I was amazed to read an article in todays DN about Stockholms Stad (Stockholm Council) and smoke breaks.
Basically from May 1st next year Stockholm Council employees are forbidden to smoke during the working day. They are allowed to smoke at lunch time because thats unpaid time but not during the day.
This is the nanny State going too far! I am an ex-smoker, I think smoking is horrible but I would never bar my staff from smoking on their breaks. That is a decision for them as an individual and not for me as their manager.
I am really amazed the Trade Unions have allowed this to be passed as the labour law is very much in favour of the employees rights.
I wonder what the penalty would be if a staff member is caught having a crafty fag in the morning?
It reminds me of a firm I once worked for. I was a salesman for a very well known global courier company who had a strictly no alcohol policy during the day. So when clients invited me for lunch/dinner a function I was not able to drink. Ok not a bad thing in itself but so many business relationships come from this kind of network. Surely it is the responsibility of the salesperson to ensure they drink moderately.
Anyway, I left this firm because one lunch time, I fancied a pub lunch, you know lasagne or cottage pie or something. So I am sat there having my lunch, reading the paper when one of the managers walks by. He sees me in the pub and goes nuts on me for drinking. I told him I was in a pub but not boozing. He actually took a whiff of my coke as he knew I was partial to a Jack Daniels with coke…I resigned on the spot and walked out as I was outraged. Thats the impulsiveness of youth thesedays I guess I could have gone to a tribunal.
Delicious 
Digg This Post 
Facebook 
Stumble This Post
Related posts:
{ 7 comments }
Well, this decision seem to be taken with the excuse that smoking breaks costs money, which I have to agree with. Why should a smoker be allowed more breaks than a non-smoker, basically.
That it smells disgusting and you’re also affecting other people with it is of course also a big thing.
Caring about the smoker himself most likely comes as third.
It’s also a decision made by the borgare, so not so much to do with what you call a nanny state..
Joakim
I take your point about smoking breaks costing money but they are actually say that on their designated break times they cannot smoke!! So thats the same break times that non smokers get. Usually areas are provided for smokers to go to so there is no passive smoking involved unless you want to stand there.
It is local government that is enforcing this but I think it breaches the right of the individual to choose.
Of 720.000 hired in the public sector 120.000 smokes daily. According to research 70 to 85 percent of those would like to quit.
Read more here in this article. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_726955.svd
N.B. nothing in this country can be legislated/forbidden without proper negotiations… so the staff and unions both agree that this is a good thing.
But have the staff and union actually voted on this? Will they get to vote on it or will it be a council decision.
In my smoking days I would never have agreed to this and as a Liberal I think its down to the individual if they decide to go out and smoke on their break rather than the manager to decide for the person.
I was discussing this with an Austrian colleague today who told me that in Austria an employer can ask at an interview if the candidate smokes!! They can then reject the candidate based on that fact. Incredible.
Again I am not a fan of smoking, just a fan of the individual deciding for themselves (unless it affects others then of course its a different matter.)
Unions like to keep their members healthy and alive. Unions are very active in the task of reducing smoking in workplaces. The article is from 2007 so this has been going on for some time now. This happens all over Sweden now. In the municipality of Östermalm it has been banned since Jan 2009.
But again why should the Union decide whats best for me? Sure they can educate the smoker but then it should be the individuals right to decide surely?
Even though I gave up and encourage friends to give up I would never tell my staff that they could not have a cigarette on their official breaks.
I agree with you on this Shane.
These are the small challenges to freedom that get to you over the years and makes people like myself slightly more jaded each time I read about issues like this.
However I fully agree that many employers loose way to many hours from workers being paid for non productive activities, but banning people from doing certain things when a worker on is on his break (his free time) and doesn’t have a direct effect on his work is questionable to say the least.
Comments on this entry are closed.