Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Employee smoking

This is topic Employee smoking in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001147

Posted by Brandon Willis (Member # 2345) on 05-11-2004, 01:02 PM:

Theater managers:
What are some of your policies regarding employees smoking while at work? Do you only let them smoke on their meal break or do you let them have short smoke breaks on the clock? What do you all think of this?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2004, 01:22 PM:

If it is their meal break, they can do whatever they want. If they need a quick smoke break, tough.

Now before you start in with the whole "why are you so mean about this" remarks, turn it around and ask yourself why is it that non-smokers are being punished by management for not getting all the extra breaks from work? It's plain and simple in this scenario, smokers are rewarded, non-smokers are punished.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-11-2004, 01:24 PM:

I agree with Brad. On their break is fine, but on the clock, too bad. This is what I think, but unfortunately my boss allows them one quick break while on the clock. [Mad]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2004, 02:32 PM:

Smoking should never be allowed in a film handling area. Ashes are a significant source of dirt particles, and airborne smoke contains tars that will contaminate the surface of lenses and port glass.

Posted by Tim Lockridge (Member # 1346) on 05-11-2004, 02:40 PM:

I don't let my employees smoke on theater property at all. Since their uniforms are so noticable, I ask that they smoke elsewhere. And DEFINITELY not on the clock.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-11-2004, 03:20 PM:

When I worked for Cinema West I let my employees smoke on the clock as long as all their work was finished and they had somebody covering their position. I didn't like doing this, but it made sense, what's the difference if they go out and smoke for 5 minutes vs. standing around doing nothing?

The only time I really said no was if it meant they would have to abandon their position to go outside and smoke.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-11-2004, 04:05 PM:

Here, smoking is banned inside all public-access buildings except for casinos and bars. So taking a smoke break means leaving the building.

Generally I notice that smokers take lots of breaks--they are not as productive as non-smokers. Of course being forced to take their breaks outside makes smokers more visible. Non-smokers can "hide" their unofficial breaks, but still I think smokers are not as productive as non-smokers. Too many years of observing workers at work in many different environments to shake my observations on this.

I notice smoker vs. non-smoker differences at school too. My aviation classes meet for three hours once a week, so I schedule a 10-minute break at the half-way point each class. Inevitably it's the smoking students that are late getting back to class, or late to start class. Not a good habit to get into if one is looking for a career in air transportation, or show biz for that matter.

If a hiring decision were up to me, I wouldn't hire anyone who smokes, period. Yeah that's a hard attitude, but I am used to being judged harshly. Consequently I judge harshly.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-11-2004, 09:01 PM:

We are a smoke free building, employees are not allowed to smoke on the property at all. I agree, about the non smokers being punished in most places. Ludicrous.

Posted by Dominique Replogle (Member # 2387) on 05-11-2004, 09:49 PM:

I agree with most of what you guys say. Long ago I had a job waiting tables in a nice restaraunt and was one of only two non smokers. It got to the point every ten minutes some jackass would ask me to cover his or her tables so they could get a "quick smoke". I guess being a nonsmoker I did not know it takes thirty minutes to smoke a cigarette. It got where I was running my ass off so these people could come back just in time to scoop up thier tips. Now I guess I am just bitter. In my booth, do it on your own time and get far from me.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-11-2004, 10:35 PM:

If they want to smoke, they can do it outside on their break.

Even though I still smoke, I do not do it in the theater, or the radio station.

This has helped me, too. I have reduced smoking to between 10 and 15 cigs a day as compared to over a pack a day.

I owe this improvement to:

(1) Someone who understands what I am faced with..
(2) That friend's support
(3) Not smoking in the workplaces because of a personal committment. If I am going to smoke, I go outside. And I expect others to do the same.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-11-2004, 10:36 PM:

Our smokers have to go out the back door. I don't let them congregate at the front of the building, on-break or not. I don't care what they do on their break, out of sight of my customers, with coats over their uniform shirts... as long as they don't return to work smelling like a cigarette, joint or alcohol factory.

I also expect them to "air out" before returning to work, since I don't want people with my logo shirts stinking up my lobby.

Sorry.... ex smoker here! [Big Grin]

(just kidding about the joint & the alcohol... I'd better not smell that stuff around here, and they're all pretty much aware of that!)

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-12-2004, 02:17 AM:

If you do let your employees have smoke break one rule I've heard of and would seem to work well is to only let them go on smoke breaks alone, not in groups.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-12-2004, 03:30 AM:

ah, if only such rules were enforceable around here! actually, it wouldn't bother me if smokers would ply their vice where the smoke can't enter the building, and wouldn't litter their butts. fat chance. they almost always congregate right outside the entrance, and sometimes even leave the door open. i step out of the booth several flights up and know instantly when this is going on. i'm sure the customers love it when they have to pass through a smokescreen on their way out.

carl

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-12-2004, 10:38 AM:

Hate to be a dittohead, but I agree. Especially about the group thing. Both of the GM's smoke, so it's hard to make them realize the unfairness of the rule. They let 3, 4, sometimes 5 people out for a "smoke break" in the back of the building, and sometimes call ME down from upstairs, usually in the middle of something, to do something stupid like watch door when it's inbetween shows. [Mad]

And the Smoking Caravan usually sits out there and bullshits for a good 10-15 minutes. Last time I brought this up, the manager said, "Well, there's nothing to do upstairs now anyway. All the movies are started." *SIGH*

If we're not allowed to have a meal on-the-clock, they shouldn't be allowed to smoke on the clock, either. I shouldn't be punished for choosing a healthy path in life...

=TMP=

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-12-2004, 11:44 AM:

My daughter works in the national headquarters of a large moving company. The company did a study, by watching the security cameras, looking at the door logs (they must swipe a card to re-enter the building) and other info. They determined the average smoker "wastes" 40% of the shift by smoking & related time. Such as the time it took to walk outside, and then back to the desk. It was costing the company a bundle in lost productivty obviously. Wasn't long until smoking was banded entirely based on said study.

I have a couple of son-in-laws that smoke, and I've commented to them how much friggin time they WASTE of their lives standing around doing nothing but sucking on that stick.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-12-2004, 12:06 PM:

Aren't most theater employees too young to smoke?

Rick

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-12-2004, 12:29 PM:

The New York Post did a story about smokers and how much time they waste in a work day. They watched and studied security tapes and card enters to their building. They found out five people took as many as 15-20 breaks during the day. [Eek!]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-12-2004, 12:46 PM:

quote: Bill Gabel
They found out five people took as many as 15-20 breaks during the day.

I take way more Film-Tech breaks from my day-time job than that. I'm soo fired!! [thumbsup]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-12-2004, 04:15 PM:

Whether you smoke or don't smoke, it's your choice. This is America.

Caveats:

(1) You are 18 or older.
(2) You don't smoke inside.
(3) You don't smoke where customers can see.
(4) Take off your name tag, etc.
(5) You do it on your breaks...

. Where I live, depending on how many hours you work per day, you can get as much as one hour of complete "off-time" lunch break and one 15 minute "rest break". Use as you see fit. If you don't need a full hour you can spend the rest of your (contiguous) hour as you see fit. If you want to go out and smoke for a half hour, so be it.

. When you take your 15 minute break you can "go outside" if you want, provided you make your supervisor/backup person where you are going.

. If you work in the booth you don't always have the luxury of taking a whole hour off for lunch. You have to take your breaks when you can get them. (Between sets.) Furthermore, you may be called back to solve a problem even though you are on break. You can't say, "No, I'm not going to fix the sound problem in theater #5 because I'm on lunch break." (!)
If (on prior agreement with your supervisor) you want to take a half hour break to eat something and use the other half of your break later on, you may "go outside" then.

You must have agreed upon this beforehand. Furthermore, there will be no such thing as taking 6 ten minute breaks throughout the day or junk like that.

I think this is MORE than fair. The people who work in the booth are supposed to be the more responsible people of the bunch. Conversely, if the supervisor thinks your work has sucked lately, he can take away "special break privileges." In that case... Too bad... So sad!

Posted by Dominique Replogle (Member # 2387) on 05-12-2004, 04:34 PM:

The only problem with counting up all of the break minutes is if your employee is going to be honest about how many minutes have been used versus how many they still have credited to them for the day. In my experience many will abuse this and eat a ten minute lunch and take annother twenty breaks lasting five minutes each. Thus leaving others to take up the slack every twenty or thirty minutes. I have a lot more important matters to attend to then to keep track of all of this crap. I am just glad it is not an issue since our entire booth is staffed with non smokers by coincedence. It is just unfortunate that a few selfish people give the other smokers a bad rap.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-12-2004, 05:00 PM:

When I was GM of my 3 screen we only had 4 employees on at most at one time. If the smoker got a 5 minute "freebie" then so did the non-smokers. With bigger theaters that's not quite possible though... [Razz]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-12-2004, 05:59 PM:

Since smoking is not a protected right and has many negatives I see no reason why staff should be permitted to smoke anywhere on the property while on the clock. Off the clock they can smoke with the same limitations as the customers which means in the parking lot.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-13-2004, 01:31 AM:

Steve, even though I am a smoker, I am 100% in agreement with you. In fact, I kind of wish my boss would make that a company policy...whether I liked it or not. [thumbsup]

BTW, did anyone ever tell you that you look like Josh Turner, the one who wrote and sang "The Long Black Train?"

Here is a picture of Josh from his wibsite:

Posted by Dominique Replogle (Member # 2387) on 05-13-2004, 06:36 PM:

Paul, that is a good one. Stick it on the seperated at birth thread

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-13-2004, 06:43 PM:

recently I had a disagreement with a few fellow smokers who felt that they had a right to a smoke break of the length required to smoke there cig. Well as a pipe smoker I said then I should be entitled to the time it requires to smoke my pipe (and it is a big one about 1 hours worth)
they still tend to disagree am I being discriminated against [Smile]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2004, 01:38 AM:

New study reveals dangers of 'passive smoking' by leisure industry employees.

quote:
Second-hand tobacco smoke at work kills hundreds of Britons each year - including almost one hospitality industry worker a week, a study says.

Thousands more are dying from passive smoking at home, according to researchers at Imperial College London. The figures were released ahead of a conference on smoking in London. Doctors said they highlight the need for a workplace smoking ban, but pro-smoking group Forest called for hard evidence passive smoking was a killer.

Professor Konrad Jamrozik looked at the number of people who died from lung cancer, heart disease and stroke in England and Wales in 2002. He then calculated how many of these would have died as a result of being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke using a special mathematical formula.

This formula was based on information from other studies on the risks of dying from lung cancer, heart disease and cancer as a result of passive smoking.

Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people?

About 30% of adults under the age of 65 smoke. An estimated 42% of people under the age of 65 are exposed to tobacco smoke at home and 11% at work. According to Professor Jamrozik's calculations, approximately 700 people die from lung cancer, heart disease or stroke because of passive smoking at work. Another 3,600 people die as a result of second-hand smoke at home.

He also estimated that passive smoking kills one person working in the hospitality industry every week. Professor Jamrozik said the figures were probably the most accurate estimates available at the moment. "In the absence of a direct observational study, I feel this research is the best evidence we have in this country to show the effects of passive smoking in the workplace," he told the BBC.

Professor Carol Black, president of the Royal College of Physicians, urged the government to ban smoking in workplaces. "Environmental tobacco smoke in pubs, bars, restaurants and other public places is seriously damaging to the health of employees as well as the general public. "Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help over 300,00 people in Britain to stop smoking completely."

However, Forest rejected that idea. "Once again we are presented with estimates, calculations and 'likely risk'," said Simon Clark, its director. "Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people? If one person dies every week from passive smoking at work, as the anti-smokers claim, it's time to name names. "Let's have proof, not statistics based on very dubious science."

He added: "A total ban on smoking indoors should be a last resort, not a first option. "What's wrong with a choice of designated smoking areas or better ventilation that allow people to smoke without bothering non-smokers?"

The UK government has so far resisted calls to ban smoking in the workplace. This is despite calls to do so from the chief medical officers of England and Scotland. Ministers have said they prefer a voluntary approach rather than following Ireland and introducing a ban.

I'm not sure if I'd support a complete ban, but tobacco smoke is certainly unpleasant and almost certainly very dangerous for any third party who breathes it in. In Britain - and I presume the same holds true in America - we generally go by the principle that anyone can do anything they like, provided it doesn't reduce other people's quality of life or endanger their safety. Smoking does both of those things. Even if you buy Forest's exploitation of the very small chance that the scientists have got it all wrong, there is still the statistically proven increased risk of fires on premises where smoking is allowed, for example.

There has to be something wrong with the current situation. 30% of the population smoke, but yet in my home city there is only one bar out of 370 licensed premises which even has a decent-sized no smoking area, let alone a total ban. While I don't think I'd go as far as Ireland, I would like to see a change in the situation whereby a third of the population can effectively force the rest us to drink in a gas chamber. One solution would be for licensees to have to apply for permission to have a smoking area, which is only granted if they can show that it is effectively segregated from the rest of the place.

As for employees, there must surely be a simple solution to this. Simply tell them at the outset that either (i) smoking is allowed in this workplace and that if they don't like it, they can get a job somewhere else, or (ii) that smoking is not allowed on or anywhere near the premises, and if they can't survive an eight-hour shift without a fag, they too can seek alternative employment.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-22-2004, 07:28 PM:

People who smoke kick ass. Why did they start? Lack of sufficient willpower? Seriously. Also, is it worth it? C'mon... is it really worth it?

People can do what they want on their break, but going out for a few minutes here and there is retarded, just like their habit. I agree with exactly what Brad wrote. At my video editing job, the smokers would constantly go outside for 5 or ten minutes while the rest of us non-smokers continued to work. So when they did this, I just stopeed working and was completely unproductive until everyone else sat their fat ass down (smokers are always out of shape) and got back to work. That cost the company quite a bit of cash, I reckon. Oh well, I'm not the retarded one! [Smile]

[av=p]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-22-2004, 09:23 PM:

I'm not looking for sympathy here whatsoever.

However, nicotine is the most and addictive substance known to man. Once you are hooked, you are hooked. It is surprising how many people who quit had a relapse.

Back in my day, cigarette smoking was a way of life in the military. That's when I started. I was able to quit for a stretch of 4 years once, and I relapsed.

Since the dangers are known today that were not known 50 years ago, anyone who starts smoking now is totally a stupid idiot!!!

That's all I can say at present.

[ 05-22-2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-24-2004, 06:21 AM:

We just changed our policy to only being able to smoke on scheduled breaks, and not throughout the day. [thumbsup]

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 05-26-2004, 10:17 AM:

Many of my employees aren't old enough anyway. I just took over a 9 screen in which the previous manager was let go. She allowed 16 yr olds to have smoke breaks and an asst. manager would even buy for them. Now I'm the Nazi that corrected that. One of the youngens questioned why I have this strict policy to which I replied, "It's not really a policy, it's a law!" I do agree that smokers are less productive and they stink.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-26-2004, 10:49 AM:

In Massachusetts, at least, it is perfectly legal for minors to smoke. It is, however, illegel to _sell_ cigarettes to minors. Big difference.