Foo - Is your employer culling smokers from the payroll?

I have noticed a very interesting thing happening at the past two corporations where I have worked.

The tobacco smoking employees are systematically having their employement terminated.

I am not a smoker and I always felt a little irked when I would be working my @ss off all day long while some colleagues would be taking 10 to 15 minute breaks throughout the day to smoke. I would be inside working and look outside the window to see them sitting on their asses at a picnic bench smoking cigarettes. Worse yet, you would have to walk the gauntlet of smokers to get through the entrances to the building.

Well, low and behold, I noticed that over time, nearly all of them have been culled. The number of employees hanging around the doors and sitting on the picnic benches is definately shrinking - most definately because they are being terminated. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but they are not being replaced by people who hang around outside and smoke.

I wonder if this is because they create a sloppy/lazy image of themselves by hanging around outside while their colleagues are working inside, or if they are coincidently poor performers that also happen to smoke.

What are you guys seeing?

I guess it comes down to how you measure your workers. I know that around here, a lot of people who go through low-end jobs are measured based upon hourly calls and sales. Some people at Bargain Network mentioned that the figures are tallied up every week and only the top-producers are promoted. A lot of people drop out as well. So if you're taking 45-60 minutes total of smoking breaks a day, even with exactly the same efficiency as someone else, you won't be producing as much by the end of the day. Combined with lower promotion rates and higher drop-outs of those at the bottom, it may have the indirect effect of losing more of the smokers..

yes "evil smokers" must die. oh yea and kill the butt scratcher, day dreamers and those who loose intrest in searving their corparate masters, because profit for the elite is every thing! and damitt we must all do our part I tell ya.... long live the machine!!!!!!!!!

yes "evil smokers" must die. oh yea and kill the butt scratcher, day dreamers and those who loose intrest in searving their corparate masters, because profit for the elite is every thing! and damitt we must all do our part I tell ya.... long live the machine!!!!!!!!!

I admit I don't like smoking, but my question is sincere. I really have noticed a culling of the smokers in two different corporations. I am wondering if it is just coincidental, or is this happening elsewhere.

They die.

Seriously, I was a smoker for over 25 years and I quit several years ago. Smoking is just a lot less common than it was 10 years ago, at least in the US. Those that remain stand out. The laws on smoking are getting really restrictive. Washington just passed another law forbidding smoking within 25 feet of doorways, windows, and vents on public buildings. Smokers are a minority to which discrimination is encouraged.They may be getting targeted to reduce health care costs.

I understand your pain with the "trying to get into the building". I have to dodge the smokey maze of haze as well.

But I can't say that I've noticed smokers being let go. We just had a big set of layoffs recently and all the ones that *I know* were non-smokers. Just luck of the draw I think.

If you ever ask, they will deny it vehemently but:

Major airlines will ask pilot applicants if they smoke. They'll conduct the interview normally and thank the candidate.
If they answered "yes" to being a smoker, when the candidate leaves, their resume and application hits the round file.

Would you want YOUR pilot, after 12 hours of flying, trying to make a landing in poor weather (Cat.3 ILS), tired, stressed - to be having nicotine fits?

I don't think so.

I'd wager Danno's assessment is bang on. If nothing else, smoking is just one more distraction. Some jobs have the free time to handle it but people taking a smoke break every hour aren't going have the same productivity as those not. +1

The responses thus far have been insightful.

Let me give you some examples of the smoker-eliminations I have seen. The two corporations that I mentioned both had about 2,000 employees at the facilities where I worked.

Both had probably around ten or fifteen employees at any given time sitting (or standing) outside smoking. Of course, more than ten or fifteen employees smoked, but with the rotation of smokers throughout the day, there was a pretty steady crowd totalling ten to fifteen people.

Naturally, these companies inhale and exhale employees regularly like any other red-blooded American company that practices modern re-organization fire-drills.

Today, the crowd of smokers is maybe two, and often none. First, of course, is the fact that fewer smokers have the nerve to be seen standing around smoking and demonstrating their leisure time.

More startling, however is the fact that I know the people who have been let go and can confirm that the smoking population was clearly let go. It seems they were either replaced with non-smokers or by smokers who don't smoke at work. The net result is that they are gone and today few people stand outside smoking at these facilities.

I wonder if there's a bean-counter deep within the recesses of your company that has productivity and cost figures broken down into various groupings? As far as I know, there's no law that defines smokers as a protected class like age or race. For that matter, names aren't protected classes either and I will never hire people with certain names... :) Good luck proving it though...

I wonder if there's a bean-counter deep within the recesses of your company that has productivity and cost figures broken down into various groupings? As far as I know, there's no law that defines smokers as a protected class like age or race. For that matter, names aren't protected classes either and I will never hire people with certain names... :) Good luck proving it though...

I don't think it is the bean counters that are responsible for culling the smokers, but the image that is created by people standing around smoking outside and their supervisors' reaction to it. Eventually, their "smoke break" timing is very bad.

I remember being in a couple of short-notice emergency meetings where the whole department would be called into an impromotue meeting. Smoker "Jim" would miss the meeting and the Director would say, "Where the hell is Jim?!" The reply would be, "I think he just stepped outside for a smoke break" which would set a bad tone for smoker Jim who didn't even know what hit him.

To further the frustration, if a call would come in for smoker Jim and he wasn't there or if a supervisor was looking for smoker Jim and he wasn't at his desk, everybody immediately assumed he was slacking off outside having a smoke. In reality, smoker Jim might have been meeting with the engineering department or trouble shooting an issue for a customer, but it was always assumed that if he wasn't around, he was outside slacking off with a smoke. Many times I would see a supervisor looking for smoker Jim or smoker Jane and if they weren't immediately there, the supervisor's eyes would roll in frustration and you knew what he was thinking: "that damned slacker - outside smoking in an emergency when I need him/her right now!" Again, it wasn't always a fair or accurate assumption, but without smoker Jim/Jane there to defend themselves, the worst was always assumed.

So, if I had to guess, it is the IMAGE of smokers being lazy or slackers that causes their downfall in a lot of cases. This is not necessarily a fair stereotype, but I think it is an image that exists. Obviously, many smokers are, in fact, hard workers. However, bad timing of smoke-breaks and the visibility of the smoker shuffling about outside is what causes the career catastrophies for many smokers.

let's say 10 employees take five 10 mintue smoke breaks per day.

that's over 4 hours lost time per employee per week or over 40 hours for 10 people.

so, basically the company is paying an extra 40 hour salary per week for nothing. if the average salary is $25\hour - that's $1000 a week waste.

* or course, that doesn't account for the fact that people waste time in all sorts of different ways regarless of smoking or not.

Plenty of people in my profession either are asked to move on, or are told to. Smoking has not played a part in any of the cases I've witnessed. I smoked for 17 years, having quit this past July. Worked for the same company the past 12 years, always have received top-notch evaluations, raises, and promotions. The folks who I have seen let go were either performing poorly, or succumbed to pressure and lashed out inappropriately towards coworkers or management. There could always be a first time, however. Especially with the anti-smoking climate we now live in...

Maybe the companies are paring down their health insurance risks.

Smokers can't be good for health insurance rates. Everyone that checks 'YES' on the smoking column, adds to the overall cost of a company health insurance policy. This could be another good reason to snuff out the smoker.

I am an ex-smoker and have abosolutely ZERO compassion for the weaklings that can't, won't quit! I don't think they have any rights other than the right to be discriminated against and die early.

yeah, my dad quit cold-turkey when I was 7. I guess being in the army got him hooked. But once he had kids, that was it. I do remember having 1st and only cigarette ever. Sneaked it from behind his back and puffed it in the bathroom... yuk! :(

WHen i worked for a chimney sweep company over the summer, one of the guys was a smoker.
He would frequently take breaks to smoke, I mean frequently. We are working hard and pressed for time, and then comes a smoke break. THe boss was not very thrilled

Just don't allow them to take smoke breaks. Problem solved.

If they demand it, say:
Here's your choices-
a) $x/hr pay cut, you must punch out/in for each break (unpaid breaks), get your own health insurance (if on a company policy)
b) Quit
c) Fired

I remember years ago someone at work calculated the amount of inefficiency due to smokers in the plant. In those days, guys could smoke in the plant. It was such a fascinating memo that I remember the details clearly.

There were 1,000 employees in the plant who were paid to work with their hands assembling. He surveyed that 40% of the workers smoked. They smoked about 20 cigarettes per workday at seven minutes per cigarette.

He estimated that when smoking, the worker usually dedicated one hand to holding the cigarette. That came to about 2.33 hours per smoker. If I remember the math correctly, he figured that we had the equivalent of 116.5 full-time one-armed workers or 58 full-time no-armed workers due to working hands being pre-occupied with holding cigarettes.

The really alarming thing is the realization that the above calculation doesn't account for all the time wasted preparing, lighting and actually smoking the cigarettes. In one's own lifetime, think how much TIME a smoker wastes smoking. It is just about blows your mind. Even the most dumb-witted person could learn several foreign languages with the amount of time wasted smoking a pack of cigs a day.

It was not long after that, smoking in the plant and inside the office was banned.

Did the productivity go up after that?

Did the productivity go up after that?

Good question. Apparently not. The company shrunk over the years. If I had to guess, having people shuffling around outside the building smoking was even less efficient than having them working with one hand.

Sadly, many of the workers lost their jobs due to international competition. Without work, smoking and thinking became a career rather than a hobby for a lot of the folks. Ironically, they lost jobs to workers who still smoke in foreign factories.

Several years ago, my company sponsored a program to quit smoking. It was free to all smokers.

In our company of about 230 persons, I think about ten still smoke. And hey, while they smoke, I'm on BF, so what's the productivity difference? :D

Oh, yeah, for all you smart alecs, the program was free to NON smokers too! :p

The really alarming thing is the realization that the above calculation doesn't account for all the time wasted preparing, lighting and actually smoking the cigarettes. In one's own lifetime, think how much TIME a smoker wastes smoking. It is just about blows your mind. Even the most dumb-witted person could learn several foreign languages with the amount of time wasted smoking a pack of cigs a day.

It was not long after that, smoking in the plant and inside the office was banned.

I really don't think that is true. Maybe I'm biased because I smoke... but I think the biggest problem for a smoker is moreso their health problems (and costs directly associated with the health problems).

At my current job, anyone is allowed to smoke on the shop floor, regardless of who is around. I've been doing a lot of people watching and found that the most unproductive people (in terms of time when machines are idle) are the ones who don't smoke! Most of the machines in the shop are what's called Computer Numerical Control [CNC] Machines. With these, there are certain points in the program where the machine stops so that the operator can check and make sure everything is working right, change any tooling, whatever...

I have noticed that the smokers are usually just standing around smoking by the machine watching it go or talking with people nearby. When the machine stops, they go do their job, and start it back up. The non-smokers usually seem to pass the time by taking more bathroom breaks than the smokers seem to, or reading the newspaper. Most common occurance of the readers: Finishing the article or a few more paragraphs before getting up to do their job.

What your guy needed to do when evaluating the productivity loss of smoking a pack of cigarettes while on the job needed to factor in was how often he needed both hands to efficiently perform his job. Most smokers who are doing a job that requires 2 hands aren't going to try to always do it with one hand. Usually, they will have an ash tray to set their cig down, do the task, then pick it back up. Nor will it be always be 50% reduction in productivity by doing a job with one hand. Many jobs can be done just as effectively with one hand as with two, with the difference in time completion in milliseconds or seconds, not minutes or hours.

I do agree that to allow persons to smoke while at work, the building should be suitable for non-smokers to not be forced to have second-hand smoke. For example, a cubicle wall is not significant seperation from a smoker.

Anyways, I think the evaluation by your coworker was very flawed. But back to my original reason for replying about time...

I'll take your data estimation:
(20 cigs/workday * 7min/cig) = 140min/day
As most smokers can attest to, you really don't just completely stop thinking when you smoke. You don't just stand there puffing away... usually you're thinking about all sorts of things... while at work, usually work related.

*light* *think: ok, boss is going to ask me when this will be done... It's monday and I have 20 of these parts to finish, they take on average 45 minutes each to complete plus a bit for setting them, so I can get 9 done on a good day. On a bad day... maybe 4 can get done... ok, so 20 / 4 = 5 days maximum. I'll tell him I can have them done at the latest by the end of Thursday and if all goes well I should be done Wednesday morning* *ash out*

That little anecdote was really just to show that only maybe 5% of each cig is devoted entirely to the cigarette.

So 5% of 140min/day = 7min/day of true unproductivity.

(7min/day * 5days/wk * 48wks/yr) / 60min/hr = 28 hours/year

I think it's hard to learn a language by studying it for only 28 hours over the course of a year.

More time is spent idly by the average commuter listening to Howard Stern tell fart jokes or catching up on the latest celebrity gossip, than is spent by smokers devoting their full attention to a cigarette.

I wonder if there's a bean-counter deep within the recesses of your company that has productivity and cost figures broken down into various groupings? As far as I know, there's no law that defines smokers as a protected class like age or race. For that matter, names aren't protected classes either and I will never hire people with certain names... :) Good luck proving it though...

No- it is HEALTH CARE COSTS- plain and simple... nothing to do with image or productivity. Double digit increases in premiums have driven this-- and obesity has become a growing target as well. I personally have no trouble with going after smokers. They are NOT a protected class of workers.

Most people cannot drink or use drugs at work... why should they smoke? It is a bit complicated when they go after those who smoke at home... but I am OK with it.

If you have enough smokers to support a vending machine, all the profits can go to bicycle commuter "infrastructure". Racks, changing rooms, showers, Cliff Bars, Office Lube, Office Tools, etc. Then you can thank them everytime you pass them on the way in.

If you have enough smokers to support a vending machine, all the profits can go to bicycle commuter "infrastructure". Racks, changing rooms, showers, Cliff Bars, Office Lube, Office Tools, etc. Then you can thank them everytime you pass them on the way in.

I like that idea.

I hear what you're saying about the crowds of smokers taking breaks outside, and having to wade past them when you enter the building. In fact a guy I used to work with who smoked years before started smoking again just to take advantage of the breaks.

However, I do not agree with firing people for their personal habits. I think it opens a door that we don't want to go through. What if you were fired for being a cyclist because your boss decided it was a dangerous sport (you might get hit by a car)?

The smoke breaks are one thing, and smoking or not, those people aren't working, so fire them for that, not for smoking.

Most people cannot drink or use drugs at work... why should they smoke?

:rolleyes: I'm not aware of any studies that have shown smoking to impair your ability to drive or operate heavy machinery. Also, smoking is not known to impair judgement. It is unhealthy, both for the smoker and those around them. But eating fatty, salty foods can be unhealthy, as well. Shall we put an end to lunch breaks for those with poor food choices, while we allow healthy food consumers to continue?

yeah, my dad quit cold-turkey when I was 7. I guess being in the army got him hooked. But once he had kids, that was it. I do remember having 1st and only cigarette ever. Sneaked it from behind his back and puffed it in the bathroom... yuk! :(
Were you 7 at the time? Perhaps that was the impetus for him to quit.

The smoke breaks are one thing, and smoking or not, those people aren't working, so fire them for that, not for smoking.

And while we're at it, lets fire those bike commuters for all the time they spend showering and changing. They could be at work sooner and be ready to go earlier if they would just drive. If you're not on a time clock, how hard is it to fudge your start and finish times?

They may be getting targeted to reduce health care costs.

lol thats exactly what I was going to say:p.

Were you 7 at the time? Perhaps that was the impetus for him to quit.It could be, but he quit about 6 months after I tried that one cigarette. I'll ask him. :)



...However, I do not agree with firing people for their personal habits. I think it opens a door that we don't want to go through. What if you were fired for being a cyclist because your boss decided it was a dangerous sport (you might get hit by a car)?Well we may be idealistic in trying to be equal in everything, there's a lot of reality and optimization by the bean-counters. That's probably one reasy why women are paid less than men in the U.S.; their maternity leave ends up costing the employer more per unit of productivity (in general, there are fields where they make more than men). In countries with government-sponsored healthcare, the wages of women are comparable to the men cause that cost doesn't directly come out of the employer's pockets.

As for smokers' efficiency and productivity, I don't know of any studies showing anything one way or the other. However, higher healthcare costs are a measurable factor, with smokers costing employers more. Personally, I think it should be a shared responsibility. The employer/government pays $2000/year for your healthcare, you can find whatever plan you want and pay the rest. If you have a lifestyle that ends up raising the costs of healthcare, you pay the extra expense.

The smoke breaks are one thing, and smoking or not, those people aren't working, so fire them for that, not for smoking.

Can you imagine how absurd it would seem if nonsmoking workers just decided to take off frequently during every work day to go outside for walk or for ten minutes of sunshine and fresh air? Actually, I don't know why it is absurd, but it would surely get you fired in these parts.

The fact that smokers can do this and not get fired shows a high tolerance by society and employers for the smoker; a sort of sympathy for those afflicted with the tobacco addiction. I think there is a growing lack of willingness to accomodate this "selective weakness" on the part of smoker.

Today, the workplace is getting so wicked, I would not want to be thought of as one of the the employees milling about outside the building to smoke or anything else. Maybe in other parts of the USA, things are better but around here employees are cut frequently and often in clusters. You sure don't want to give anybody any excuse to consider you eligible for the next employee purge.

They die.

Seriously, I was a smoker for over 25 years and I quit several years ago. Smoking is just a lot less common than it was 10 years ago, at least in the US. Those that remain stand out. The laws on smoking are getting really restrictive. Washington just passed another law forbidding smoking within 25 feet of doorways, windows, and vents on public buildings. Smokers are a minority to which discrimination is encouraged.They may be getting targeted to reduce health care costs.
umm
wtf?

what dimension are you living in?

umm
wtf?

what dimension are you living in?
I live in the West Coast dimension.

Maybe it's more than 10 years. I started in 1973. Since 1980, smoking has gone from 1/3 of the population to about 1/5. If you don't smoke you don't see many smokers at work because they are exiled to the smoking ghettos.

I happen to agree with Cheg,
whether you agree with smoking or not smokers are being discriminated
against.

A good example is that one company
told all of its smokers either quit smoking or be fired, and the courts
upheld the companies decision.
If that company tried the same tactic with weight, eating unhealthy
(or special dietary restrictions based on religion), they would be
hauled to court, lose, lose any appeals and be paying restitutions
to the plaintiffs.

But what about this guy?

I live in the West Coast dimension.

Maybe it's more than 10 years. I started in 1973. Since 1980, smoking has gone from 1/3 of the population to about 1/5. If you don't smoke you don't see many smokers at work because they are exiled to the smoking ghettos.

I agree with cheg too. As an over-all population, certainly the smoking population has taken a dive. In the 1960's in the USA, the smoking population was a little more than 60% of the adults. Today, it is hoovering around 20%. TexasGuy may be seeing a higher smoking poplulation if he is with the 17 to 25 year old set and because he is living in Texas; both demographics of higher smoking populations.

Here, though, smoking is becoming rare enough to almost look wierd when you see it. Like, "look, a smoker! What the hell is he/she thinking?!" With all the information available and all the people who are openly offended by smoking it is an absolute wonderment that anyone would actually smoke. It looks so barbaric and pathetic, isn't the "cool-guy" image dead already?

That's just weird. I wonder what the basis for upholding the discrimination. Not that I disagree, I don't smoke nor plan to. I just find it extremely odd.

The "Cool Guy" smoking image is apparently not dead.

I read recently that 75% of the adult male population in the Philippines are smokers!

So smokers can still be cool in the Philippines. Yes, YOU too can be a POPULAR and HIP jet setter by SMOKING CIGARETTES in the PHILIPPINES! Hint: Possible pick-up lines in Manila might include, "Hey baby, would you like a cigarette, or shall we just share my second-hand smoke? Mmmm, yea, baby!" Somebody try this and tell us how it works. It seems too easy to be true, but it must be working for somebody for 75% of the Philippino male population to be smoking!

yeah, but did you check out the smoking-rates amongst the Filipino women?

yeah, but did you check out the smoking-rates amongst the Filipino women?

With 75% of the male population smoking, essentially EVERYBODY is smoking. It must be difficult to take a breath in without getting a lung full of second-hand smoke.