|
Post by andi on Oct 8, 2005 11:53:01 GMT 1
I think the main thing here though is that are they are doing something to actively discourage their employee's from smoking, so they do more work, which is what they are being paid to do.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 0:06:55 GMT 1
Which is good obviously but it sends out a strange message. Non smokers rewarded with - well, nothing - while the smokers are given all the attention... It's like at school where the 'good' kids sit in the corner quietly and basically get ignored cos the teachers are off dealing with the troublesome kids.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 0:10:59 GMT 1
Well yes, it does seem like they are getting special attention i agree, but at the end of the day, everyone goes to work to do a days work, so if these people can be helped to stop smoking in work hours, then the organisation will benefit from this.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 0:20:16 GMT 1
Well maybe. It isnt really their responsibility to stop people from smoking though. They just have to make it clear that nobody is allowed more than a certain amount of time for a break. If you smoke then you just have to wait.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 0:22:22 GMT 1
Well yes, i think it would be much better to allow people to smoke if they want too, as long as they do it in their own time, and make up any time they spend doing so each day.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 1:00:32 GMT 1
Yes exactly. The issue is not that they smoke, the issue is that they effect their work. Nobody should be allowed to take ten minute breaks every hour. Smoking is not a valid reason to do so. They work, they take a tea break, they can smoke then. Special provisions should not have to be made because they cant toe the line.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 1:03:12 GMT 1
I quite agree. These people are paid just as much to do the same amount of work as the people who don't smoke, so why should they get away with doing less work because they do?
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 1:15:58 GMT 1
Exactly. Obviously it's a nice gesture that your company are encouraging and helping people quit. But their work shouldnt be sacrificed in the process. They complain the smokers spend too much time smoking instead of working but theyre just exchanging smoking breaks for counselling sessions.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 1:18:54 GMT 1
It's not my company Kirsty. This is the city council i'm talking about, but i agree with you really they are just exchanging smoking breaks for counselling.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 2:07:59 GMT 1
Well it all seems rather strange to me.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 2:13:29 GMT 1
It just seems to be about getting people to do more work to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 2:24:14 GMT 1
Well its none of their business who smokes and who doesnt. The problem is that it is effecting their work so they need to be stricter about breaks, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 2:28:41 GMT 1
Yeah, i think a lot of it was the non smokers complaining about the breaks, so yes i agreethey just need stricter controls.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Oct 9, 2005 2:31:35 GMT 1
Yes - it really does not matter what they are actually doing in those breaks, the fact is they shouldnt be taking them at all.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Oct 9, 2005 2:34:42 GMT 1
Yes - it really does not matter what they are actually doing in those breaks, the fact is they shouldnt be taking them at all. Well not during working time anyway.
|
|