Poll: The IANAL but ...

Excuse me, have you a light?

  • Dim-wit employee

    Votes: 14 16.9%

  • Dim-wit employer

    Votes: 37 44.6%

  • Dim sum

    Votes: 32 38.6%
  • Total voters
    83

Redz

Redz

Redz

Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2008
Posts
2,812
Location
North West
... is it it safe to say that if an employee is given a written warning for taking excessive and unauthorised smoke breaks when that employee doesn't actually smoke they are being employed by a retard?

It wasn't me BTW.

Three people at work were given written warnings this week for taking smoke breaks. One doesn't smoke, one by agreement with his line manager starts work early unpaid so they can the take some time out for a smoke break, and the third works through lunch break (without prior agreement with their line manager) for the same reason.

So GD Did the employer conduct the disciplinary action fairly, lawfully and impartially and thoroughly investigated the allegations beforehand or are they slightly dim?

Can we have poll?
dim-wit employer
Dim-wit employee
pancake

I think the first two people would have the strongest case. The third guy may fail because he didn't seek approval for that course of action.
 
Did they go straight to a written warning?

I'm firmly of the opinion that as long as your job doesn't have actual time implications (e.g. you work on a customer helpline or have to collaborate constantly with others) then employers shouldn't care how long you actually spend at work. If they are happy with the output they get from you then the fact that it is achieved by you turning up late, taking long lunch break and then adding a few productive hours at home in the evening shouldn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the employer did the right thing.

Smoking breaks should be banned full stop.

If you wanna smoke, do it during your lunch break.
 
Why? If they're making up the time somehow what does it matter?

Assuming it's a buisness that isn't limited to when you can take lunch.
 
A2Z said:
Sounds like the employer did the right thing.

Smoking breaks should be banned full stop.

If you wanna smoke, do it during your lunch break.
Click to expand...

Did you read the thread? One was a non-smoker, and the other two who did smoke, took the breaks in their own time.
 
Redz said:
Did you read the thread? One was a non-smoker, and the other two who did smoke, took the breaks in their own time.
Click to expand...

Well why is the non smoker taking smoke breaks then? Im sure its because he feels he is 'entitled' to a break as that's what the others get.

As for the other 2, clearly the agreement one of them had with their line manager wasn't shared with management higher up, which is life. I once had an agreement with my line manager to come in 10 mins after everyone and leave 10 mins later. One week later he told me one of the directors said that can't happen anymore and I had to come in at the same time as everyone else. As for the other one, well he has no excuse, deciding to work through your lunch break expecting to be allowed smoke breaks without authorisation is just stupid.

Anyway sounds like the company has decided to treat EVERYONE the same, ie nobody can take smoke breaks, rather than bend the rules for a select few. Which is exactly how it should be, how can you blame them?
 
A2Z said:
Well why is the non smoker taking smoke breaks then? Im sure its because he feels he is 'entitled' to a break as that's what the others get.

As for the other 2, clearly the agreement one of them had with their line manager wasn't shared with management higher up, which is life. I once had an agreement with my line manager to come in 10 mins after everyone and leave 10 mins later. One week later he told me one of the directors said that can't happen anymore and I had to come in at the same time as everyone else. As for the other one, well he has no excuse, deciding to work through your lunch break expecting to be allowed smoke breaks without authorisation is just stupid.

Anyway sounds like the company has decided to treat EVERYONE the same, ie nobody can take smoke breaks, rather than bend the rules for a select few. Which is exactly how it should be, how can you blame them?
Click to expand...

Para 1. the non-smoker wasn't taking breaks as far as I know.

Para 2. As far as I know the agreement with person 2 wasn't rescinded.

Para 3. These people are all agency staff. The permanent staff can take smoke breaks with impunity as long as they are are of a reasonable length of time and frequency.
 
Why even go to the hassle of a written warning if they are agency staff if the end goal is to get rid of them?

None of this makes sense.
 
I kinda wish smoke breaks were banned, but then since regular breaks from computers are necessary I suppose they can be rolled into that.

I just wish smoking was banned full stop. There's little worse than working in an office with a smoker who comes back in regularly stinking of smoke. or as it's common in France to be eating in a restaurant and have smokers sit next to you. Smokers stink and it's disgusting. Yes people can generally smell bad as well but smokers don't seem to realise just how much they stink, or simply don't care. Plus deodorants don't really seem to get rid of that disgusting smell.
 
I don't smoke, yet used to take smoking brakes in both my previous 2 jobs. The first was NHS and smokers were allowed 2 extra 15 minute breaks a day with no need to make up the time, and the second I used to just go chat with the mates I had who were smokers.

If it were up to me though they would be banned. Smokers can go 3.5 hours without a fag easily if they try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom