Why Smokers Should Get Paid Less Than Non-Smokers

This is laughable. Working in management I have smokers that work harder just so they can be rewarded with a smoke break. The ones that stand around and just do nothing are the non-smokers. By law remind you that you have two 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute lunch break. Going up and down an elevator and putting on a jacket and taking it off is nonsense. If you are back in 15 minutes you are fine by me.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by kenny71]

What about the time smokers as well as non smokers sit on Facebook in a day?

Seeing that your boss is taking the trouble to implement these changes at your work place, maybe he could be so kind as to work out the amount of time you and your workmates sit on Facebook....(or maybe ATS in your case)? Just while he's at it...

Good point jinx! I bet this guy concocted this whole smokers should get paid less idea when he was supposed to be working. Its either a smoker is better off at your job than you are or you just want a smoke.

Funny thing about those smoke breaks; some folks actually are still rolling over ideas in their head related to work, or even talking with other smokers in the building about a project. I know my boss and co workers have all discussed work-relevant topics on smoke breaks, so perhaps we should be getting paid MORE than the non-smokers who sit on their thumbs during their appointed 15 minute breaks?

This idea overall reeks of grinding a personal axe.

Here's the thing. No, most ANY corporate office in the US doesn't issue assigned breaks. If you need to go to the bathroom or get some coffee, then get some. And EVERYONE is abiding by those conventions. 'Cept the smokers go downstairs a couple extra times a day to have a smoke.

And if the one respondent above thinks that smokers are actually chatting about the work that they're doing and somehow that's being productive, they're deluding themselves.

reply to post by jupiter869


Deluding myself? so I guess I've been hallucinating every time I've been out burning one with my boss and a few of the guys from the tech department then? The real bottom line of all this should be work done; if smokers are getting their work done and not falling behind then it shouldn't matter how many breaks they take as long as the job gets done, because at the end of the day thats all that matters.

i have noticed something about smokers in the work place, quite ofter they seem to be more thoughtful... Take for instance springing a question or a request on a person... With some people you get a rambling thought process followed with unsure answers which are then maybe changed and changed back over a few seconds - leaving you unsure because of their uncertainty - also time has been wasted and that person now has to retrain their focus on the previous task...

Now I'm not saying this applies to every smoker, but those smoke breaks are a little like a nap for the brain, subconsciously thoughts are being sorted, neural path ways relaxed - the person may be talking about the football but in the background work is still going on.

Ask that person a question and you will get a more focused calmer answer - it's all that lovely carbon monoxide in the blood stream! - we smokers don't mind you non smokers not smoking so why do you mind us smoking? Maybe if you smoked you wouldn't mind?

No offense but this is the silliest thing I have ever read on here and I have read some crazy stuff. Smokers and non-smokers get the same breaks! They are supposed to get breaks, so what if some chose to smoke. I have worked places where you couldnt smoke, there were no areas designated for smoking.

reply to post by jupiter869


I wonder how much time non smokers spend surfing the net?
Especially griping about smokers.

I wonder how much time is wasted talking? How much time is wasted on long lunches. How much time is wasted on people who can barely use a computer? How much money is wasted on workplace bullies and incompetent management because someone is in on a favor?


It is easy to single out a group you want to discriminate against isn't it?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by jupiter869

 

How much time is wasted on people who can barely use a computer?

More than most folks would want to know (just ask anybody who works in Tech Support)

Maybe skinny people should get paid more than fat people.

Overweight people have more health issues that require increased health costs and require that the air conditioners in office buildings to work harder because they produce more body heat which decreases a company's profit..

Their office chairs break down faster from the increased weight and have to be replaced sooner.

I mean I could go on but why not just stop there.

reply to post by Oneolddude


Maybe us shorter people should get paid more because it takes effort to look up at tall people (and we can see up your noses!)

And good looking people should be encouraged to wear sexy clothing.

Smelly people should be paid less than the fragrant.

People with larger feet cause more wear and tear on floor coverings.

People who can type faster should get more.

People who walk to work should get more, cos they don't have a car taking up space in the car park.

People who don't spam everyone else's emails should get medals and beer. :bnghd:

I have never had a job in which I was guaranteed consistent 2 fifteen minute and 1 hour lunch breaks, even though that's the law. Maybe this works for Union employees and those employees in Retail (as an example) but in Corporate... forget about it. If someone gets tagged for doing that consistently, kiss your raise/promotion goodbye.

Frankly, I don't mind it that way. I prefer to have the leeway to show up a little late, leave a little early or take a longer lunch based on the amt. of hours I've put in over the week and that includes work I take home in the evenings (without someone monitoring me by a clock.) Micro-managing and punishing employees is not the road to happy and productive work place. I think this idea will backfire.

ETA: presuming it's even legal.

I agree completely with the above poster.

It is "legal" if they wished to do that, as smoking isn't protected under Title VII for discrimination, but it would set a dangerous precedent, which is why the company's lawyers should really advise against this move (what's next? as other posters put it...the smokers will certainly address constant bathroom breaks, etc. by others).

The best move is to treat everyone equally, with the same amount of allowed break-time, and that time to be used for whatever the employee wants to do (smoking or not). If an employee goes over the allotted time, or takes breaks outside of these allowances, THEN the time issue should be addressed just as it would if the employee was consistently tardy, leaving early, etc.

:bnghd: How could forget the main reason smokers should get paid MORE than non smokers... Our cost of living is actually substantially higher I am dutifully paying my taxes while often looking up at the sky pondering

The cost is one of the reasons I never picked up the habit...way too expensive for such a small return...