Clocking cigarette breaks: Your comments

Breckland Council said the move aimed to make it fairer for individuals who did not smoke.

Workers could be forced to clock off when they go for a cigarette under proposals made by a Norfolk council.

Staff at Breckland Council will not be paid in future for the time they take to have a cigarette if the proposals are given the go-ahead at a meeting on Wednesday.

BBC News website readers have been contacting us with their thoughts and experiences of smoking in the workplace.

Martin Molloy is an 'infuriated' non-smoker from London

I used to work in a private sector call centre and about three times a day, the smokers would go off on their breaks that lasted up to twenty minutes each.

As a non-smoker it used to infuriate me when they went out to get their fix.

I didn't get paid any extra for working more hours in the long run than a smoker did and we were doing the same job. I felt like taking up smoking to get equal pay.

I think smokers have their normal 'comfort' breaks - like making tea and catching up with their colleagues - on top of the smoking breaks. I agree with the council's plans.

Owen Sullivan from Wales says smoking breaks are 'negligible'

I work for Carmarthenshire County Council and workers here already have to clock out for smoking breaks.

The ban was already in place three years ago, when I joined as an IT engineer.

We work flexible hours, which means that we clock in and out when we get to work and when we go on lunch breaks.

I don't smoke but my colleagues who do are used to clocking out when smoking, they find it normal.

It doesn't really make much difference - I do notice that they end up staying an extra ten minutes or so longer a day, but it's negligible really.

In my opinion, councils are announcing these measures to look good in the press because they're getting so much bad press at the moment about supposedly wasting public money.

Ruthy clocks out of Gateshead Council to light up

I've worked for local government for six years now and because we're on flexitime I have to clock out for cigarette breaks. It's something that I accept and it's been part of the rules since the start.

I used to be a non-smoker so I can understand that it's unfair when smokers abuse the system.

But when people go and get coffee they can be away for 20 minutes, especially if they've got lots of cups to make. That's a bit of a bugbear.

We need to walk out of the council grounds to smoke, so each break is quite long. I clock out for about 62 minutes a week and only smoke two cigarettes a day.

It keeps my smoking in check because I eat into my flexitime.

More comments

In the office I work you only clock the hours you spend working. So that doesn't include lunch, coffee, internet surfing, Facebook, or even chatting with colleagues. We register the time we have spent on a project which is billed to a client. So why should we get paid for not working? Even if we did, why should a smoker get extra breaks? Laura, Lancashire

I'm not a smoker but I pay my tax. Tax payers do not pay people to smoke. I currently work in the public sector, and smokers have to clock out for smoke breaks and none of them complain. I've worked in the private sector and in every company I've worked, you couldn't take a smoke break paid or not paid. Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Rob Pickles, Manchester

Smokers are time thieves. Consider that they sneak out for 10 minutes six times or more per day, that's one hour at least per day. That's roughly 30 work days a year that they owe to the local authority or company. I've asked my management several times if I can take my "smoker's holiday" all in one lump so I can nip off to Australia to watch the Ashes. Phil, Brentwood, Essex

I think that this idea is completely fair. I am also a smoker but would always clock out when going for a cigarette and would only go with the permission of my supervisor. However it does annoy me that when people stand around talking or spend a lot time making a cup of tea, they don't have to clock out. I think that should also be introduced, especially if this idea is supposed to be in the interest of fairness. Adam, Edinburgh