Shipbuilder to fine staff caught sneaking a cigarette
Friday 05 October 2012
Dutch shipbuilder IHC Merwede is to fine workers who light up a cigarette outside official breaks €100 for each offence, the AD reports on Friday.
Repeat offenders may even eventually miss out on their profit share entitlements of some €2,400, the paper said.
The plan has been approved by the company’s works council. Merwede has a workforce of 3,000.
According to the AD, the measure has been brought in because the company wants a healthier workforce, especially now the state pension age is being increased to 66. The company also wants to stop smokers taking more breaks than non-smokers.
Should smoking be restricted further at work? Have your say using the comment box below.
© DutchNews.nl
|
If this company consider 5 minutes of their employs time to be worth 100 euros, I trust that they are paying them this hourly wage of 1,200 euros.
By eejit | 5 October 2012 8:45 AM@eejit....With your comments i assume you dont'have agreat deal of exposure to running a (successful) business? understanding the differnce between hourly wages and production value of the employee are not the same thing......
By S... | 5 October 2012 10:51 AM@eejit
By GS | 5 October 2012 10:56 AMGood to know you put such a low EUR value on your health. I don't care if smokers take an extra 5 min break than me - I stand a much better chance of living years longer. That's worth something!
isnt that nice; looking out for the health and welfare of their employees. (insert eyes rolling here)
By Robert | 5 October 2012 11:43 AMThis is must be a joke.
By Ronny | 5 October 2012 11:53 AMUnless they are working in a hazardous environment, (benzin, ether or any other flamable objects they should not be restricted to when they can smoke. its a known fact and proven by scientists, a smoker works better after his smoke=
@ eejit (very appropriate btw) - the cost is a fine, not a payment for time taken. Having worked in several different work environments, I applaud this idea as non-smokers were always left worse off by having less breaks and covering for their smoking colleagues!
By Mazza B | 5 October 2012 12:19 PMThis is an excellent way to keep their work force more healthy & at the same time let them see how little power they have as your slave workers..
Show them all who the boss is, 'good way to encourage loyalty..
You could also use the money you steal from your personnel to employ some professional snitches to increase your booty.
How about more strict control if they stop working to use the lavatory? €100 fine if they pee outside the official break?
Looks like 'back on your heads folks, tea break is over'....BRAVO!!
By The visitor | 5 October 2012 2:44 PMFor some jobs, a fixed break is essential (eg. if on a production line or similar) and so taking breaks outside of that time is delaying not only their own work but that of their team, and ultimately if not checked, the productivity of the business that employs them. For me (ex-smoker who sees both sides of the argument), this issue should have been 'sold' as a productivity issue, rather than a way to control people's lives, which employers have no right to do. Taking more than one (legally obliged) break in the morning/afternoon on the employers pay - for whatever reason - is anti-social to the non-additional-break-takers: be it for a smoke, a water-cooler gossip, or a toiletcubicle powernap!
By osita | 5 October 2012 7:12 PMAlso, workers eating anything but vegetables or fruits will also get a €100,00 fine each time they're caught. Same for overweight workers, they get a €100,00 fine each day they haven't dropped weight.
By Someone | 5 October 2012 9:52 PM@GS: you will not live longer, sorry..
By The visitor | 5 October 2012 10:33 PMThe high rates of cancer that were a few years ago unheard of, are caused more from the poisons in the air and in food.
Sure hope you all commented on your own time.:D
By tobias smit | 7 October 2012 7:10 AMSmoking is legal so businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate against addicted people.
By phil | 7 October 2012 8:13 AMBy law, each worker has the right to have a break of 5 mins every hour. In that break, people has the FREEDOM to do whatever they want...even eating frites and kibbeling and other lekker gezond eten is not healthy at all...should they get a fine as well?
By Giuseppe | 8 October 2012 9:40 AM@The Visitor
By GS | 8 October 2012 11:43 AMI hope you're trolling, because your post is hilarious!
@Giuseppe, I am pretty sure that no such law exists. By law you are entitled to 30 minutes (or 2 x 15 minutes) break, if you work longer then 5,5 hours.
By pepe | 8 October 2012 3:13 PMhttp://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/werktijden/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-er-wettelijk-geregeld-voor-mijn-werktijden.html
Sorry Giuseppe, but Dutch law is clear on the matter. if you work 4-7 hours you are entitled to a break of 30 min
By Mike | 8 October 2012 5:08 PM8-9 hours gets you a total break time of 45 minutes of which one break must be at least 30 min
and at 10 hours of work you get an hour of break, with one break being minimum 30 minutes.
So no. smokers who work 8 hours a day don't have the right to take a 5 minute break every hour to smoke a cigarette, as after their 30min lunch break they'd have only 15 minutes of break time left for the day.
@S Fair point, though there does seem to be some profiteering going on. If two(or more) employees take a 5min break at the same time, both are billed 100euros, so the money will be to compensate the company for personal value, not reduction in earnings potential for their team or department.
Therefor they consider each employee to have an annual production value of 2,304,000euros (1200*8*5*48=2,304,000)
It's 3,000 employees should create 6,912,000,000 turnover
It's actual turnover for 2011 was less than 15% of this.
A 15euro basket of fruit and vegetables sounds a more proportionate incentive to not take their break half an hour late.
By eejit | 8 October 2012 8:35 PMIt has been "proven" to the satisfaction of virtually all totalitarian regimes that all aspects of their subjects' (Note that "citizens" was not the characterization.) lives need be controlled. Heil!
By Drawer 22 | 9 October 2012 5:11 PM