PDA

View Full Version : Smokers need time off to quit says NHS watchdog


Vegas
04-24-2007, 08:46 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1701528.ece

Employees who smoke must be given time to attend clinics to help them to quit during working hours without loss of pay, new public health guidance recommends today.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) claims that the proposal will cut the £5 billion annual cost of lost productivity, absenteeism and fire damage caused by smoking.

It believes that a business with five smokers could spend just £66 on providing advice, including the cost of lost employees’ time, and see an overall saving of around £350 in improved productivity.

It is the first time that NICE has issued guidance that applies beyond the NHS, effectively including every workplace in England. The recommendations come as all workplaces, from offices to factories and pubs, prepare to go smoke-free on July 1.
Some representatives of industry condemned the proposals, claiming that NICE was “divorced from reality” and that business should not be expected to pay for employees’ dependence on tobacco.

Smoking costs the NHS an estimated £1.5 billion each year. Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, said that the advice was the best means of achieving smoke-free environments that would benefit both employers and employees. “Our advice is based on the best evidence of which workplace ap-proaches are effective for smokers and make business sense for employers.”

The recommendations include making information on local stop-smoking services widely available at work and, where feasible and there is sufficient demand, providing on-site support.

Local stop-smoking sessions typically last 14 hours over a six-to-seven week period. These are available on the NHS. People on the course spend two weeks preparing to stop with meetings every week lasting up to two hours. After stopping there are a further five meetings. At the end of that one in two people has given up.

Amanda Sandford, research manager at the charity Action on Smoking and Health, said: “Providing employees are offered help and directed to services with a good track record, this seems a very sound policy.”

But David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, which repreents 100,000 small and medium-sized family-owned businesses, told The Times:“My concern first of all is about NICE. It shows how divorced from reality it is. The idea that business should pick up the tab for an individual’s problem just shows how far it is from economic reality. It really is for business to create jobs. If people have a problem with tobacco dependence it is up to them to sort that out but not during working hours.”

Andrew Lansley, the Tory health spokesman, said: “It should not all be down to employers. The Government in 2000 recognised that occupa-tional health would be required in encouraging employees to give up smoking but appears to have abandoned its proposals in the NHS plan.”

However, Mary Boughton, chairwoman of the Federation of Small Businesses Health and Safety, said that small businesses recognised the need to support staff in the workplace.

“This will improve the health of staff and the productivity of businesses. It will also ensure that the new smoking laws are not broken.”

Simon Clark, director of Forest, the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, said it was “absolutely ridiculous” that smokers should attend clinics in working hours. “It’s wrong to expect employers to accept employees taking time off, and I imagine their nonsmoking colleagues will be very unhappy about it.”

BoredWithNoSB
04-24-2007, 09:30 PM
I really need to take up smoking.

pnkpanther
04-25-2007, 10:46 AM
bullcocky, smokers need to grow backbone and quit if they want too


"oooo its hard...."

well you know what, you knew it was bad, you started it, you quit

LSU
04-25-2007, 11:05 AM
bullcocky, smokers need to grow backbone and quit if they want too


"oooo its hard...."

well you know what, you knew it was bad, you started it, you quit



Seems like a lot of people jump in the "too hard" bandwagon on a number of topics. What happened to the American ideal of focusing on a desired end and doing what NEEDS to be done to accomplish it?

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 11:09 AM
Seems like a lot of people jump in the "too hard" bandwagon on a number of topics. What happened to the American ideal of focusing on a desired end and doing what NEEDS to be done to accomplish it?

I like the change in ideal...It's what sets me apart...Other people focus on "can't" and I just do it....Guess who wins?

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 11:10 AM
I like the change in ideal...It's what sets me apart...Other people focus on "can't" and I just do it....Guess who wins?


*Evil Jiddy looks over*


What did you just say?!?

MWA HA HA HA HAAAAA....Joe down the street just cashed in his stocks at 30% gains in a week...Go to work...LOOOOOOSER.

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 11:11 AM
*Evil Jiddy looks over*


What did you just say?!?

MWA HA HA HA HAAAAA....Joe down the street just cashed in his stocks at 30% gains in a week...Got to work...LOOOOOOSER.

*Good Jiddy looks back*

Yeah, but I'm cooler and feel more accomplished.

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 11:12 AM
*Good Jiddy looks back*

Yeah, but I'm cooler and feel more accomplished.

*Evil Jiddy cackles*

Yeah, whatever loser...Hey look...I'll be in Tahiti smoking some gahnja and rubbing my face in some titties...Gimme a buzz on lunch if you have the time...

LOL

Buzz on lunch!!!

Have the time!!!!


I KILL ME!!

BambinoBear
04-25-2007, 11:13 AM
I need time off to attend clinics on curbing my appetite

pnkpanther
04-25-2007, 11:30 AM
i have no problem with help quit programs, i think most smokers need help, but paid time off, nuts to that noise.

it's bad enough smokers always seem to get far more breaks then non smokers

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 11:43 AM
i have no problem with help quit programs, i think most smokers need help, but paid time off, nuts to that noise.

it's bad enough smokers always seem to get far more breaks then non smokers

God knows cigs are taxed enough that there should be enough to cover these people. In the long run it's much cheaper to pay for a month or two off from work then a year or two of hospital care.

pnkpanther
04-25-2007, 11:53 AM
God knows cigs are taxed enough that there should be enough to cover these people. In the long run it's much cheaper to pay for a month or two off from work then a year or two of hospital care.


do the employers recieve tax income?

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 12:01 PM
do the employers recieve tax income?

No, and if this program is implemented they should.

pnkpanther
04-25-2007, 12:14 PM
No, and if this program is implemented they should.

and once again non smokers have to suffer due to smokers bad choices

LSU
04-25-2007, 12:17 PM
and once again non smokers have to suffer due to smokers bad choices

You could make a parallel here to the rich and poor...rich pay a higher tax burden because the poor choose to not do the things necessary to become rich.

Or rather, not that the poor are "choosing" to not be rich, but in some aspects of life for some of the poor, they're choosing poor choices...

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 12:22 PM
and once again non smokers have to suffer due to smokers bad choices


How are non smokers suffering? Take the taxes from the sale of cigarettes and put them in programs that not only help smokers quit, but also paying off the loses of the time missed from work.

If you want to talk about suffering, don't we all suffer when someone makes a bad decision. We pay more at the stores to cover loses for stealing. We pay more in taxes to cover the cost of prisons and jails, even though most of us are not criminals. If these people are tying to get help, we should turn our backs, and say, no, it's your own fault, and if you want to quit, it should cost you, not me, because it's not my concern if you smoke.

pnkpanther
04-25-2007, 12:56 PM
How are non smokers suffering? Take the taxes from the sale of cigarettes and put them in programs that not only help smokers quit, but also paying off the loses of the time missed from work.

If you want to talk about suffering, don't we all suffer when someone makes a bad decision. We pay more at the stores to cover loses for stealing. We pay more in taxes to cover the cost of prisons and jails, even though most of us are not criminals. If these people are tying to get help, we should turn our backs, and say, no, it's your own fault, and if you want to quit, it should cost you, not me, because it's not my concern if you smoke.

say i work witha smoker, she' gets month paid vacation, i have to pick up her slack.

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 01:00 PM
say i work witha smoker, she' gets month paid vacation, i have to pick up her slack.

Quiting smoking is hardly a vacation. And part of the money given to the employer must trickle down to the employees.

BoredWithNoSB
04-25-2007, 02:03 PM
Pnk, like I said in my post. Solution is easy. Pick up smoking for a couple weeks. Then, take your paid vacation. That's my plan if something like this ever comes about here.

LSU
04-25-2007, 02:04 PM
I think there needs to be some collateral involved. If you're a smoker, and you quit smoking while the company pays for your time off, if you don't quit or start back again later, you repay the company, plus interest or have the risk of being fired.

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 03:11 PM
Pnk, like I said in my post. Solution is easy. Pick up smoking for a couple weeks. Then, take your paid vacation. That's my plan if something like this ever comes about here.

As long as we're clear that we won't support any system in which somebody can scam.

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 03:18 PM
How are non smokers suffering? Take the taxes from the sale of cigarettes and put them in programs that not only help smokers quit, but also paying off the loses of the time missed from work.

If you want to talk about suffering, don't we all suffer when someone makes a bad decision. We pay more at the stores to cover loses for stealing. We pay more in taxes to cover the cost of prisons and jails, even though most of us are not criminals. If these people are tying to get help, we should turn our backs, and say, no, it's your own fault, and if you want to quit, it should cost you, not me, because it's not my concern if you smoke.

You almost had me until you compared a person's lungs to extra taxes....Choose thy comparisons wisely...but I think we're along the same line of thinking.

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 03:27 PM
You almost had me until you compared a person's lungs to extra taxes....Choose thy comparisons wisely...but I think we're along the same line of thinking.

I wasn't comparing taxes to lung cancer. If you look at the quote it said "and once again non smokers have to suffer due to smokers bad choices", so that's where the comparison came from.

Jiddy78
04-25-2007, 03:56 PM
I wasn't comparing taxes to lung cancer. If you look at the quote it said "and once again non smokers have to suffer due to smokers bad choices", so that's where the comparison came from.

No...I was stating that you are comparing the bad effects from additional taxes incurred on people from a criminal to the bad effects of smoke on lungs from a smoker...

That's a terrible comparison...but I get your drift.

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 04:18 PM
No...I was stating that you are comparing the bad effects from additional taxes incurred on people from a criminal to the bad effects of smoke on lungs from a smoker...

That's a terrible comparison...but I get your drift.

See, it was in the way I interpreted it.

i_hate_righties
04-25-2007, 06:01 PM
ok, so you spend all this money to get smokers to quit smoking during work hours to increase productivity....So, I wonder how much internet addiction clinics would cost and then how much productivity increase would be seen if people didnt spend most of their work day chatting online!....a cigarette takes about 7 minutes to smoke...compared to hours and hours of work time spent surfing the net?

Reagan Smash
04-25-2007, 06:26 PM
All I can say is this, and I'm probably biased. Three years ago, I watched my stepfather die of lung cancer in the most horrible way possible. We weren't rich, and he never had the opportunity for a helping hand with his addiction. Seeing this topic, I wonder if he would be alive today if someone had said, listen, we'll help you out financially why you try to quit this cancer causing drug. But it didn't, and he died a horrible death. It seems to me if we are willing to go to enough time to ban it, and tax it to death, we should also be willing to lend a hand as well, not just look to make these people have to go and hide, because we don't the smell of smoke.