Based on what we know about staying seated for hours a day, it would be more beneficial to allow non-smokers stand up and walk around breaks every hour rather than 6 days off.
Is it? That may be true, but I read about new (to me) contradictory research in this area a lot. I feel the science should be more settled before we start designing specific policy proposals.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the effects of sitting were not, they believe, offset by physical activity. I can't remember the source, but I'm sure there's stuff out there in Google.
Pretty sure I remember those same studies. More or less, I believe it was that the effects of sitting all day were not offset by physical activity after work or on weekends. The conclusions were not that taking breaks from sitting have no positive effect.
There is certainly research that standing for longish periods of time is bad, so neither sitting nor standing desks are really a solution, but I would be very surprised if moving were bad.
Based on what we know about vacation taking 6 days off reduces stress levels .
You also assume people will be sitting during those days off ? They could stand or god forbid exercise .
A much better idea to help people not sit is to make a walking break.
This assumes people are working just because they aren't on a smoke break. If you work on a production line in a factory, it's fairly easy to see the output level of your work. If you work in an office, there is not a simple measure. The non-smoking worker could just as easily spend the same time chatting it up around the water cooler.
Physical presence does not equal working time. I wish more managers understood that motivated workers will work and non-motivated workers will always find the path of least resistance. Remote or in-office doesn't matter that much.
No, I think it says that people feel they're working harder than smokers. So far as I can tell, there was no attempt to say they actually do work harder.
The other half of this is that it incentivizes smokers to quit.
This is about motivating non-smokers who are feeling de-motivated. And about helping people drop an unhealthy habit.
> Company based on 29th floor of Tokyo office block
Similarly, I help people dropping the unhealthy habit of Tokyo high rise office blocks by not working there. Why mess about with symptoms when you can have the root cause?
I don't need to detail all your premises I didn't even buy in to to have made my choice. I'm just stating it. It doesn't require your permission or understanding, it already is.
Water cooler conversations is in fact the major advantage of having everybody coming to a physical office instead of working from home. The best ideas in a company start from someone around a water cooling mentioning a problem to someone else who comes up with a good answer.
I know of a simple 2 week engineering project that almost didn't even get proposed because marketing thought it would be a multi-year project and the problem had to solved in a few months or the entire market would be gone. A chance waster cooler conversation with an engineer got the prototype done that afternoon and a small but valuable market was captured.
The smokers I know are not just taking a break and doing nothing. They are talking a break with other smokers and having conversations. Sometimes they are about family, but sometimes they are about work subjects and they solve real work problems.
> The smokers I know are not just taking a break and doing nothing. They are talking a break with other smokers and having conversations. Sometimes they are about family, but sometimes they are about work subjects and they solve real work problems.
True. The people taking smoke breaks aren't doing anything differently than those at the water cooler (other than, you know, smoking).
Another great trick for encouraging spontaneous conversation is to have a couple of cheap plastic-mould "visitors' chairs" at each desk.
At my first office we had this arrangement and it was a boon for continuing ad hoc meetings which started in corridors or at the printer. "Grab a chair, let's have a look at the database..."
Unfortunately we moved to a more "modern" office with higher-density desking and no spare space.
Not to mention the amount of problems that are solved over a cigarette. I don't know if it was placebo, or a mental jolt from the nicotine, but I've come up with many a solution on a cigarette break. I don't smoke any more (thankfully), but when I did it at work, I was usually thinking of a work problem, and thus working.
This. It happens that a couple close co-workers also smoke, and we are working while outside.
This part has nothing to do with cigarettes, but I do think talking over work in different contexts is useful. I can't prove anything, but am convinced that more creativity in problem solving comes out when meetings aren't always in a conference room.
Does the company have a culture of encouraging people to actually take those holidays? Based on my experience in Japan, nobody actually uses their holiday time, to avoid losing face at work. The only holidays people actually take are the public holidays. Luckily, they have a good number of them, including a whole week at the beginning of May.
There is a far bigger picture which everyone seems to miss.
While non smoking is the ideal solution, thats what it is.
ideal
Realistically a break (for non-smokers all the same) can create creativity or rather room there for and keep people from spending 20 minutes to fix an issue only to find out the power was unplugged figuratively. Research a side, anecdotally most can vouch for a fresh break creating a more healthy and sometimes faster solution to a problem there after.
The thing is these are shades of grey heavily dependent on sector. A cook wasting prep time before service for 15 minutes due to a break is more likely to increase actual workload. Then say a graphic designer creating a logo or product brochure, where taking extra time to brainstorm can very well directly increase product value.
Another important factor is that taking the holidays does revitalize many. I'd argue one who never takes breaks or a holiday is more likely to over-work, make errors, get annoyed with colleagues or potentially have to drop work entirely due to workaholic related therapy. All of which scream potential and actual productivity decrease.
Tldr;
Too often judged on the non verbal implication of 'fairness' which is largely an emotional argument, and not enough on objective measurable productivity increase related to health benefitting break and holiday times.
My current employer dislikes when you don't use it, because it's a liability they have to carry on the books which affects other financial concerns (or so I'm told). If there is a culture of not using your holidays then that does add up to some pretty significant liability for a small company.
They also understand that downtime is important and would rather a long ongoing employment compared to a short, no-holiday speed-run of legacy code production before bailing.
Don't know about the UK, but here in Canada I've seen holidays thought of two completely different ways: sometimes the company will encourage, or even force (by turning them away at the door, if you have days that won't accumulate for the next year), employees to take their holidays; sometimes they'll be judgemental about you taking holidays, as I suspect most Japanese employers are.
My grandfather started smoking (back in the 1920s?) because as a dock worker he was not allowed to take breaks but was also not allowed to smoke on the ship.
Or instead of smoking go for a walk/toilet/chat and claim those 6 days like the rest of non-smokers. I see non-smokers in my company doing fuck all all day long...
Good. I used to work a blue-collar, industrial job, and was really tempted to buy a cheap pack of cigs, as a dummy so I could tag along and take a non-smoking break with the smokers. By the time they hoofed from wherever they were working to the designated smoking area, burned one down, and walked back, 20-30 minutes of every hour could get chewed up.
Years ago, the non-smokers in my group would go out to breakfast every Friday, to make up for smoke breaks. It was just two blocks down the street to a fast food joint, so it didn't make up for all the time someone might spend on a smoke break during the; but, it stopped people from complaining about time lost due to smoke breaks. (Maybe it wasn't healthier, either.)
Given the amount of walking needed to get outside the building and the sedentary nature of their job, it's worth considering whether, on balance, the smokers at this company are actually healthier and more productive than they would be if they kicked the habit.
This is the point I wanted to bring up. As a pack-a-day smoker for 10 years, I got up from my desk for 10 minutes every 1.5 hours to smoke a cigarette. Later, as a non-smoker, a health-conscious manager told me he wanted me to get up from my desk once an hour to take a five-minute walk around the building for my health. Regular breaks during the day are better for your health than vacation days; although, both are good for your health.
I walk to the water cooler or toilet every 2 hours, and take a longer break to watch the sunset in the evening if the weather's suitable. Perhaps I drink a lot of water compared to most, but the last I heard was that medical advice is to drink more water.
They are engaging in consistent (roughly hourly) physical activity (significant amount of walking) in order to go smoke, while the non-smokers are not.
The question here is not whether smoking is good for you, which it obviously isn't. It's whether, in this case, the benefit of being forced by addiction to get up and engage in light physical activity once per hour outweighs the carcinogenic effects of the tobacco consumed during smoke breaks.
This stuff just strikes me as very petty. Something about smoking or smokers just drives people a bit crazy. Before she retired, my mom would regularly bitch to me about the smoke breaks her coworkers took. She’d say “maybe I’d like to just go outside for a little walk”. So do it then!
The smoking is bad of course, but the specific focus on it, to me, feels pretty hinky.
How about taking breaks every once in a while because you work hard, and you’re a human, not a robot? That should be ok without the passive-aggressive framing.
That's what I do (just periodically go for walks outside). Some managers don't like it, but I usually just ignore them (sorry dawg, my health is more important to me than pretending to be productive for your sake). I usually ended up getting a lot more done when I was doing it as well.
The reason your mom was complaining is that if she just went outside for a little walk, she'd probably get written up and eventually fired because only smokers are allowed to take those breaks at most workplaces. If you have a boss who's more fair about it, that's great, but I don't think it's typical.
This is especially true for places on timeclocks, probably less if you're salaried.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I think people tell themselves that to justify why those evil smokers have hearted the system! Obviously it is ok to take a break if people are taking breaks to smoke.
> Something about smoking or smokers just drives people a bit crazy.
I think that there must be some sort of human need to have a group to hate, and that in the West today that unlucky group is smokers. One may say the worst things about them in any social or business setting — that they are stupid, filthy, foolish, whatever — without any risk of being contradicted, indeed with the expectation that everyone will agree with you.
When I started at my job, the head of HR noted where the (outdoor, uncovered, across a street) smoking area was, 'but I don't think you're that sort of person.' He'd never have felt free to say that about other behavioural choices.
I suspect that part of it is that smokers were so dominant for so long that those who suffered in the past are enjoying having the upper hand.
> One may say the worst things about them in any social or business setting — stupid, filthy, foolish, whatever — without any risk of being contradicted, indeed with the expectation that everyone will agree with you
Trump voters, conservatives in general often feel this as well.
When I worked for a larger company people would routinely take gym breaks (the gym was right down the hallway) which took the place of smoking breaks. Sure you can't get a huge workout in in a 15 minute break but you can get the heart rate up.
In the US I'm not even sure it is legal to provide different benefits to individual employees than the rest of the company. But one thing I can say for sure is that if this was in the US most people wouldn't take the days. Most people I know don't even take the days they have :(
I feel like you would spend 10-15 minutes just getting changed, showering and all that. Or potentially smell the rest of the day. I guess it worked though.
Not all workouts build up a sweat. Specifically weight exercises. At the same time, I did say "get the heart rate up" which implied cardio which was perhaps a poor chose of words.
> In the US I'm not even sure it is legal to provide different benefits to individual employees than the rest of the company.
Well it really depends on the state. "At Will" States they can do whatever they like or fire whomever. Now they might get sued but its not against the law to just walk down to a person and say "Your Fired and Your Not Getting An Explaination."
As a non-smoker I used to go on the smoke breaks with coworkers. Not as an excuse for time away from work but rather to get up and brainstorm things. That turned out to be more productive than stay seated and let my wheels spin in my brain.
Nowadays we use the coffee/watercooler break but it's not quite the same as getting out of the building, feeling the outside air against the skin (hot or cold) and getting a change of scenery. We've tries the walk around the parking lot thing, but most office buildings are really not set up for walking spaces...
It's indicative of the hysteria around secondhand smoke that someone on HN could seriously think that occasionally standing near people smoking outside is a serious health risk.
>Twenty rats in each exposure group were exposed to the smoke seven hours a day for 21 days. The method of exposure was ‘‘head only’’, meaning that the rats were placed head first in snug fitting plastic tubes with a screened head portion that projected into a duct through which the smoky air flowed.
Ah yes, the ol’ “what about” argument. “Second-band smoke is dangerous.” “OH YEAH? WHAT ABOUT CAR EXHAUST, HUH!?” Yes, that’s bad too, but we were talking about cigarette smoke.
Actually, we're talking about standing next to someone for 5 minutes, once or thrice a day, outside, while they smoke a cigarette. @amai was talking about blowing smoke into your face in an enclosed area for 7 hours a day.
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
I agree. It is ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous for someone to polute the air in a public space (it's different if they are off somewhere I can easily avoid by walking a different way). And yes, I also do not like the smell, but it's both. I also have minor breathing problems that I don't want aggravated.
A friend of mine said that when they were young they went to a museum and saw two lungs: one of a daily smoker, and one of someone who simply lived in a dense city with poor air quality. The lungs looked almost the same shade of gray. Of course, the smoker's lungs were worse, but air pollution from the bus is not exactly good for you.
It's not just that there are so many other risks present in cities -- e.g. it's probably more dangerous just to be walking there in the first place than it is to pass a smoker -- it's that, like, how potent do you imagine cigarette smoke to be that just passing near some every once in a while is going to significantly harm you?
I can't even begin to imagine what kind of model of the world you'd have to be working with to believe that, which is why I deliberately chose the word hysteria to describe it.
I guess I just equate smoking with poison. I think it's equally illogical to be purposefully ingesting poison on a daily basis. For myself, I prefer zero purposeful ingestion, even if I am ignorant of the effects.
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 almost as if smokers are dehumanized these days, and non smokers deliberately ignore reasons to smoke.
There has also been ample evidence of neuroprotective effects of nicotine[0][1] for decades now. I dont mean to suggest that you go out and start a pack a day habit, but my point is that walking past a smoker won't give you cancer.
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.
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.
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 <cue scary music>.
> 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 <cue scary music>.
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.
Obviously I wouldn't stand downwind (there's almost always a little breeze outside). Also my smoker coworkers were considerate in that they wouldn't blow their smoke in people's faces. So that wasn't an issue.
I don't think they've found any risks for outdoor exposure. The amount of exposure you get in a smoking bar is far more than what you get outside.
Also there is some weirdness in the research where it's hard to find a dose response curve, and you see larger effects on cardiovascular system than lungs. I think there might be some confounds, like if you are married to a smoker or work at smoking establishment you're more likely to be poor, and be unhealthy in other ways besides smoke exposure.
I think it was Sir Richard Doll (the scientist that first proved the link between tobacco smoking and cancer), that, after a lifetime of research, claimed being around smokers didn't concern him in the slightest. Spending significant amounts of time in confined, smoke-filled spaces might be a different story though.
If you live in an urban area, I highly recommend walking to a coffee shop instead of using whatever you have in the office kitchen. While it costs money, I've found it a great way to take a break from work.
3$* 5days * 48weeks * 40years (65 years - 25 years) = 28,800$ before investments.
However, caffeine is a larger problem. It's very additive with strong withdrawal symptoms, but giving it up for 6 months has significant mental health benefits. Unless you enjoy black coffee it often adds up to several hundred calories per day.
Aside from sleepiness for a few days and a (lack of) caffeine headache for a day, what are the strong withdrawal symptoms? I honestly don't think there are any and have never figured out why some people are so against coffee. If I'm wrong, please tell me what I am missing. Thanks.
I agree the sugar and milk/creamer add a fair amount of calories to your diet.
You know, Erdos (great mathematician) said that minds like his had to be constantly caffeinated (and sometimes involved with the potent psychadelic) to maximize their potential. Caffeine is good for productivity, or Mate (Yerba Mate).
In the short term the symptoms are headache, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, depressed mood, and difficulty concentrating. That generally lasts less than a week, but can be very difficult for heavy users.
However, because of how it integrates with your sleep patterns it can take 6 months for normal alertness levels to show up assuming total avoidance. Healthy individuals with reasonable sleep cycles should feel alert for the vast majority of the day without any form of stimulants.
I quit smoking 4 years ago. I still go on smoke breaks, without the cigarette. If I'm at a bar / restaurant, I'll hang around with the smokers - who never care if I'm actually smoking. At home, I'll go sit outside for a few minutes.
It's great for the creative processes as well as for maintaining focus throughout the day. It also helps settle things a bit when socializing gets overwhelming.
After 22 years as a smoker, I was at a point where I didn't really like smoking anymore. I knew I was addicted, and I smoked plenty, but I didn't enjoy it. So, after getting a stomach bug during a visit to Mexico where smoking was making me ill, I took the opportunity to order two vape pens for my wife and I, and never turned back. I think it helped that she did it with me.
I'm very fortunate in that I don't crave cigarettes any more. My wife will still bum one on occasion if we're drinking or camping. I might have a cigar once every month or so, but I have no interest in more than that, and cigarettes completely gross me out now.
As for this thread, I don't always vape when I hang out with the smokers. Or even when I do, vaping just takes a quick puff. I'll generally stick around while the smokers finish their cigarettes.
In regards to willpower, I'm still addicted to nicotine. I don't mind being addicted to it. I'm glad I found a way to do it that doesn't involve literally sucking on burning paper and plants. That said, I've been halving the nicotine content of my juice annually. I should be completely off in two years.
I don't know if it's like this in all companies in Australia, but we take coffee breaks and those happily make up for cigarette breaks. Some smokers come on the walk to the coffee place and smoke outside while we get coffee, two birds with one stone I guess.
Some context though, Australia has a fairly great coffee culture, we have even been described as coffee elitists. So while the frugal and indifferent will use the office coffee machine to get a fix, it seems to be pretty well understood that it's not great coffee and you have to venture out to get the good stuff.
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.
Well, smokers randomly leave for smoke breaks several times daily. Non smokers don’t do that. So smokers get more breaks, even if non smokers could step outside for 15 minutes at a time theoretically. Also it’s socially acceptable for smokers to do this, less so for non smokers to randomly leave for breaks. Can you explain what you’re not getting?
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 than that will simply be fired.
The only exception being bathroom breaks because let's face it, we are all adult enough not to need to ask a supervisor to take a leak. I use this time to brew and enjoy a coffee in the lounge in the morning and to take a walk around the office during the afternoon. A smoker would probably split those 30 minutes into 6 cigarette breaks and that's fine.
Nobody gets extra breaks because they smoke. Is this different elsewhere?
I haven't seen defined break and attendance rules like that since I last punched a time clock or turned in a time sheet.
Every salaried job I've had never had anyone watching my breaks, arrival, or departure times as long as I got my work done. There is a general expectation that I will usually be present during normal business hours but that's about it.
It's insanity. If I found myself working for such an employer I would immediately label them as my enemy and nope the hell out of there as soon as possible. I wouldn't talk with my friends or family, I wouldn't watch youtube or TV series, I wouldn't even walk - I would always run, as a character in a videogame, and I would chew my food very fast looking nowhere but the dish I'm eating. All of that just to squeeze out as much time as possible to getting out. You can't have positive relationships with someone who monitors your breaks.
(Quebec, Canada) I've never seen it done any other ways.
As a developer, I get to work for some pretty relax workplaces. At those places, the breaks are not monitored but you are expected to respect the limit. 30 minutes of paid lunch (and 30 more minutes of unpaid lunch if you choose to) and 15 minutes of paid break in the morning along with 15 minutes of paid break in the evening. Note that by law, employers here are only required to give you an unpaid 30-minute break for every 5 hours of work. What I am describing here is living the good life as a developer.
Even then, most developer at big agencies (100+ programmers) here work by the clock & timesheet and have to log their worktime to the minute and are unpaid the missed time.
Perhaps I should put emphasis on the fact that those are paid breaks I'm talking about.
I guess that you could "disappear" every hours but the culture would make it so that your coworkers would start to ask questions, your supervisor start to worry, you yearly evaluation suffer and your bonus or salary increase might be lower than the previous year.
I am lucky enough to work somewhere pretty relax with a "startup" culture. This allows me to start at the time I want and leave at the time I want. That being said, I'm expected to do 7.5 hours every day, to be present between 9h and 15h and to respect the allowed time when taking breaks.
> I wouldn't talk with my friends or family, I wouldn't watch youtube or TV series, I wouldn't even walk
Are you doing those things on the clock? I'm confused.
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.
In my experience, it was never 15 minutes - more like 5. Also, in terms of total time it never seemed all that different from the people continually visiting the water cooler or getting hot drinks. It just seems more visible with the smokers because they actually leave the building.
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.
On the one hand this appears fair, on the other hand it implies a kind of Taylorist take on time and time management. This could make sense in a manual labor intensive job, but not much in most office jobs where it's harder to attribute productivity to discreet amounts of time.
I can see where this is coming from. Still, I don't think it's a good approach. For example, some people take 30min per day to take a shit during work time. Other people don't take a shit at all or shit very quickly (2-3 min). Some people pee 5 times during work, while others once. You get my point. Where to draw the line?
Cigarette break is not a break every time. You usually can't stop thinking about work for the 10 minutes you spend outside. It's quite the opposite.
Smoking break usually shifts you the direction of thinking and you solve a problem probably faster. Not because of the cigarettes itself, but because of the environment change.
This whole idea sounds like "People without social media accounts are allowed 1 more day off, because they don't spend time on checking their facebook messages."
For us developers this might be true, but I also know people who just smoke every hour, they stop doing what they are doing just to get their cig... and that's everything but effective.
Nicotine is one of the very few substances with strong clinical support as being a cognitive enhancer, so I wouldn't discount its role entirely... but yes, just getting away from things is often what people need. As a culture we are still trying to switch gears from an economy centered completely around mindless repetitive physical labor to one centered around mental work. They're two extremely different things that have to be tackled in different ways, but we still have people kicking around (mostly in management positions) who see taking a break from working on something as 'giving up' or 'slacking off' or similar. Eventually people will come to understand that expecting extended bouts of mental effort from human beings is exactly as reasonable as expecting to have people work for 8 hours without taking a bathroom break.
It really depends on the company culture, but in a lot of cases, going for a cigarette break is not equivalent with taking time away from your work. There are a lot of brainstorming and work related discussion can happen, jut like in a tea or coffee break.
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...
129 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadA much better idea to help people not sit is to make a walking break.
Isn't that what I said?
Physical presence does not equal working time. I wish more managers understood that motivated workers will work and non-motivated workers will always find the path of least resistance. Remote or in-office doesn't matter that much.
The other half of this is that it incentivizes smokers to quit.
This is about motivating non-smokers who are feeling de-motivated. And about helping people drop an unhealthy habit.
Similarly, I help people dropping the unhealthy habit of Tokyo high rise office blocks by not working there. Why mess about with symptoms when you can have the root cause?
I know of a simple 2 week engineering project that almost didn't even get proposed because marketing thought it would be a multi-year project and the problem had to solved in a few months or the entire market would be gone. A chance waster cooler conversation with an engineer got the prototype done that afternoon and a small but valuable market was captured.
The smokers I know are not just taking a break and doing nothing. They are talking a break with other smokers and having conversations. Sometimes they are about family, but sometimes they are about work subjects and they solve real work problems.
True. The people taking smoke breaks aren't doing anything differently than those at the water cooler (other than, you know, smoking).
At my first office we had this arrangement and it was a boon for continuing ad hoc meetings which started in corridors or at the printer. "Grab a chair, let's have a look at the database..."
Unfortunately we moved to a more "modern" office with higher-density desking and no spare space.
This part has nothing to do with cigarettes, but I do think talking over work in different contexts is useful. I can't prove anything, but am convinced that more creativity in problem solving comes out when meetings aren't always in a conference room.
While non smoking is the ideal solution, thats what it is.
ideal
Realistically a break (for non-smokers all the same) can create creativity or rather room there for and keep people from spending 20 minutes to fix an issue only to find out the power was unplugged figuratively. Research a side, anecdotally most can vouch for a fresh break creating a more healthy and sometimes faster solution to a problem there after.
The thing is these are shades of grey heavily dependent on sector. A cook wasting prep time before service for 15 minutes due to a break is more likely to increase actual workload. Then say a graphic designer creating a logo or product brochure, where taking extra time to brainstorm can very well directly increase product value.
Another important factor is that taking the holidays does revitalize many. I'd argue one who never takes breaks or a holiday is more likely to over-work, make errors, get annoyed with colleagues or potentially have to drop work entirely due to workaholic related therapy. All of which scream potential and actual productivity decrease.
Tldr; Too often judged on the non verbal implication of 'fairness' which is largely an emotional argument, and not enough on objective measurable productivity increase related to health benefitting break and holiday times.
They also understand that downtime is important and would rather a long ongoing employment compared to a short, no-holiday speed-run of legacy code production before bailing.
More productive perhaps, but healthier? I don't think so.
EDIT: Typo.
The question here is not whether smoking is good for you, which it obviously isn't. It's whether, in this case, the benefit of being forced by addiction to get up and engage in light physical activity once per hour outweighs the carcinogenic effects of the tobacco consumed during smoke breaks.
The smoking is bad of course, but the specific focus on it, to me, feels pretty hinky.
How about taking breaks every once in a while because you work hard, and you’re a human, not a robot? That should be ok without the passive-aggressive framing.
I dunno. Just seems a bit “off” to me.
This is especially true for places on timeclocks, probably less if you're salaried.
Have you never had a manager who enjoyed micromanaging and enforcing rules pointlessly?
If you haven't personally, have you never even heard of someone else having such a manager?
If a company wants to have breaks for smokers only, there's nothing stopping them: http://www.hrhero.com/hl/articles/2015/07/31/are-for-smokers...
I think that there must be some sort of human need to have a group to hate, and that in the West today that unlucky group is smokers. One may say the worst things about them in any social or business setting — that they are stupid, filthy, foolish, whatever — without any risk of being contradicted, indeed with the expectation that everyone will agree with you.
When I started at my job, the head of HR noted where the (outdoor, uncovered, across a street) smoking area was, 'but I don't think you're that sort of person.' He'd never have felt free to say that about other behavioural choices.
I suspect that part of it is that smokers were so dominant for so long that those who suffered in the past are enjoying having the upper hand.
Trump voters, conservatives in general often feel this as well.
In the US I'm not even sure it is legal to provide different benefits to individual employees than the rest of the company. But one thing I can say for sure is that if this was in the US most people wouldn't take the days. Most people I know don't even take the days they have :(
Well it really depends on the state. "At Will" States they can do whatever they like or fire whomever. Now they might get sued but its not against the law to just walk down to a person and say "Your Fired and Your Not Getting An Explaination."
Nowadays we use the coffee/watercooler break but it's not quite the same as getting out of the building, feeling the outside air against the skin (hot or cold) and getting a change of scenery. We've tries the walk around the parking lot thing, but most office buildings are really not set up for walking spaces...
Try the same with car exhaust and see how it goes
"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
I can't even begin to imagine what kind of model of the world you'd have to be working with to believe that, which is why I deliberately chose the word hysteria to describe it.
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 almost as if smokers are dehumanized these days, and non smokers deliberately ignore reasons to smoke.
There has also been ample evidence of neuroprotective effects of nicotine[0][1] for decades now. I dont mean to suggest that you go out and start a pack a day habit, but my point is that walking past a smoker won't give you cancer.
[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19714494
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11772120
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.
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...
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 <cue scary music>.
>Yes, I mean, that's trivially true. Eliminating all smoke in the world is the only way to ever truly be safe <cue scary music>.
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.
Also there is some weirdness in the research where it's hard to find a dose response curve, and you see larger effects on cardiovascular system than lungs. I think there might be some confounds, like if you are married to a smoker or work at smoking establishment you're more likely to be poor, and be unhealthy in other ways besides smoke exposure.
That's no reason to actually buy coffee though. You can just take a walk in the middle of the day.
However, caffeine is a larger problem. It's very additive with strong withdrawal symptoms, but giving it up for 6 months has significant mental health benefits. Unless you enjoy black coffee it often adds up to several hundred calories per day.
I agree the sugar and milk/creamer add a fair amount of calories to your diet.
However, because of how it integrates with your sleep patterns it can take 6 months for normal alertness levels to show up assuming total avoidance. Healthy individuals with reasonable sleep cycles should feel alert for the vast majority of the day without any form of stimulants.
It's great for the creative processes as well as for maintaining focus throughout the day. It also helps settle things a bit when socializing gets overwhelming.
I'm very fortunate in that I don't crave cigarettes any more. My wife will still bum one on occasion if we're drinking or camping. I might have a cigar once every month or so, but I have no interest in more than that, and cigarettes completely gross me out now.
As for this thread, I don't always vape when I hang out with the smokers. Or even when I do, vaping just takes a quick puff. I'll generally stick around while the smokers finish their cigarettes.
In regards to willpower, I'm still addicted to nicotine. I don't mind being addicted to it. I'm glad I found a way to do it that doesn't involve literally sucking on burning paper and plants. That said, I've been halving the nicotine content of my juice annually. I should be completely off in two years.
Some context though, Australia has a fairly great coffee culture, we have even been described as coffee elitists. So while the frugal and indifferent will use the office coffee machine to get a fix, it seems to be pretty well understood that it's not great coffee and you have to venture out to get the good stuff.
I don't think anyone is going to call you out, it would be quite hypocritical of them.
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.
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 than that will simply be fired.
The only exception being bathroom breaks because let's face it, we are all adult enough not to need to ask a supervisor to take a leak. I use this time to brew and enjoy a coffee in the lounge in the morning and to take a walk around the office during the afternoon. A smoker would probably split those 30 minutes into 6 cigarette breaks and that's fine.
Nobody gets extra breaks because they smoke. Is this different elsewhere?
Every salaried job I've had never had anyone watching my breaks, arrival, or departure times as long as I got my work done. There is a general expectation that I will usually be present during normal business hours but that's about it.
An assembly line worker will stick to the letter, a software developer will never consider it.
As a developer, I get to work for some pretty relax workplaces. At those places, the breaks are not monitored but you are expected to respect the limit. 30 minutes of paid lunch (and 30 more minutes of unpaid lunch if you choose to) and 15 minutes of paid break in the morning along with 15 minutes of paid break in the evening. Note that by law, employers here are only required to give you an unpaid 30-minute break for every 5 hours of work. What I am describing here is living the good life as a developer.
Even then, most developer at big agencies (100+ programmers) here work by the clock & timesheet and have to log their worktime to the minute and are unpaid the missed time.
Perhaps I should put emphasis on the fact that those are paid breaks I'm talking about.
I guess that you could "disappear" every hours but the culture would make it so that your coworkers would start to ask questions, your supervisor start to worry, you yearly evaluation suffer and your bonus or salary increase might be lower than the previous year.
I am lucky enough to work somewhere pretty relax with a "startup" culture. This allows me to start at the time I want and leave at the time I want. That being said, I'm expected to do 7.5 hours every day, to be present between 9h and 15h and to respect the allowed time when taking breaks.
> I wouldn't talk with my friends or family, I wouldn't watch youtube or TV series, I wouldn't even walk
Are you doing those things on the clock? I'm confused.
Is this the same community that raves about sleeping breaks to incease productivity? I think this is useful regulation.
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.
Smoking break usually shifts you the direction of thinking and you solve a problem probably faster. Not because of the cigarettes itself, but because of the environment change.
This whole idea sounds like "People without social media accounts are allowed 1 more day off, because they don't spend time on checking their facebook messages."
I found these to be so valuable that even after I quit smoking, I'd still take "fresh air breaks" with others just for this very reason.
It's like a forced elevator conversation or something like that :-)
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...