In many workplaces, small breaks — coffee breaks, restroom pauses, or social chatter — are considered normal. But what happens when one type of break disproportionately affects output? That question arose in Tokyo, when one company confronted a long-standing grievance: smokers frequently stepping away for cigarettes while non-smoking employees stayed at their desks.
A Workplace Imbalance Comes to Light
At Piala Inc., a marketing firm in Tokyo, a non-smoking employee leveraged the company’s suggestion box to raise an issue: “smoke breaks are affecting productivity.” According to reports, smokers in the office would leave every few hours for roughly 10–15 minutes, walking down from their 29th floor offices to a basement smoking area. (VICE)
Over time, non-smokers felt they were carrying more of the workload — essentially working through periods when colleagues had stepped away. The complaint resonated with leadership, triggering internal discussions. (Japan Daily)
The response from CEO Takao Asuka was unexpected: instead of penalizing smokers or restricting breaks, he proposed a positive incentive. Non-smoking staff would receive six extra paid vacation days annually as compensation. (Japan Daily)
He explained that he wished to “encourage employees to quit smoking through incentives rather than penalties or coercion.” (VICE)
The Logic Behind the Policy
The reasoning is straightforward: those cigarette breaks, though individually short, accumulate. Even a 15-minute break taken three times daily adds up to 45 minutes of “lost time” per smoker. For non-smokers, no such breaks exist — so over days, weeks, and months, they effectively work more hours. (The Economic Times)
By granting extra leave, Piala Inc. sought to level the playing field. Rather than penalizing smoking behavior, the company leaned into positive reinforcement — rewarding those who do not smoke, and subtly nudging smokers to quit if they wish to gain the same benefit. (Big Think)
The shift from coercion to incentive is significant. It respects personal autonomy while still addressing the issue of fairness and productivity. Asuka’s approach recognizes that addiction is not purely a choice, and punishment can breed resentment. (VICE)
Related Posts
Results & Reactions
The results, as publicly reported, have been modest but promising:
- Within months, four employees quit smoking to become eligible for the additional days off. (The Economic Times)
- Roughly 30 out of 120 staff had already used their extra leave by some accounts. (NextShark)
- Non-smokers expressed relief in feeling recognized and valued — the policy visibly addressed what they perceived as an inequity. (Japan Daily)
- Still, the policy drew criticism and ethical questions. Some observers warned of potential abuse — for example, employees misreporting their smoking status or finding other break types (coffee, phone) to equalize time off. (VICE)One human resources consultant defended the move, saying it “simply rewards a healthier lifestyle while recognizing those who aren’t taking extra breaks.” (VICE) Others, however, cautioned that an incentive-only system may not fully address deeper cultural and addiction challenges. (VICE)
Broader Implications & Lessons
Piala Inc.’s policy is unusual, but not isolated. In Japan and elsewhere, companies are experimenting with wellness strategies that go beyond medical checks or gym discounts — offering everyday lifestyle incentives. (Big Think)
For organizations considering similar programs, several lessons emerge:
1. Consider equity of time, not just money.
Small time differentials — like smoke or rest breaks — can compound into major disparities over time. Recognizing these through leave or flexible work policies can restore balance.
2. Favor incentives over penalties.
Rewarding positive behavior (like being smoke-free) is often more acceptable and less divisive than imposing fines or monitoring enforcement.
3. Monitor and adjust.
Any such policy should be evaluated periodically for misuse, fairness, and results. If many claim extra leave without genuine status change, adjustments may be needed.
4. Recognize addiction complexity.
While incentives help, true cessation may require counseling, medical interventions, or supportive programs. Incentives should complement—not replace—comprehensive cessation support.
5. Transparent communication is essential.
Employees should understand the “why” behind policy — how it addresses fairness, health, and productivity — so it feels rational, not punitive.
What This Means for Other Workplaces
In many countries, smoking has declined from the levels seen decades ago. Yet in some regions and sectors, it remains culturally embedded — sometimes tolerated, even ritualized. Piala’s case illustrates how a business can shift norms gradually and tactfully.
If your organization is tempted by this approach, start small: pilot the program, solicit feedback, and clearly define eligibility metrics. Use internal blog posts or intranet pages (for example on viralsensei.com) to share case studies, policy updates, or health resources. (For more articles on workplace health and policy, see our internal health & wellness section on ViralSensei.)
