Slashdot Mirror
A Japanese Company Is Giving Nonsmokers Longer Vacations (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Marketing firm Piala introduced the new policy in September after nonsmokers complained that they were working more than their colleagues who smoked. The company's offices are reportedly on the 29th floor, meaning that popping out for a smoke break meant a solid 15 minutes away from work. Multiply that by several smoke breaks a day, and the hours start to add up, which began to tick off nonsmoking coworkers. A spokesman for the company told The Telegraph that one of those nonsmokers slipped a note in the company's suggestion box and the CEO agreed. Now nonsmokers are entitled to more vacation time, which the company hopes will encourage smokers to quit their filthy habit.
Seems cheaper to create an enclosed room on the 29th floor where smokers can get their fix in 5 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
What a coincidence! I, too, like completing puzzles during my lunch hour. Maybe we can be friends?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Not so much...
We'll make great pets
Smokers will outlive their non smoking counterparts. In a country where people will work themselves to death.
If this idea offends you
LOL, charging smokers more for health/life insurance has been SOP in the industry for decades, and this guy's getting all aggro over his misconception of it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I, for one, am sick of this propaganda.
If you want to illegalize it, fine. But I'm tired of the constant ads for "TRUTH" (now going all the way to claim that smoking is racist) all the while I'm counter propagandized (by some of the same companies) about how pot smoking is good for you and should be legalized.
And I say this as a non-smoker!
Are we going to give similar breaks to single employees without children and how great that is?
Are we going to count those who take 5 coffee breaks a day?!
How about those gym nuts that disappear for an hour a day (not including lunch) to go for a run and promise they'll make the time up later?!
Spare me your sanctimonious bs.
in Japanese company you hit the bar after your 10 hour day at the office.
Last time I checked, smoke breaks are unpaid... so are they suggesting only offering non-smokers more unpaid vacation time?
If so, that hardly seems like something newsworthy.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Smokers die young. Their lifetime healthcare costs are _lower_. Sense health care after age 65 is highly subsidised, we want _more_ smokers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well, good for the Japanese, bully for them.
But honestly, when I step out for a smoke I step out with one or two of my co-workers, we actively discuss what we're working on and solve some problems, and then go back at it.
Going out for a smoke doesn't necessarily mean you aren't working. Sometimes, you are actually working the whole time. I can't tell you how many times I've helped a co-worker sort out how to do something (or he helped me) while having a smoke.
Just because I'm not typing doesn't mean I'm not working.
It simply may not be true that you're doing less work -- in fact, I regularly see co-workers spend more time on Facebook or texting or what have you than I spend smoking every day. The difference being is I'm more likely to still be working while I'm smoking.
Where I'm actively thinking doesn't change that I am actually doing it.
Somehow I doubt the math works out anyway.
For simplicity lets assume there are 200 working days in a year. If you take a single break every day for 15 minutes, you have spent 50h on those breaks, which would make it over a week of work time. Multiple breaks will increase this even further. Somehow I doubt the company will offer that much vacation time to non smokers.
Not actually the case.
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
We hold down our healthcare costs, and it helps employee morale since nobody resents the smokers going on breaks and taking extra sick days.
I don't think there is much downside, since there are few smokers in California, and they tend to not be super bright.
The Japanese don't "hit the bar". The British "hit the bar". The Japanese "challenge their co-workers to a competitive drinking session".
People love socialized medicine. Everyone who can afford it seems willing to sign up for voluntary socialized medicine, aka insurance.
If you're allowed to just declare a smoke break, then fuck you, I'm declaring a fap break.
I'll be in the stationary cupboard.
If that's what you're up to, I imagine it won't be stationary, but rather moving noticably. Try not to ruin the stationery while you're in there.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I'm sure that all of those non-smokers are always diligently working while in the office.
If you believe American cinema that would be hit the karaoke bar.
They took their vacation in 15 min increments.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
In Soviet Russia, bar hit you!
[c'mon, you asked for it.]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Or you just use taxation on tobacco products to cover the cost difference, as less tobacco is consumed costs should go down as the tax money dwindles.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Having people work from home means they never leave work and since they are on salary they never get overtime pay and who cares if they smoke in their home they are charged more for insurance than non-smokers so it's a non-issue.
Smokers die young. Their lifetime healthcare costs are _lower_. Sense health care after age 65 is highly subsidised, we want _more_ smokers.
Not actually the case.
Yes it is.
We probably cover more health problems due to obesity than tobacco anyway. Unless you're going to start judging what your coworkers eat (and if you already do, congrats on being the office asshole!), this is pretty moot.
..no, what you really meant to say is, "SMOKING is not a RIGHT", not "smokers have no rights"; they have the same rights as everyone else.
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
Well, that's just stupid - you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke? I bet your competition loves such counterproductive thinking.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
Not true - smokers have the exact same civil liberties as non-smokers. The key term here is "private company."
since there are few smokers in California, and they tend to not be super bright.
I cannot disagree that Californians do not seem to be all that bright.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too or will the smokers pay a premium to cover the extra burden they place on the healthcare system?
In socialized healthcare, you'd tax them an additional fee on each tobacco purchase to cover their higher healthcare costs. This is already a solved problem.
In places where we pay for our own healthcare, smokers already pay significantly higher premiums for engaging in their dangerous behavior. This is already a solved problem.
For instance, a friend of mine sat down with an insurance provider to get a quote a few months back. Everything was looking fine until they asked him whether he smoked. He smokes a celebratory cigar (just one) each year on New Year's Eve, but the insurance provider treats any smoking in the last twelve months, regardless of quantity, as grounds to classify the person as a smoker. The premium they quoted him immediately went up by a factor of four in response to his answer, so he decided to stick with what he already had.
He'll be skipping the cigar this New Year's Eve so he can get a quote as a non-smoker next year.
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
You indicate later in your post that you are in California. What you are doing is not legal.
In most states smokers are protected against hiring discrimination. In particular, the majority of states cannot discriminate against you based on legal activity conducted outside of work hours. However, smokers may be required to pay more for health insurance. Or in some states, they may be denied employment if their smoking is incompatible with the job requirements (e.g., the American Lung Association may be able to decline to employ a smoker.)
https://www.workplacefairness....
https://www.workplacefairness....
I'm no fan of smoking or smokers, but smokers do indeed have rights.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I thought that was the Koreans?
Ezekiel 23:20
Except what we have, especially since after obamacare is nothing close to socialized medicine. The deductibles are so high on most of these plans that if you have something catastrophic happen or have some illness that requires many dr visits a year, you're going to end up nearly 10K in the red before the insurance is going to help you out. It has been said that the average american has less than 1K saved up to help cover that deductible, many living pay check to pay check. So essentially most Americans are fucked if they have to make use of their obamacare plans for more than well care visits.
'Bad fit.'
Never say _anything_ else, especially when dealing with 'protected classes'. What is the upside?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
However, when a monetary value for life years lost was taken into account, the beneficial net effect of non-smoking to society was about €70000 per individual.
Well it still seems something of value is perceived to get lost.
Ezekiel 23:20
I tried this once at a place I worked. The CEO blithely suggested I was welcome to take up smoking and have as much free break time as desired, too. (And incidentally in case you were wondering; No, they're not in business anymore.)
Or you just use taxation on tobacco products to cover the cost difference, as less tobacco is consumed costs should go down as the tax money dwindles.
They did that already, in 1983 in the 3rd federal increase of tobacco taxes. There have been, what, 3 to 6 more tax increases since then. Just so you know, anti-smokers tend to NOT be very accurate in their use of facts in this debate. Smokers have lower heath care costs (mostly due to not living to their 80s) and the local governments are addicted to the extra tax income those taxes bring in. Basically, this type of sin tax is the only way politicians can get support for regressive taxation. And you are falling right into it.
Another thought, most smokers are doing it to deal with stress. By reducing their vacation time, you are only making it harder for them to quit. By supporting these "tough on" policies you are supporting a historical tradition that includes the war on drugs, prohibition, and the other sin policies that have been time and time again proved to be ineffective in the best cases and disastrous in the worst.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Something that 'belongs' to the smokers (years of life), not an externality.
Smokers save Medicare a ton of money by dying young. Sure death is a large medical expense for everyone, but life is also expensive.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I took up blowing bubbles from a child's soap bubble pipe whenever the smokers took a break.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In my anecdotal experience it's the biggest slackers who notice and complain about stuff like that.
Also it's been widely known for quite a while now that taking frequent breaks increases productivity because we work better in "sprints" that are rewarded in the short term with a break. If I recall correctly it was coincidentally 15 minutes per hour of work.
Smoking is a gross habit and the 15 minute breaks are better spent doing something else but from an employer standpoint the 15 minute break people are getting more done than the people bitching about them.
Actually it's a lot of Asian cultures. I've heard about it in Korea, but I've experienced it in Japan and mainland China.
So incredibly wrong but not at all surprising, after all we're in the era of alternative facts.
Smokers cost the system somewhere around 25% more than non-smokers over their lifetime. They are far more likely to have expensive cancer and other medical care costs. Treating lung cancer can cost more than $1 million down to $50,000 or so depending on type and number of treatments needed. And you have several orders of magnitude more probability to get lung cancer than those who don't smoke.
But not even including lung cancer risks, smokers have higher blood pressure, more heart disease, lung and kidney problems and on and on. Smoking does nothing but increase health care costs often massively.
Addiction to legal substances is a disability under the ADA.
Wrong: "smokers are not expressly protected under any federal statutes regarding employment rights."
Don't listen to any legal advice provided on Slashdot, including my own.
It is perfectly legal to deny hiring in the case of smoking even in California. Smoking isn't an activity that only occurs outside work hours. You ever met a smoker that smokes ONLY outside work hours and identifies as a smoker? Neither have I.
The problem with smoking is two fold. They take far more breaks than their coworkers and they are far more likely to have health issues. I disagree with excluding a potential hires because they smoke but I fully support higher health costs (which means the smoker will lie about smoking) and an understanding that any time spent smoking outside legally required breaks will be made up at a time convenient to the business.
I actually think the idea of providing additional vacation time to no smokers is a great idea, of course the smokers will simply lie again.
Where I work, we hire people on the basis of merit-based qualifications. I honestly don't care if you smoke crack, marijuana, cigarettes, whatever. Show up to meetings on time, play nice with co-workers. If you can create value, you're hired.
I'd just like to throw this out there because unfortunately a lot of backwards thinking companies think they have the high ground, and they don't. If a company wants to pass up an employee because they have a stick up their ass, there are thousands of competitors who will hire instead. The only loser will be the idiot that passed up a smoker and has a vacant position for 6-12 months because they have no understanding of the market.
You ever met a smoker that smokes ONLY outside work hours and identifies as a smoker?
Yes: me. I've been a pipe smoker (never cigarettes) for over forty years, and I've never had the slightest desire to slip out for a smoke. As I drive my own car to work, I can smoke then, or at home and have no need to smoke at work.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
" Sense health care after age 65 is highly subsidised"
What about non-sense health care?
in Japanese company you hit the bar after your 10 hour day at the office.
Depends on the company. Traditional Japanese companies with conservative management often do this, but it's becoming increasingly less common.
The solution: don't go work for these companies. As if there isn't enough to choose from.
Source: I live in Japan. I start work at 9:30 and leave at 18:30.
My site
Wow ShanghaiBill, that must've been the smuggest post I ever read, or at least in a while.. on internet.
"We don't hire smokers" - Now there's a slippery slope. That same logic could easily lead to let's not hire drinkers because alcohol causes so many health issues. And it does. In fact, alcohol causes far more negative effects on society than tobacco.
For the record, I'm not a smoker. I can't stand the smell of it. But I'm equally offended by bad breath and body odor. Should we stop hiring those people too? Why stop there? Let's get rid of those overweight people too. And what about all those people with kids...taking all kinds of time off work...yeah, let's not hire them either.
Smoking is not a habit it is an addiction. Instead of marginalizing smokers maybe we should try to help them break that addiction.
The Japanese don't "hit the bar". The British "hit the bar". The Japanese "challenge their co-workers to a competitive drinking session".
Americans "hit the bar", the British "go to the pub"...
Where I work, we hire people on the basis of merit-based qualifications.
Same here. And there is merit in not subjecting yourself to a poison that will most likely shorten your life. Or do you use a different kind of merit?
GP probably has a mandatory one hour lunch break and you don't.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I am a smoker - and I went through almost 12 months without anyone at that workplace even commenting.
I was the first into the office in the morning, and the last out - for years.
'Smokers' *already* know that they have to be 'seen' do do more to make up for the 2/3/4 5-min breaks a day.
Even skipping lunch 'hours' to make them 'lunch-at-the-desk-while-working'
The earlier post about the use of company time and resources on 'personal' use such as FB, I believe is a significantly worse issue, having seen what younger staff can do to a small-medium company internet connection using their office desktops and personal mobile devices.
Christopher Hitchens.
Dead from esophageal cancer at age 62. Also, he thought the Iraq War was a good idea. So maybe not so smart.
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
Well, that's just stupid - you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke? I bet your competition loves such counterproductive thinking.
If the next Tesla or Hawkings(sic) is going around handing in their CV and doing job interviews then they aren't who you think they are.
No sig today...
It's fairly straightforward in the UK. Just don't allow smokers to take smoking breaks.
Put it in the contract of employment if you have to.
If they want to smoke at lunch time, or during any legally permitted minimum break, then go for it. But try and leave the building outside of that, and you're sacked.
Um I have no idea what industry you are in. I can tell you that we have many unfilled openings due to not finding qualified candidates. We've never asked anybody if they smoke and don't do drug tests.
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
Well, that's just stupid - you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke? I bet your competition loves such counterproductive thinking.
Back here in reality, chances are that its not, in fact smokers tend to have lower IQ's, probably not because of smoking but because most people who started smoking in the last 30 odd years have to be pretty daft to ignore the problems related to it.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
Not true - smokers have the exact same civil liberties as non-smokers. The key term here is "private company."
Smokers have no additional rights, and no inherent right to smoke. You knew this is what the GP meant, attempting to twist their words only makes you look silly.
To be 100% honest, I dont even think a smoker would win a case in Australia or the UK (who have very strong Industrial Relations laws) for not being hired because he was a smoker. All a company has to do is come up with a half arsed health and safety excuse and the chimney will be told to go jump.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Everybody has high medical costs in their last years. Try again.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Right. The side of the argument that posted a peer reviewed study is 'alternative facts'. The one that pulls 25% from his asshole on the other hand?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you look up, you might be able to see the point sailing over your head.
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too or will the smokers pay a premium to cover the extra burden they place on the healthcare system?
A gloriously simple-minded comment. It's almost like you're letting political tribalism blind you.
If the private healthcare industry isn't adjusting rates for smokers, then non-smokers are already paying too much. On the other hand, if private insurance is already imposing higher rates on smokers, then a social system can simply do the same thing.
Thus, there is no inherent difference between private and social medicine in this respect. You are just a partisan troll.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Smokers die young. Their lifetime healthcare costs are _lower_.
Their lifetime contributions are also lower---due to the shorter lifetime. "Contributions" in this case includes health care premiums or taxes, as well as productive labor.
The study itself addresses the overall effect, which you conveniently seem to ignore:
"However, when a monetary value for life years lost was taken into account, the beneficial net effect of non-smoking to society was about €70000 per individual."
That's about $80,0000 in Real Money.
Also, note that they include reduced pensions in their estimate. In the US, we don't get government pensions like they do, so we save even less on those smokers' "lost years" than they do.
I don't know if that bumps it up to $85K, $90K, $100K, or even higher, but they save more on dead smokers because they provide more services to their people.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
In the US, health care costs fall heavily on the employer while working,at least for a lot of jobs, and the government when retired. If, as a smoker, I have serious health problems when I'm 60, that's a problem for the company. If, as a non-smoker, I have even more serious health problems but not until I'm 70, that's not a problem for the company.
That's not the case in Japan, of course. It appears to be about smokers taking significantly long breaks during the day.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Most people in the US collect Social Security, which is a government old-age pension. If people die before they can collect, more money in the pool for people who live long enough to collect.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
but i betcha fiver they wouldnt do it for gay transsexual onelegged blind albino african americans , cos that would be RA CIST bleh
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Playing nice with me, in particular, includes not subjecting me to tobacco smoke. (Marijuana smoke doesn't seem to bother me like that. I've never experienced crack smoke.) A smoker will tend to take more breaks than a non-smoker, to go smoke somewhere, and that probably affects value creation to some extent.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you go home and drink, and can hold your liquor, I won't notice. If you smoke at home, you'll smell bad. If you smoke at work, you're taking more breaks. If you drink at work, I won't notice.
An employee who uses alcohol to excess is likely to have performance issues, but typically that's it. An employee who uses tobacco has other issues.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke?
Tesla did not smoke. Hawkings does not smoke.
It is telling that you used non-smokers as examples of really smart people that smoke.
Not really. What's telling is the fact you ignore my obvious point, favoring instead to latch on to a non-sequitur due to admittedly poor decision-making when it came to choosing examples.
Guess I should have gone with Einstein and Bohrs.
This is the number of really smart smokers that I know: 0.
In fact, I can't think of a better test for dumbness.
Anecdote != evidence, you know. It's kind of funny that you think that, considering that research has indicated the possibility that smoking actually increases mental activity.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
this is because we irrationally assign human life a value much, much greater than its market value in most cases.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
And also, while health risks were suspected by many even back then, it was still being touted as a remedy for certain health issues at the time. (it does help treat some health issues, but causes far more problems than it solves).
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50