# Lunch and smoke breaks



## xyzabc198 (Aug 1, 2008)

Hi there, I work with a company that gives me 1hr lunch break, but no cigarette breaks, I find I need at least 2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon...is there any law that will help me with this?
I know this aint excel related but just wondered


----------



## Jonmo1 (Aug 1, 2008)

I wouldn't call it a Cigarrette break, but *I think* the law requires at least 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked, *plus* at least 30 minute Lunch if over 6 hours worked..

something like that..I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me....LOL..


----------



## Domski (Aug 1, 2008)

No law that I'm aware of I'm afraid. As far as I know they are within their rights to determine that you should be working for specific times of the day but not for excessive periods although I'm no expert on employment law.

No quite the same but I used to smoke during the day at my old job when you didn't have to account for the time. As soon as I started my current one you had to knock 10 mins off your time for every smoke break you took. I cut down to 1 in the morning and one in the afternoon pretty quickly and then stopped smoking before 5pm totally. In the end it has led to me quitting completely, well mostly.

I'm surprised they don't let you sign out for a mid morning break though and make the time up elsewhere.

Dom


----------



## schielrn (Aug 1, 2008)

jonmo1 said:


> I wouldn't call it a Cigarrette break, but *I think* the law requires at least 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked, *plus* at least 30 minute Lunch if over 6 hours worked..
> 
> something like that..I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me....LOL..


That is U.S. law, but Bordon, Hants is in the U.K. (I believe) so I doubt it would apply there.


----------



## Patience (Aug 1, 2008)

Actually that sounds about right for the UK, too. 


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/DG_10029451

http://www.marriottharrison.co.uk/news/ar/employment_law_clinic_smoking,174.aspx

This link seems useful, too.


----------



## mattrx731 (Aug 1, 2008)

There are few companies here in Michigan, that have banned employees from smoking altogether, at work or home...


----------



## VoG (Aug 1, 2008)

Only if you work 6 hours at a stretch apparently http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/e...mployment-guidance/page28979.html#rest_breaks

Fortunately I have a compassionate employer


----------



## Domski (Aug 1, 2008)

mattrx731 said:


> There are few companies here in Michigan, that have banned employees from smoking altogether, at work or home...


 
I recall one in the UK that tried that one. I believe they went as far as random carbon monoxide tests but seem to remember they had to back down in the end and just say people couldn't smoke at work.


----------



## Patience (Aug 1, 2008)

I don't know why they thought they had any right to say what people can and can't do in their own homes (within the law.)


----------



## Legacy 96851 (Aug 1, 2008)

Patience said:


> I don't know why they thought they had any right to say what people can and can't do in their own homes (within the law.)


 
It's actually more a healthcare/insurance/benefits issue, from what I understand. The employer would try to save money by eliminating health hazards with their employees, without reducing benefits. 

I can take breaks at my job whenever I want, as long as I spend a total of 8 hrs working (in reality, it's actually just as long as I do 40 hrs a week), but at my old job that wasn't the case. I think one 15 minute smoke was allowed in each the morning and afternoon, for smoker's only. Not being a smoker, you can see why I'd hate the policy.


----------



## Jonmo1 (Aug 1, 2008)

> I think one 15 minute smoke was allowed in each the morning and afternoon, *for smoker's only*.


THAT would definately be illegal and cause for a lawsuit.


----------



## Legacy 96851 (Aug 1, 2008)

jonmo1 said:


> THAT would definately be illegal and cause for a lawsuit.


 
Yeah well, it certainly wasn't the only illegal thing they did.

It was kind of a different situation though - we're not talking an office - it was a bar, where no one really over the age of 25 worked, so it's not terribly surprising. And, at 18 years old, working my way through college, I wasn't going to be the one to file a lawsuit (not that life at 19, working one's way through college, is so much different).
Smoking's not allowed in bars here anymore anyway.


----------



## barry houdini (Aug 1, 2008)

Yourself said:


> Smoking's not allowed in bars here anymore anyway.


 
Nor here. In fact smoking is banned in all enclosed public places (including workplaces) as of July 1st 2007 see here


----------



## Peter_SSs (Aug 1, 2008)

barry houdini said:


> Nor here. In fact smoking is banned in all enclosed public places (including workplaces) as of July 1st 2007 see here


That's pretty much the case here in Australia too. And even some public non-enclosed places.

In fact, smoking is banned in some 'private' places as well. For example, in some states is is illegal to smoke in a motor vehicle if children are also in the vehicle.


----------



## pbt (Aug 1, 2008)

I recently went back to Hawaii to visit family.  The law there now is no smoking in public places also.

To top it off, if you want to step outside for your smoke, you have to be 50ft from any window or door of the building.

I found this out quite quickly after landing at the airport.  

I proceded outside the terminal to where the drop off/pickup area was to light up after a 5 hour flight.  This area is an open area with cars buzzing by.

I was promptly approched by security and was told "The Law".
Seems that the door I exited and the concrete pavement I was standing on was NOt 50ft away from the door.

I had to walk the length of the building (maybe 100+ yds to the end) to light up.

Now my rant:

*Darn those Non Smokers:  All these Laws making it tough on us Smokers.*

Don't get me wrong, thou, I will respect a Non Smoker if he/she is within range of my smoke.  I live in Las Vegas now, there is still smoking allowed in the Casinos (don't think the Casino mongels will ever let the Law stop that).

So if I suspect the person on the machine next to me is a Non Smoker, I won't light up.

But on the flip side, if I am there *first,*have a cigarrette already going, and they sit down and start "waving there hand to chase the smoke away", *Too Bad.*

Just my two bits worth.

Harry

*Smoker of 1.5 - 2 packs a day for close to 40 years*


----------



## DonkeyOte (Aug 2, 2008)

In the UK being a smoker has become increasingly difficult.  This is not solely the result of draconian governmental legislation, no, partly responsible for the decline in smokers is the infamous "Credit Crunch".  Why ?  Well put simply it's now too difficult to obtain the remortgage required to buy them in the first place!  I stopped smoking about five years ago when it was around £5 / $10 for a pack of 20... I shudder to think what they cost now... I suspect now they are second only to oil in the absurd pricing stakes and the YOY increases probably rivals that of Zimbabwean inflation.

I don't condone smoking and it has obvious impacts on health etc but it is for others to decide as to whether or not they smoke.  Having lived in London I found nothing more irritating than the non-smoker brigade complaing about 2nd hand smoke only to drive home to their houses in Chelsea is some huge 4x4... I seem to recall some study showing that the air pollution in major cities was more damaging than 2nd hand smoke for it's citizens ... this would not surprise me in the least.

Smoking in the UK is also one of those peverse arrangements where the tax recouped by the government on tobacco sales outweighs the costs borne by the government treating smoke related illnesses... no one would argue the government does not have a moral duty to try and curb smoking, however, I wonder how they will tax the populace to make up the tax deficit as smokers decline...


----------



## Patience (Aug 4, 2008)

I have to say I am in favour of the smoking ban in public places, but then I am n non smoker. I don't think I could smoke, for one it seems dead expensive!

However going back to the issue of not letting employees smoke in their own homes seems wired. I can understand the logic behind it, but I really don't think I would want to work for a company that is so keen to cut costs that they impose stupid rules that effectively takes away a persons right to do whatever to their own body in their own home. If I go to the home of a smoker I wouldn't dream of telling them they couldn't smoke.


----------



## arkusM (Aug 14, 2008)

This is actually an interesting topic. I am very conflicted about it. On one hand, the healthcare costs are interesting, but on the other hand the personal freedoms issue(the supposed basis of much of our society(ies)). I wonder what it will be next when the tobacco lobbyists slay this dragon then what? Will they go quietly into the night? I venture they will not but find some new campaign to champion. And that disturbs me. Will it be state food control, state exercise programs, state sterilizations? At what point do we say enough is enough? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o> </o>
But then again, as a Canadian citizen with socialized heathcare, do I want to pay for those extreme sport participants that get hurt/killed/lost pursuing their “interests”….<o></o>
<o> </o>
I am an advocate of a heavy dose of personal responsibility to go with the personal rights.<o></o>
<o> </o>


----------



## Jonmo1 (Aug 14, 2008)

I'll just say this...

Everyone knows there is a risk of getting killed (or killing someone else) when you get into a Car.  But we do it anyway right?  Why, because we choose to.

I see no difference between that, and a person's choice to smoke.  Even the second hand smoke killing other non smokers.  You can be killed by a car even if you're not in one.  Second hand smoke is a load of crap anyway.  There is more harmfull stuff in the air from the Industrial world than from cigarrettes.

And don't say you have  no choice but to drive a car.  Bull.  You could get an apartment closer to where you work, then walk to work.  It would probably be good for you.  Driving a car is a choice, no different from smoking.  There are thousands (probably millions) of people in the major cities like New York and LA who don't own cars.  They walk, ride bikes etc. to get around.  Yes it's possible, we did it before the car was invented..

Sure, you should probably not smoke in your house or car with children present...That's about as far as I'm willing to go.  But if you try to tell me you're going to get cancer from going to a restaraunt or Bar where people are smoking for a couple hours, you're full of it.

I'm fine with smoking outside at work, sure no problem.  Becuase other people who work there are nearly forced to be around the smoke.  But not at a restaraunt or bar.  If you don't like the smoke, don't come in.

Maybe I'll even go this far, Restaraunt and bar owners can make the choice, hey this is a Smoking or Non Smoking restaraunt.  Maybe even alternate, 1 week smoking, 1 week NON...That's probably silly, but just a thought...Then each person can choose weather the want to go in or not.  But the government shouldn't make it illegal alltogether..

Anyway, that's my peace...


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

Wow...look at all the confliction I made, I LOVE IT, HA!

Just want to say my piece on the matter!

Smoking in bars: The reason smoking in bars is illegal was because barmen weren't all smokers...Would you work in a tabacconist if you didnt smoke? Is anybody FORCING them to be a barman? If you don't want to be around smoke, DONT BE A BARMAN!
I see no problem with sectioning off a room and saying smokers in this room, none smokers in this one!
Smoking around children: Completely evil, dont do it!
Smoking in car: If it's your car, why not?
Smoking at work: Other people might not like it so dont!
Smoking at home: if anyone tries stop me they getting a slap!

One other point, in England, the law states : No smoking in an enclosed public place.
There are 2 exceptions to this rule
1) jail...ok understandable, the inmates need somewhere to smoke...
2)houses of parliament, because the people who made the law, want to smoke themselves...GRRRRR that's just totally hypocritical!


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

Well I was the one that started this conversation...I suppose it's only fitting that I kill it too


----------



## RoryA (Aug 15, 2008)

I have a vague recollection that if you do a lot of work in front of a computer (and who doesn't these days) you are entitled to a 5 min break per hour for the sake of your eyes, due to Health and Safety regs. I might have made that up when I was a smoker though!


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

Anybody have anything to add to rorya's comment there? I would like to see if anybody else has facts on that or has heard it before


----------



## Patience (Aug 15, 2008)

It certainly rings a bell, although it may just be guidelines, and I am not sure it is specifically a 'break' ie I don't think it is for 'you time'.


----------



## RoryA (Aug 15, 2008)

"Every employer shall so plan the activities of users at work in his undertaking that their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduce their workload at that equipment."
Regulation 4 of _Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992_

The guidelines suggest 5-10 minutes after every 50-60 minutes. But it's not an entitlement to a break from work, just from VDU work, as Bryony said.


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

xyzabc198 said:


> There are 2 exceptions to this rule
> 2)houses of parliament, because the people who made the law, want to smoke themselves...GRRRRR that's just totally hypocritical!



That's not actually true. As a royal palace, they are technically exempt, but have decided to abide by the spirit of the legislation anyway.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-06-11b.141621.h


----------



## DonkeyOte (Aug 15, 2008)

Look who's back on the "pedant pills" ...


----------



## Jonmo1 (Aug 15, 2008)

> That's not actually true. As a royal palace, they are technically exempt, but have decided to abide by the spirit of the legislation anyway.


 
Then that means it IS true.  It is an exception to the rule, They are allowed to smoke there, they have simply CHOSEN not to.


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

Actually, that one was scepticism, not pedantry - it sounded unlikely, so I googled it! But I do the same thing with virus warnings, and funny stories that claim to be true. I like to think it's attention to detail...


----------



## arkusM (Aug 15, 2008)

Yesterday, this tread just went silent!! Then I realized most of you guys are in the UK, and went home!! My day only just started an hour ago!! LOL.
I heard of a US company Banning smoking for thier employee totally, at work or home. It of couse was challenged as a infrigment of their workers rights, but as far as remember/know the courts had not struck it down, yet. I cannot recall if the issue was settled. Like I said earlier, it does pose some interesting big issues. Since the we run on the common law system... the precendents are distrubing.


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

jonmo - it was the ranty bit that I was objecting to really. I'm a big fan of righteous indignation, but in its place


----------



## Legacy 96851 (Aug 15, 2008)

I think part of the justification for the ban on smoking indoors in public is a "greater good" argument. Some smokers will argue it's just as unpleasant for them to be forced not to smoke as it is for a non to have to deal with their smoke. I think it was jonmo who said a page or two ago "if you don't like the smoke, don't come in" - this is perfectly fair until we further examine the situation in the context of a crowd. The issue being raised is that a single person with a cig at the bar effects any patrons near him, the bartender, and possibly any service staff. If full integration was expected, it would fall to this flaw almost immediately.

I personally am all for both smoking and non-smoking sections, and am not sure why they were ruled insufficient. I remember as a kid whenever my family went to a restaurant, I'd always be embarassed at the big fuss my mam made about sitting in non-smoking; but that division seems to have disappeared over the last few years, and subsequently more and more states are doing the enclosed spaces ban.

Second hand smoke? Pretty well-established that it has negative health effects. The misconception that it doesn't is a display of political spin on scientific result, a la "global warming". Primarily the fact referenced is that the actual death toll of second-hand smoke is negligible or non-existant, but this fails in an identical proof that second-hand smoke is "harmless".

Oh, and if you smoke around your kids? Go to hell.


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

lasw10 said:


> I stopped smoking about five years ago when it was around £5 / $10 for a pack of 20... /quote]
> 
> I know this was a long time ago, but just to keep you updated, it's now £5.50-£6 for 20 and £2.50-£3 for 10


----------



## RoryA (Aug 15, 2008)

Wow. They were 80p for 20 when I started!


----------



## barry houdini (Aug 15, 2008)

rorya said:


> Wow. They were 80p for 20 when I started!


 
When was that, Rory?

I'm guessing 1980?


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

Wow...1500s?


----------



## RoryA (Aug 15, 2008)

Close - 1981. And you could buy single cigarettes for 6p in the local shop.


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

Rory - I thought you said you weren't old!


----------



## Lewiy (Aug 15, 2008)

Either that or he started VERY young!!!


----------



## RoryA (Aug 15, 2008)

I was 11...


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

rorya said:


> Wow. They were 80p for 20 when I started!


 


rorya said:


> I was 11...


 
...You naughty boy!


----------



## Lewiy (Aug 15, 2008)

Well I think think that local shop that sold individual cigarettes to you needs a good slap on the wrist then!!!  At least I was legal when I started......think it was about £1.99 for 20 (on the cheap brands)


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

I was just about to crow victoriously that we finally found out how old you are - and then I realised you started smoking at 11! :shelteredlife:


----------



## caringsharingbristolbilly (Aug 15, 2008)

I remember reading an article on the BBC News website a few years back about smoking breaks at work (can't find it now) and someone wrote in to comment about their policy where they worked, which I think was British Airways. The idea was that you worked from 9 until 5 and had an hour which you could take as breaks. So, non-smokers got a full hour for lunch if they wanted (or two half-hour breaks, etc.) and smokers could take a shorter lunch, say half an hour, and have 3-4 smoke breaks if they were quick. 

I think this is an unbelieveably sensible solution. Smokers get their breaks, non-smokers get their choice and everyone gets their flexibility. :D

Yours,
Caring, sharing, about to embark on attempt no. 15 to give up smoking, Bristol Billy Bob.

PS. I started when 20 were £2.60. They're now £5.90. Unless you buy them from the local corner shop, in which case they're about £6.50. Thieving swines.


----------



## Lewiy (Aug 15, 2008)

I've been smoking roll-ups for many years now as tobacco doesn't seem to escalate in price at quite as rapid a rate......25g is only just over £5 now and that does me a week!!


----------



## caringsharingbristolbilly (Aug 15, 2008)

Hehehe. I just re-noticed my 'location' field. I updated that ages ago when I joined the forum, and it's still (sadly) as true today half the time.


----------



## Jonmo1 (Aug 15, 2008)

> I've been smoking roll-ups for many years now as tobacco doesn't seem to escalate in price at quite as rapid a rate......25g is only just over £5 now and that does me a week!!


 
I do that too.  I get a Can (about the size of a coffee can) for about $15.  That's about equal to 10 packs.  Where 10 packs by the carton would be $40-$50.

I also enjoy the conversation's that start.  "Hey, what are you smoking over there, is that Wacky Tabacy?"


----------



## Lewiy (Aug 15, 2008)

> I get a Can (about the size of a coffee can) for about $15


 
I was wondering how long it would be before someone started quoting silly low American prices!!!  Mind you, I am safe in the knowledge that as a smoker, I am contributing to well-being of the UK government.....god bless their £100k+ vehicles with leather seats, air-con, electric windows and a chauffer.


----------



## caringsharingbristolbilly (Aug 15, 2008)

jonmo1 said:


> I do that too.  I get a Can (about the size of a coffee can) for about $15.  That's about equal to 10 packs.  Where 10 packs by the carton would be $40-$50.
> 
> I also enjoy the conversation's that start.  "Hey, what are you smoking over there, is that Wacky Tabacy?"



I do half and half at the moment. Cigs for work, where I can't be bothered to roll up, and rollies for at home. I think it's a happy medium*.

I loved it when my rollie-smoking friends came to visit when I was living in Canada. The constant harassment by hippies and bums was hilarious. 



* like Claire Rayner.


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

equal to 10 packs of what? small baccy pouch? large pouch? cigarettes?


----------



## cornflakegirl (Aug 15, 2008)

Claire Rayner?


----------



## xyzabc198 (Aug 15, 2008)

Aww, everybody gone home, but I'm still here working *sigh* oh well


----------

