Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#121

Post by dionidium »

loco5niner wrote: post #118
nnfy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We [myself former] are not simply poisoning ourselves for fun. There are a multitude of benefits afforded by nicotine in the short term, including improved focus, reduced anxiety, and of course the habit of a smoke break is great for clearing the mind. Your problem is that you, as you say, equate smoking with poison. That's hyperbolic. One could say the same about sugar, but it would sound just as ridiculous. It's al…

Those short-term benefits are far outweighed by the long-term negative effects, and there are far better ways to enjoy those short-term benefits (there may be a few specific scenarios I am ignorant of, diseases, etc, but I'm sure those are few and far between) The real problem is people selling short-term benefits over long-term consequences.

"The real problem is people selling short-term benefits over long-term consequences."

No, that's not it at all. If that's all it was, then I'd have no qualms or quibbles; that's a choice for each individual to make. The power of the secondhand-smoke argument is that it catapults this debate out of the realm of individual choice. Now those nefarious smokers are harming you, too! They must be stopped!

This is the key you need to unlock smoking bans. You can't get any of that done without the overreach on secondhand smoke.

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#122

Post by thirdsun »

Raphmedia wrote: post #47

I've never understood this. Don't everyone get the same breaks? Are smokers considered as having a health condition and thus granted extra breaks? It's not as if the boss came in one day and told people "Everyone gets 2 x 15 minutes of breaks a day. Except for smokers, you guys can take all the breaks you want." If my employer gives me 2 x 15 minutes of breaks a day, I'll take those even if I don't smoke.

I don't understand it either.

And it's actually easy to handle: My employers always gave everyone the same breaks - how you use them is up to you. Smoking, eating, chatting - all of it. However smoking outside those breaks was a no-go. And as a former smoker I don't even see how this is up for discussion.

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#123

Post by thirdsun »

pc86 wrote: post #111
Raphmedia wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps some difference between countries or companies. Everywhere I have worked the breaks were defined in the work contract. Right under my salaries, benefits, etc. I have a clause that more or less says: "You are entitled to take a 30-minute break after working five consecutive hours. This 30 minutes can be split through the day but not used to leave early or lengthen your lunch break." Anyone taking more breaks t…

Why can't you use the time to leave early? Or to take a longer lunch? Or come in for a bit then leave for 30 minutes? This type of clock watching nonsense is completely unacceptable for even hourly unskilled employment, let alone an office job or highly skilled fields.

At least in Germany there are mandatory rules. I think after 6 hours of work a 30 min break is required. It's meant to serve as an actual break between long stretches of work. Using a break to reduce your non-stop 8 hour work day to slightly less insane 7:30 hours of (at least theoretically) constant work isn't healthy.

Is this the same community that raves about sleeping breaks to incease productivity? I think this is useful regulation.

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#124

Post by majewsky »

wott wrote: post #82
majewsky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the smoking. Just the fact that you allow your mind to wander. The same effect can be had from taking a shower.

Double the effect if you smoke outside in Britain.

I see what you did there. :)

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#126

Post by loco5niner »

dionidium wrote: post #121
loco5niner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those short-term benefits are far outweighed by the long-term negative effects, and there are far better ways to enjoy those short-term benefits (there may be a few specific scenarios I am ignorant of, diseases, etc, but I'm sure those are few and far between) The real problem is people selling short-term benefits over long-term consequences.

" The real problem is people selling short-term benefits over long-term consequences. " No, that's not it at all. If that's all it was, then I'd have no qualms or quibbles; that's a choice for each individual to make. The power of the secondhand-smoke argument is that it catapults this debate out of the realm of individual choice. Now those nefarious smokers are harming you, too! They must be stopped! This is the key…

Oh I see. You believe that second-hand smoke does no harm. I defer to the American Cancer Society, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Cancer Institute.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-canc...

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#127

Post by loco5niner »

dionidium wrote: post #88
loco5niner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it seriously enough that I hold my breath while walking past someone smoking.

I mean, this demonstrates my point.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) has the same harmful chemicals that smokers inhale. There’s no safe level of exposure for secondhand smoke (SHS). - American Cancer Society

"Secondhand smoke harms children and adults, and the only way to fully protect nonsmokers is to eliminate smoking in all homes, worksites, and public places" - Center for Disease Control

"At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer" - National Cancer Institute

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#128

Post by dionidium »

loco5niner wrote: post #126
dionidium wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" The real problem is people selling short-term benefits over long-term consequences. " No, that's not it at all. If that's all it was, then I'd have no qualms or quibbles; that's a choice for each individual to make. The power of the secondhand-smoke argument is that it catapults this debate out of the realm of individual choice. Now those nefarious smokers are harming you, too! They must be stopped! This is the key…

Oh I see. You believe that second-hand smoke does no harm. I defer to the American Cancer Society, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Cancer Institute. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-canc... https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...

I don't know what you think the studies on this say, but I assure you none of them support the position that it's dangerous to walk past someone smoking.

Again, it's only because there's a deliberate hysteria around this issue that my claim seems even remotely controversial to you.

And, yes, even the CDC is capable of hyperbole:

Secondhand smoke harms children and adults, and the only way to fully protect nonsmokers is to eliminate smoking in all homes, worksites, and public places.1,2,3

Yes, I mean, that's trivially true. Eliminating all smoke in the world is the only way to ever truly be safe .

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#129

Post by wmantly »

Where I work, if the smoke break isn't solo, it's a meeting. We even take non-smokers that would be relevant to the conversation. Sometimes us smokers are the only single to non-smokers that maybe you should get up for a few minutes. I use to work in windows building, after my first few days my co-worker who doesn't smoke thanked me for being smoker, he worked there for about a year prior and never knew when he should get up and go outside, I gave him that guidance.

Every job I have worked that isn't hourly, break times are not monitored. If you have something during the work day, just go, if you want to walk around the park and clear your mind, have fun, need a smoke, shit have 2. So long your not screwing something up timing wise.

Also, it seems to me that the people who complain about such things have unimportant roles...

Re: Company gives non-smokers six days holiday to compensate for cigarette breaks

#130

Post by loco5niner »

dionidium wrote: post #128
loco5niner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I see. You believe that second-hand smoke does no harm. I defer to the American Cancer Society, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Cancer Institute. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-canc... https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...

I don't know what you think the studies on this say, but I assure you none of them support the position that it's dangerous to walk past someone smoking. Again, it's only because there's a deliberate hysteria around this issue that my claim seems even remotely controversial to you. And, yes, even the CDC is capable of hyperbole: Secondhand smoke harms children and adults, and the only way to fully protect nonsmokers…

> Secondhand smoke harms children and adults, and the only way to fully protect nonsmokers is to eliminate smoking in all homes, worksites, and public places.1,2,3

>Yes, I mean, that's trivially true. Eliminating all smoke in the world is the only way to ever truly be safe .

Sure, but when I'm by a campfire and the smoke gets in my face, I move. Don't you?

I don't want it affecting me, whatever the effects may be.

Post reply on HN