ANU to go smoke-free (but not really?)

To correct the questioner, there is no blanket exemption on residences and licenced venues.

Designated smoking areas will be permitted for residences if the residences (most are independently owned) choose to set aside an area, and the ANU Bar (which is under different legislation).

The ANU Is the only remming Go8 uni not to be smoke free, it brings it into line with the norms of the sector.

ANU Staff are given support to quit, and they have paid break time in the morning and afternoon if they really need a fix.

It’s a great move, no sympathy what soever for the smokers. Quit or quit I say.

Grimm said :

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

This will work well for productivity. Staff taking a 5-10 min smoke break are not going to stop smoking. They just have to take 30 minutes to walk off the property, smoke and come back now.

Seems pointless and counter productive to me.

That’s where flexitime and a clock works. If they leave the property they must clock off. This would have been enforced where I worked (ANU), although then there were the core hours, 10am-12noon, 2pm-4pm and no-one was meant to leave during those hours, unless permission was given. We had someone who never worked his full hours, but when flexitime and clocks were introduced, that caught up with him. He lost all his annual leave to make up time for his slack habit.

Will never happen. People are not going to admit they are leaving the property to go and smoke. Core hours count for nothing. Do people not go and get coffee etc during those times?

At least be realistic. This idea is going to cost a lot in lost productivity, and provide absolutely no benefit, for health or otherwise. I can guarantee that.

Where I worked in the ANU, no people did not go and get coffee, except for designated coffee breaks, and in the last few years I worked there, these coffee breaks became rare too. If people were missing questions would have been asked. People needed to be available. I can see that going on someone’s file, if reasons were being gathered to get rid of them. That person I mentioned who didn’t work his hours, evidence was being gathered to get rid of him. It wasn’t needed in the end, as he resigned first.

Sounds like you worked in a sweat shop or had a terrible micro manager. No coffee breaks and having to account for every minute of your time….

The people I know currently working at the ANU are all over the campus over the course of a day. Meetings in other buildings etc. Could quite easily be ducking off to smoke and nobody would ever know.

Also, from what I have been told, it is near impossible to get rid of somebody there. Terrible employees and general trouble makers just get put in the transfer pool and shifted elsewhere. About the only way to get rid of somebody is for gross misconduct or a criminal offence. Even worse for keeping dead weight around than the public service.

In my first job in the ANU someone was sacked from our section for being incompetent. I was only a junior at the time so don’t know the details, but I heard the screaming matches from the bosses office. The person went. Evidence was being collected to try to get rid of this other person I mentioned, but he resigned before sacking him was attempted. No micro managers or a sweat shop. Most of us were trusted and responsible and our job took us out and about. If we were doing work and we left the building we didn’t clock off. There were no convenient places to buy coffee and only one person smoked, but I never knew her to smoke at work, or smelt it on her at work. The smell is hard to hide.
People over a certain seniority didn’t have to clock on or off, but the rest of us did. Those who complained about it, tended to be those who couldn’t be trusted to work their hours. For the rest of us it was great, because we could get time off, and be flexible with our hours. Within work considerations of course.

Tymefor said :

Enforcement is, probably, less important than the message no smoking policies send to people. In the long run, the more institutions and spaces that are declared non-smoking zones, the more the culture surrounding smoking changes. Don’t discount the effect this policy will have on the thousands of students that spend many of there formative years in such non-smoking zones. Ultimately smoking will just become culturally un-acceptable, policies like this are the process of that change.

Agree. I’d say it has already become socially unacceptable. In comparison to the late 1970s and early 1980s while I was growing up. There will always be a fringe element though. Like the bogan I saw in Belconnen mall many years ago taking pride in smoking within the mall and the hipster in Martin Place quite proud of tossing a cigarette box on the ground.

Enforcement is, probably, less important than the message no smoking policies send to people. In the long run, the more institutions and spaces that are declared non-smoking zones, the more the culture surrounding smoking changes. Don’t discount the effect this policy will have on the thousands of students that spend many of there formative years in such non-smoking zones. Ultimately smoking will just become culturally un-acceptable, policies like this are the process of that change.

Would have been interesting if forums, like riot, existed when spitting in public was banned. I’m sure there would have been much the same sort of discussions happening. Also, the bar, with their “designated smoking zones” will probably be the be the last bastion for smoking. As they were with spitting and “spittoons”.

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

This will work well for productivity. Staff taking a 5-10 min smoke break are not going to stop smoking. They just have to take 30 minutes to walk off the property, smoke and come back now.

Seems pointless and counter productive to me.

That’s where flexitime and a clock works. If they leave the property they must clock off. This would have been enforced where I worked (ANU), although then there were the core hours, 10am-12noon, 2pm-4pm and no-one was meant to leave during those hours, unless permission was given. We had someone who never worked his full hours, but when flexitime and clocks were introduced, that caught up with him. He lost all his annual leave to make up time for his slack habit.

Will never happen. People are not going to admit they are leaving the property to go and smoke. Core hours count for nothing. Do people not go and get coffee etc during those times?

At least be realistic. This idea is going to cost a lot in lost productivity, and provide absolutely no benefit, for health or otherwise. I can guarantee that.

Where I worked in the ANU, no people did not go and get coffee, except for designated coffee breaks, and in the last few years I worked there, these coffee breaks became rare too. If people were missing questions would have been asked. People needed to be available. I can see that going on someone’s file, if reasons were being gathered to get rid of them. That person I mentioned who didn’t work his hours, evidence was being gathered to get rid of him. It wasn’t needed in the end, as he resigned first.

Sounds like you worked in a sweat shop or had a terrible micro manager. No coffee breaks and having to account for every minute of your time….

The people I know currently working at the ANU are all over the campus over the course of a day. Meetings in other buildings etc. Could quite easily be ducking off to smoke and nobody would ever know.

Also, from what I have been told, it is near impossible to get rid of somebody there. Terrible employees and general trouble makers just get put in the transfer pool and shifted elsewhere. About the only way to get rid of somebody is for gross misconduct or a criminal offence. Even worse for keeping dead weight around than the public service.

carriew said :

I spend a little bit of time at ANU and was until the end of 2013 employed there. I’m an intermittent smoker. There aren’t many smokers around anyway so its all a bit academic (haha my joke) Its more about political correctness than any real benefit being gained. How about banning plastic bottles like UC have done which would be a far more useful policy.

And banning iPhones in the theatres would be good for the people who actually go there to see the advertised event without the actions of students with iPhones who have no legitimate reason to be there distracting others.
Students forget that they don’t own the campus while Universities are still publicly funded.

I spend a little bit of time at ANU and was until the end of 2013 employed there. I’m an intermittent smoker. There aren’t many smokers around anyway so its all a bit academic (haha my joke) Its more about political correctness than any real benefit being gained. How about banning plastic bottles like UC have done which would be a far more useful policy.

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

This will work well for productivity. Staff taking a 5-10 min smoke break are not going to stop smoking. They just have to take 30 minutes to walk off the property, smoke and come back now.

Seems pointless and counter productive to me.

That’s where flexitime and a clock works. If they leave the property they must clock off. This would have been enforced where I worked (ANU), although then there were the core hours, 10am-12noon, 2pm-4pm and no-one was meant to leave during those hours, unless permission was given. We had someone who never worked his full hours, but when flexitime and clocks were introduced, that caught up with him. He lost all his annual leave to make up time for his slack habit.

Will never happen. People are not going to admit they are leaving the property to go and smoke. Core hours count for nothing. Do people not go and get coffee etc during those times?

At least be realistic. This idea is going to cost a lot in lost productivity, and provide absolutely no benefit, for health or otherwise. I can guarantee that.

Where I worked in the ANU, no people did not go and get coffee, except for designated coffee breaks, and in the last few years I worked there, these coffee breaks became rare too. If people were missing questions would have been asked. People needed to be available. I can see that going on someone’s file, if reasons were being gathered to get rid of them. That person I mentioned who didn’t work his hours, evidence was being gathered to get rid of him. It wasn’t needed in the end, as he resigned first.

Don’t forget that most people at ANU aren’t actually employees. I just can’t see how they can regulate this other than targeting ANU workers – which is a bit unfair if students will be able to smoke outdoors with impunity!

My guess is that the incidence of e-cig use will rise dramatically as there is no smell, and the vapour is very easily minimised or hidden.

Grimm said :

Maya123 said :

Grimm said :

This will work well for productivity. Staff taking a 5-10 min smoke break are not going to stop smoking. They just have to take 30 minutes to walk off the property, smoke and come back now.

Seems pointless and counter productive to me.

That’s where flexitime and a clock works. If they leave the property they must clock off. This would have been enforced where I worked (ANU), although then there were the core hours, 10am-12noon, 2pm-4pm and no-one was meant to leave during those hours, unless permission was given. We had someone who never worked his full hours, but when flexitime and clocks were introduced, that caught up with him. He lost all his annual leave to make up time for his slack habit.

Will never happen. People are not going to admit they are leaving the property to go and smoke. Core hours count for nothing. Do people not go and get coffee etc during those times?

At least be realistic. This idea is going to cost a lot in lost productivity, and provide absolutely no benefit, for health or otherwise. I can guarantee that.

Where I worked in the ANU, no people did not go and get coffee, except for designated coffee breaks, and in the last few years I worked there, these coffee breaks became rare too. If people were missing questions would have been asked. People needed to be available. I can see that going on someone’s file, if reasons were being gathered to get rid of them. That person I mentioned who didn’t work his hours, evidence was being gathered to get rid of him. It wasn’t needed in the end, as he resigned first.