the non carcinogenic areas. The condition I would put is that they must be taken on the hour (half hour, whatever – ‘ten at ten past’. some might choose 1310, some 1510 – whatever suited their commitments) so that members of different departments mingled with more frequency. I might be miffed by colleagues getting extra time off for fag breaks but they often come back with intel about stuff going on around the business and have better relationships outside of their immediate colleague than us clean healthy types. That’s positive for the business and could be seen as a model for the whole organisation.

I wouldn’t employ smokers to start with

That’s my company policy. I employ freelancers but not those that smoke.

To be fair, my first job as a grad there were a lot of smokers, and I thus took non smoking breaks (standing outside for a coffee having a chat). It was actually pretty useful for developing a network and exchanging ideas/chatting about technical details with people from different teams and at different levels within the company.

Whenever I have started a new job, I’m ready for the “do you smoke” question.

I’m genuinely surprised that this is a question anyone would ask. It’s not specifically a ‘protected characteristic’ (like gender or race) as far as I’m aware, but prospective employers cannot ask questions which may prejudice their decision and that includes lifestyle choices. I’m pretty sure this would be illegal.

That’s my company policy. I employ freelancers but not those that smoke.

… as is that. It’s unlawful discrimination and you could be hauled up for it. If that’s an actual written company policy a tribunal would have you for breakfast.

’m genuinely surprised that this is a question anyone would ask.

I don’t think anybody does these days. Back in the early to mid zeroties they did, though.

As a sometimes smoker I am dead set against fly flag breaks which disadvantages the non smokers

Smoke in your official break or if you are having a fly fag then the non smokers get to down tools for the same time

I think we need this here.

I also don’t smoke so I don’t think people should be allowed to have extended break time. It’s disgusting and FOUL. It makes them look ill and they STINK the office out.

As a man who has decided to not have any children I don’t think women or men should be entitled to a benefit that I shall not access and that’s MATERNITY leave. There are women POPPING them (kids) out left, right and centre where I work and are never at work whilst they’re on their extended breaks ensuring their LEGACY is continued whilst the rest of us are propping up the company.

I also think it’s cheeky that staff get the jump on their breaks by eating their lunch at their DESKS during WORKING hours and then leave their desks for their FULL lunch break! I think they should have any time spent snacking at their desks DOCKED from their entitled break time.

Also, staff that get up from their desks to talk to other staff in the office about anything other than work should be docked break time as that’s LEISURE talk and so should be restricted to leisure time not work time.

I also plan ahead and extricate the bulk of my human WASTE at home, at my own expense. Why should my work colleagues benefit from THEIR poor planning and get to take extra toilet breaks whilst again I’m propping up the company.

Trying to decide if the smokers or the random CAPITALISERS should be first up against the wall in the office clear out 😉

… as is that. It’s unlawful discrimination and you could be hauled up for it. If that’s an actual written company policy a tribunal would have you for breakfast.

Never going to happen. I employ freelancers on an ad-hoc basis and the place of work is either a hire studio (no smoking) or private/public locations (usually non smoking) i’ll Hire whoever I like.

Only hired a smoker once, they were never there when I needed them at a critical time! Never again.

I suspect that smoking and the associated breaks, make very little difference to how productive someone is. I sit next to a guy who can be useless all day while at his desk, he doesn’t smoke but if he did his absence would make very little difference 😀

I’m genuinely surprised that this is a question anyone would ask. It’s not specifically a ‘protected characteristic’ (like gender or race) as far as I’m aware, but prospective employers cannot ask questions which may prejudice their decision and that includes lifestyle choices. I’m pretty sure this would be illegal.

I take it as once they’ve started the job and are being shown around, so they can be shown where to smoke. Could be wrong though.

And they stink of old ashtrays when they come in, and their breath smells like they have been eating dog turd and pickled onion sarnies.
Why the need to exhale all the stink as they walk back in
Reckon you can get away with 2hrs free time if you plan your fag, toilet and lunch breaks accordingly
And they are always so busy, but have their coat on at 4.55….

Trying to decide if the smokers or the random CAPITALISERS should be first up against the wall in the office clear out 😉

TBH, I was trying to work out whether Poe’s Law applied or not.

i’ll Hire whoever I like.

… illegally.

I’ll remember TJs advice next time I need to ring staff members after a bad job to see if they’re ok. I’ll just leave them sitting feeling hopeless and unsupported until they return to work as I can’t possible call them for a chat.

Again in English please

“The beatings will continue until moral improves”?

… as is that. It’s unlawful discrimination and you could be hauled up for it. If that’s an actual written company policy a tribunal would have you for breakfast.

From the personneltoday website:

Under current UK law, discrimination against employees or job applicants on grounds of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief by employers is outlawed. However, there are no laws that directly prohibit discrimination against smokers.

The above is from 2004, however I’ve found other references from 2018 which still support this. I also remember reading an article a while ago where someone tried to sue their employer as they let her go when they found out she was a smoker when their job advert stated only non smokerts. She lost her case as the ruling was that the company could employ only non smokers.

Of course my info may be a little out of date so if the law has changed in the last couple of years then I’ll be happy to be corrected.

I think you are right legally but on dubious grounds morally

Your issue with the employee was not that he smoked, it was that he was disappearing when supposed to be working.

As a man who has decided to not have any children I don’t think women or men should be entitled to a benefit that I shall not access and that’s MATERNITY leave.

Are you prepared to take the same hit to pay and pension as a woman taking maternity leave?

…illegally.

It’s not

Can Employees Refuse to Hire Smokers?
Although it does sound like discrimination it is not against the law for employers to refuse to hire smokers. Even if the employee claims they will not smoke during work hours the employer can still refuse to hire them. One employee in the UK was dismissed 15 minutes after being hired after employers found out that she smoked. This may seem like discrimination but employers are perfectly within their rights not to hire smokers

I dislike the stink of fags, I don’t want to work with/employ somebody who smokes.
Also I’m not employing anyone long term, these are other freelancers like me booked for the day, the only rights they have are that I should have employers/liability insurance and I pay them on time.
I’m actually a generous employer and buy them beer after a shoot, lend them gear and let one regular go early if he has a 5 a side game on.
No stinky smokers though.

The smokers are probably getting several days a year extra off sick, so it’s a win-win for them.

Anyone who’s replied on this  or any other thread during work time doesn’t deserve to have an opinion on it.

If, as an employer, you are not allowed to exclude smokers from your candidate list. Could you refuse to employ a functioning alcoholic? I mean they are able to function so it doesn’t impede their ability to do their job. How about recreational drug user? They could get boxed every weekend and other than being a miserable so and so come Wednesday it wouldn’t interfere with work. Would it be unlawful to refuse employment on those grounds? Not just being a dick, I am actually interested where the line is drawn.

Anyone who’s replied on this  or any other thread during work time doesn’t deserve to have an opinion on it.

I’m smoking a faaaaag!

https://www.interview-skills.co.uk/free-information/interview-guide/illegal-interview-questions

8.1.7 here.

I’ll remember TJs advice next time I need to ring staff members after a bad job to see if they’re ok. I’ll just leave them sitting feeling hopeless and unsupported until they return to work as I can’t possible call them for a chat.

Well there are workers protections and there is moving with the times. TJ doesn’t seem to have realised that for many the workplace is very different than it was 30 years ago.

I may deal with a problem outside of my work hours, likewise I may do an unpaid hour on a Saturday but then on the other hand I may go home early an hour today because I need to get something done before it is dark or I may decide to work from home tomorrow to allow me to get something else done more easily.
It is much more give and take and less rigid than it was when I first started working in the 80’s and the times I work are much more down to me with the important bit being what I get achieved.

Kerley – what you do not realise is that is to your detriment and as above can often be illegal as it may well breach working time directive. Effectivly you are “on call” 24/7 for no extra money.

The rules are there to protect workers.

Yes if its an emergency its ok – but routinely? Not on at all

Stockholm syndrome?

Drac

I’m smoking a faaaaag!

Is he good looking?

Written while at work

Kerley
I’d better apologise for my post above – sounds rather harsher than I meant.

I just get frustrated at seeing worker protections being scaled back and with folk who see no issue with this.

apologies for sounding so harsh / getting personal

I’m typing this in the kitchen whilst waiting for my coffee to brew.

Should I be getting paid double time for this?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if someone smokes when you are assessing them for a job, and plenty of reasons to turn anyone down for a position if you don’t want them.

In this story the boss himself is a smoker and he brought it in. No one is losing any holiday, only gaining it if they don’t smoke. This includes people who want to give up, last X Weeks and you get a day off.

Inspired idea I think.

Kerley – what you do not realise is that is to your detriment and as above can often be illegal as it may well breach working time directive. Effectivly you are “on call” 24/7 for no extra money.

The rules are there to protect workers.

I’m with Kerley on this I’m afraid (and I’m sure he realises perfectly well, that’s kinda condescending).

The Working Time Directive is there to stop employers taking advantage of its workforce, and it’s something that as an individual you can opt out of. I did so as a) I trusted my employer not to take the piss and abuse the position and so didn’t feel the need for its protection and b) it was in my best interests not to restrict the amount of overtime I could do if I wanted to. It’s worked out just fine for me for the last decade or so.

I’m quite happy to trade emails with my boss at 2am on a Saturday night whilst I’m watching TV and halfway through a bottle of red, because I know full well that if I want an extra half hour in bed the following Tuesday morning no-one would care. The door swings both ways, y’see.

What you’re overlooking perhaps is that this is my choice, ultimately it’s to my net benefit. I’m not “on call” as there is absolutely no mandate for me to be looking at work stuff out of hours let alone be doing anything about it, and five minutes to fire off an email might save me a couple of hours the following day. If anyone were to ever say to me, “why didn’t you answer the phone when I called last night?” then we would be having a Conversation.

I absolutely do not work for free and if I was doing prescribed out of hours work – as I’m likely to be doing tonight – then I’ll claim overtime for it or I’m not doing it. As I’ve said many times, “I’ll work to rule if you want, but you won’t like it.”

I think you are right legally but on dubious grounds morally

It’s ok in my morality book 😀

Cougar – see my apology above

Some aspects of the WTD you cannot “opt out of” the 11 hour rest period being one of them. the only opt out is the 48 hr week

there are special circumstances where the 11 hour rest period can me missed – but compensatory rest must be given IIRC as it must be for overlong shifts

If your boss is phoning you at home then that is work and WTD applies. You are “on call” and should be remunerated for it.

Cougar – see my apology above

Yeah, you posted that as I was typing. As you were. (-:

Some aspects of the WTD you cannot “opt out of” the 11 hour rest period being one of them

That I didn’t know. Interesting.

If your boss is phoning you at home then that is work and WTD applies. You are “on call” and should be remunerated for it.

Only if I’m expected to answer it. I’ve carried a work phone as well as a personal one for like 30 years for precisely this reason, colleagues at a previous employer thought it was perfectly fine to ring me at 8am on a Sunday morning with questions about a problem they were having with their personal home computer. A separate phone has an ‘off’ switch.

The reality of this for me today is that anyone other than my boss or teammates phoning me out of hours would be highly unusual, like “the building is on fire” level of a problem. If a colleague were to call – still unusual – it’s as much likely to be to tell me about the new graphics card they’d bought or that the next series of Mr Robot had just dropped on Netflix rather than something work-related.