Discretionary breaks - the argument runs thus:
These are offered at the employers discretion during paid work time - ie it is not like a lunch break and unpaid. The break is allowed in line with good health and safety practice of allowing office based workers a break from their DSE, and it is to stretch, move around and, in some cases have a hot or cold drink which may not normally be consumed at the work station.
Many of us now simply have a brew when we like at our desk and don't take the discretionary breaks; there are some groups who are not working located together who use it as an impromptu team building session.
However during paid time employees may not leave the building, unless for business reasons, and therefore, in Scotland at least, smoking cannot take place ... in practice those who need to smoke try and time their business appointments so they are outwith the building at appropriate points in the day
Regarding
favouritism Gee, that is why a risk assessment is required - to demonstrate that it is a real need that is being met ... perhaps if I move away from smokers and breast feeding mothers for a minute and use this example:
- Elderly person 1 has fallen over a couple of times at home and is losing confidence. Their home is in good repair, there are no trip hazards but they do have early signs of dementia and sometimes forget to stand up slowly and get their balance. They have a spouse at home who helps keep the house well.
- Elderly person no 2 lives alone, shows no signs of dementia and their two falls have been hurrying along the hallway to answer the door and tripped over the loose carpet.
Everyone would agree that it is not appropriate for us as a society to ignore the fact that they are falling and at risk of injury.
- Person no 1 would be likely to benefit from a more involved package of care which might include assistive technologies to alert their spouse when they start to stand (allows the spouse to continue their activities rather than sitting watching), they might find a walking frame or stick of assistance.
- Person no 2, however, from a risk assessment would benefit from having the loose carpet replaced or repaired and possibly a door intercom so they can let callers know they are on the way and don't need to hurry.
The solution for no 1 is likely to be more expensive, but this is not showing favouritism, it is addressing the needs that they each have to help them to continue their independent living.
Cathy
