Wine in the office? Why not?

I was on GB News yesterday discussing smoking breaks at work.

It followed a report in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday - ‘Cigarette breaks give smokers an extra week of holiday a year’.

According to the paper:

More than half (52 per cent) of smokers surveyed said they leave their desks for a cigarette or vape break multiple times a day, according to research from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

If I was surprised it’s because it’s not the sort of research I normally associate with the ONS.

Scrolling down, however, readers were then told that the survey ‘was carried out by tobacco-free nicotine pouch and vape company Haypp UK’, which made more sense.

The true source of the research was also confirmed by subsequent reports in The Sun (‘The amount of time smokers get off work just with cigarette breaks revealed – it’s more than you think’) and The Times (‘Cigarette breaks ‘add up to an extra week off work’).

(According to The Times, ‘In 2021, 13 per cent of people in the UK aged over 18 smoked cigarettes, which equates to 6.6 million people, according to the Office for National Statistics’, so perhaps that was in the original press release and the Telegraph got confused when initially attributing the Haypp research to the ONS.)

Throwing smokers under a bus has of course become de rigueur for the non-combustible nicotine industry, but I’m not sure it’s a particularly clever thing to do.

Vaping, for example, is now prohibited in many places where smoking is banned, which is the inevitable consequence of not fighting smoking bans because, for many people, vaping bans are the next logical step.

Pouches are a different proposition to cigarettes and vapes because it’s virtually impossible to see what someone has got in their mouth, so good luck policing that.

Nevertheless, I think it’s short-sighted to feed the anti-nicotine industry with ammunition that can be used to attack consumers of other nicotine products, including cigarettes, but there you go.

Surely it’s possible to promote the benefits and convenience of pouches without belittling smokers, your potential future customers?

But back to GB News.

I was interviewed by Dawn Neesom, who is a regular guest on both GB News and TalkTV. Yesterday however the former editor of the Daily Star (2003-2018) was presenting her own programme.

The topic of our discussion was ‘Should we dock the pay of smokers?’.

You can guess my answer but the conversation took a surprise turn when Dawn asked me, “Should we allow wine in the office as well?”

This is an interesting question to which there is no simple answer because it depends on a number of factors but, given the fact that the interview was coming to a close, I thought I’d better keep my answer short, hence my reply:

“I don’t see why not.”

I’m not suggesting office workers should be glugging back the wine on a regular basis, or getting drunk at their desk, but the odd tipple?

I know a man (who shall remain nameless) who enjoyed a glass of wine most days in his office, and fair play to him.

OK, it was during his lunch break (he wasn’t taking drink breaks!) but it was always in moderation and had no affect on his ability to do his job.

Perhaps it’s because I’m from an older generation, but I remember when drinking during working hours (albeit not at one’s desk) was perfectly normal.

I started work in 1980 and for several years it was not unusual to have a pub lunch that included at least one pint of beer.

In those days the culture in PR and journalism saw alcohol not as the enemy of work but a vital part of it.

Lunches with clients were expected to include an aperitif followed by wine with the meal.

At the same time many journalists in what was Fleet Street were fuelled by alcohol.

Today nothing makes my heart sink faster than the announcement that my lunch companion isn’t drinking.

Recently that included Ranald Macdonald, MD of Boisdale Restaurants, who was happy to be photographed with a glass of wine, but in reality not a drop passed his lips.

And he’s a restaurateur and wine connoisseur!

As for drinking in the office, there is a time and a place, I know that, but I also stand by my response to Dawn Neesom on GB News.

Likewise, I don’t see why staff shouldn’t smoke at work if it doesn’t interfere with their ability to do their job.

As I said to Neesom, many non-smokers take non-authorised breaks. What matters to an employer is whether they get the job done and, in my experience of working with smokers and non-smokers, smoking has never been a factor in their ability to do just that.

It’s worth noting too that smoking areas at work can be the most egalitarian - a place where staff rub shoulders with senior management on an (almost) equal footing.

In fact, someone once told me that the smoking area was the one place she regularly got to meet the managing director of the FTSE 100 company she worked for because he was a smoker too.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

When such news as this is pushed to the media and clearly will result in discrimination in the work place for all smokers - including those who only take legitimate breaks and work just as hard as everyone else- how can this not be a hate campaign?

Could you imagine the outcry if anyone dared to suggest, or commissioned a survey to suggest, any other minority group based on their social, religious, or gender identity, was a drain on their employer.

Smokers are subjected to witch hunts in a bid to make them jobless and homeless and there is no law to protect them from such hatred inciting campaigns such as this.

It's not just shocking. It's criminal to make such sweeping allegations in a bid to make more profits which is what Big Vape wants and pushes hatred against smokers in an effort to force them to switch to avoid the hatred inspired against them.

[Pat Nurse]

Also, wine is alcohol and that impairs performance and perception. Tobacco does not so the question of whether people should be allowed to drink wine at work if allowed to smoke is ridiculous.

[Misty]

“ … smoking areas at work can be the most egalitarian - a place where staff rub shoulders with senior management on an (almost) equal footing.”

Yep. Got it in one. That was yet another reason why so many lower-ranking non-smoking members of staff in companies cheerled the removal of smoking rooms (when they were still allowed) or smoking areas outside (which many companies did, even before the ban). There was nothing more infuriating to a mid-level manager with ambitions for promotion to see his subordinate staff on first-name terms, chatting like an old pal to a senior director in an area where, because of their own paranoia about cigarette smoke, they refused to go!

I’m also somewhat puzzled by this estimation of “a week” taken for smoke breaks at work, because I’m not aware of a single company in existence which permits specific “smoke breaks.” Are there any such places?? In most companies that I know of, smoking is, quite simply, banned completely and any breaks have to be taken without the smoking element. So I’d love to know who all these companies are that kindly allow their smoking staff specific “smoking time.” If I knew who they were, I’d go and work there!

[Pat Nurse]

Misty - the implication is that smokers are such "pathetic addicts" they are taking breaks without their employers' consent (in other words skiving) and therefore costing the employer a week's loss of work and allegedly gaining an extra week off than the implied more hard working non smoker.

This is why I say it is hate incitement. It assumes all smokers are skivers with one sweeping statement and is based on the prejudice of others that smokers are risky to employ. Many, as we know, are an asset to their company but let's not let facts get in the way of a vaping company inciting hatred for profit.