Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Jeff Barnes, an employee at a McDonalds in Augusta, GA was recently fired from his job. The circumstances themselves are unclear, but from what sources gather, Mr. Barnes spent a week recording the times each day that his fellow employees were allowed to take for smoke breaks while still taking a lunch break.

At the end of the week, he averaged it out that employees that smoke were getting roughly three five minute breaks a day just to smoke a cigarette, and decided to take a few breaks of his own to bring out his DS and play Pokemon.

After being confronted about this by his boss, he explained his point to her that allowing employees to take extra breaks just because they smoke was unfair, and that he should be allowed his own "smoke" breaks to come outside and play video games, so long as they were kept about the same length of an average cigarette.

Mr. Barnes was fired for his behavior and his attitude.

Now before anyone says anything, lemme be clear. The story you've just read is completely fictional. (mildly based off an experience from my own life, but I didn't get fired, just kinda yelled at and got called a smart-ass...)

But to me it raises a couple questions

1. Do you think people should be allowed to take breaks like this? Is it unfair that just because someone smokes, they get to take extra breaks? Even if they're only for a couple minutes at a time.
2. Given some of the news stories we've seen on this site, would you actually be surprised if a story like this popped up for real, and what do you think the general reaction would be?

Hm, I guess I don't really have any strong opinion one way or the other. I've never smoked, but I'm guessing that lots of smokers might not do their jobs quite as well if they had to work a whole shift without a cigarette, and the reasoning behind the smoke breaks is probably less about giving smokers special privileges and more about maximizing their ability to do their jobs well; it might be believed that letting a smoker take five minutes to smoke is worth it to keep up their job performance for the rest of their shift.

On the other hand, I don't have much experience with this, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of smokers could go their their whole shift without a cigarette, and whatever the reasoning behind it is, they're still getting to stop working for five minutes where non-smoking employees don't get to stop. So I can definitely see your reasoning as well.

However, in the case of your hypothetical situation, it's certainly not something worth firing someone over. That's over the line, I think.

Pokemon isn't a physical addiction, so I feel he was not justified in his desire for a Pokemon break.

But firing him for suggesting it is wrong.

On the other hand, his creepy monitoring of his fellow employees is a damn good reason to fire him.

Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

Also as if it was a real news, as sterotype as it sound but if that happen in Asian (as in the news of some employee getting fired over playing a game over a short break) than it wouldn't suprise me. However I suppose it would't suprise me in general seeing how some people can't handle their gaming additions.

I would fire people only if their habits are hurting the business. If someone wants to take a break and someone else can replace him for the time being I don't see a problem. It could be good for the work environment. It would make workers trust each other and depend on each other more. One worker takes a 5 minute break and the other replaces him, then the other takes the break and someone else replaces him. It doesn't matter what the break is for, as long as it isn't something illegal like smoking crack in the storage room or something like that. I would be a kind employer.

Scarim Coral:
Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

So smokers should be given extra rights because they made the conscious decision to become addicted to a cancerous plant. Cool.

1)well, as others have said, it's an addiction. Though I've never been addicted to cigarettes, I have friends who are. Sometimes, people do need their fix or they will experience negative symptoms and not perform their job at peak capacity. It's just a medical condition who's influences on performance are being minimized.

2)I wouldn't be surprised really. And I think that a lot of people here would get upset over the fact he got fired and do some false equivalency arguments tying to twist it so the smokers got fired. But who knows?

Fawxy:

Scarim Coral:
Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

So smokers should be given extra rights because they made the conscious decision to become addicted to a cancerous plant. Cool.

Oh look, the attitude I was talking about. How surprising

Onyx Oblivion:
Pokemon isn't a physical addiction, so I feel he was not justified in his desire for a Pokemon break.

But firing him for suggesting it is wrong.

On the other hand, his creepy monitoring of his fellow employees is a damn good reason to fire him.

Scarim Coral:
Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

Also as if it was a real news, as sterotype as it sound but if that happen in Asian (as in the news of some employee getting fired over playing a game over a short break) than it wouldn't suprise me. However I suppose it would't suprise me in general seeing how some people can't handle their gaming additions.

This right here illustrates why I think the OP has a point; if anyone should be fired here, it should be the people whose physical addiction to a drug that they chose to start taking is interfering with their work. I mean, you don't see alcoholics being given the okay to show up to work drunk or hungover; why should smokers get special priveleges for what amounts to the same problem?

Of course, I've never actually seen a boss let people just randomly pop out for a smoke; in my experience, smokers who don't work at a place where they can do it on the job just get their fix on their regularly scheduled lunch break.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Onyx Oblivion:
Pokemon isn't a physical addiction, so I feel he was not justified in his desire for a Pokemon break.

But firing him for suggesting it is wrong.

On the other hand, his creepy monitoring of his fellow employees is a damn good reason to fire him.

Scarim Coral:
Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

Also as if it was a real news, as sterotype as it sound but if that happen in Asian (as in the news of some employee getting fired over playing a game over a short break) than it wouldn't suprise me. However I suppose it would't suprise me in general seeing how some people can't handle their gaming additions.

This right here illustrates why I think the OP has a point; if anyone should be fired here, it should be the people whose physical addiction to a drug that they chose to start taking is interfering with their work. I mean, you don't see alcoholics being given the okay to show up to work drunk or hungover; why should smokers get special priveleges for what amounts to the same problem?

Of course, I've never actually seen a boss let people just randomly pop out for a smoke; in my experience, smokers who don't work at a place where they can do it on the job just get their fix on their regularly scheduled lunch break.

Um no, that's not the same "problem". The same problem is someone who get diagnosed with diabetes and has to take a few minutes out of their day to test their numbers and give themselves shots. Not to mention, I'm baffled that people are thinking that smoke break, being some sort of special privilege, is some sort of fire-worthy offense just because it's a special privilege they don't indulge in.

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Onyx Oblivion:
Pokemon isn't a physical addiction, so I feel he was not justified in his desire for a Pokemon break.

But firing him for suggesting it is wrong.

On the other hand, his creepy monitoring of his fellow employees is a damn good reason to fire him.

Scarim Coral:
Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

Also as if it was a real news, as sterotype as it sound but if that happen in Asian (as in the news of some employee getting fired over playing a game over a short break) than it wouldn't suprise me. However I suppose it would't suprise me in general seeing how some people can't handle their gaming additions.

This right here illustrates why I think the OP has a point; if anyone should be fired here, it should be the people whose physical addiction to a drug that they chose to start taking is interfering with their work. I mean, you don't see alcoholics being given the okay to show up to work drunk or hungover; why should smokers get special priveleges for what amounts to the same problem?

Of course, I've never actually seen a boss let people just randomly pop out for a smoke; in my experience, smokers who don't work at a place where they can do it on the job just get their fix on their regularly scheduled lunch break.

Um no, that's not the same "problem". The same problem is someone who get diagnosed with diabetes and has to take a few minutes out of their day to test their numbers and give themselves shots. Not to mention, I'm baffled that people are thinking that smoke break, being some sort of special privilege, is some sort of fire-worthy offense just because it's a special privilege they don't indulge in.

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with your life, legal or not, it's not benign.

Well what in the hell could you accomplish in a Pokemon game in five minutes? Like...turn on the game, fight two or three random battles, save and turn it off? There seems to be no actual point.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Um no, that's not the same "problem". The same problem is someone who get diagnosed with diabetes and has to take a few minutes out of their day to test their numbers and give themselves shots. Not to mention, I'm baffled that people are thinking that smoke break, being some sort of special privilege, is some sort of fire-worthy offense just because it's a special privilege they don't indulge in.

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with you're life, legal or not, it's not benign.

When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

It isn't like they're going off and having super-happy-fun-time anyway. They're out their, poisoning their lungs for five minutes. What the hell do people think they're doing on a smoke break? Riding a T-Rex while fighting aliens?

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Um no, that's not the same "problem". The same problem is someone who get diagnosed with diabetes and has to take a few minutes out of their day to test their numbers and give themselves shots. Not to mention, I'm baffled that people are thinking that smoke break, being some sort of special privilege, is some sort of fire-worthy offense just because it's a special privilege they don't indulge in.

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with you're life, legal or not, it's not benign.

When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except with smokers, it's not an outside force. It's their own life choice. You're conflating people who have protections from the ADA with people who willingly started on an addictive substance. Hell, even alcoholics have a better excuse than smokers, since alcohol is only physically addictive to a few unlucky souls with a genetic mutation, while nicotine is addictive to everyone.

I wouldn't mind the whole smoke break thing if it was legitimately "step outside, quickly smoke a cigarette, and get back to work" but that's usually not the case from what I've seen. People treat having a cigarette as a leisurely task, take their sweet time, and often use the time to post on facebook, talk on the phone or send texts.

I'm not saying people need to inhale the entire thing in two pulls or anything, but even if it is something you NEED to do to get through a shift, you should have a limited time on it, rather than simply "However long it takes me to smoke this."

In my experience, if you're in a uniform and just standing by the dumpster or wherever, it doesn't matter what else you're doing as long as you have a cigarette in your mouth.

Smeggs:
It isn't like they're going off and having super-happy-fun-time anyway. They're out their, poisoning their lungs for five minutes. What the hell do people think they're doing on a smoke break? Riding a T-Rex while fighting aliens?

Well for one, they're NOT working, and still getting paid. To a lot of people that's already a pretty big perk lol

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Um no, that's not the same "problem". The same problem is someone who get diagnosed with diabetes and has to take a few minutes out of their day to test their numbers and give themselves shots. Not to mention, I'm baffled that people are thinking that smoke break, being some sort of special privilege, is some sort of fire-worthy offense just because it's a special privilege they don't indulge in.

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with you're life, legal or not, it's not benign.

When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except that without insulin the 'hypothetical diabetic' will lapse into a coma and die.

It's not the same as being a bit grumpy. So no, it really isn't the same.

Owyn_Merrilin:

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with you're life, legal or not, it's not benign.

When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except with smokers, it's not an outside force. It's their own life choice. You're conflating people who have protections from the ADA with people who willingly started on an addictive substance. Hell, even alcoholics have a better excuse than smokers, since alcohol is only physically addictive to a few unlucky souls with a genetic mutation, while nicotine is addictive to everyone.

Alright, you seem to be missing my point. So I'll try to be clear.

Why does any of what you typed matter?

Why is the time a smoker wastes inherently more destructive to the company than time that anyone else wastes ever?

Tree man:

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

You're saying that diabetes, a medical problem caused by a number of factors, is the same thing as a physical addiction to nicotine that is caused by one thing and one thing only? Drug addiction is drug addiction. If it's interfering with you're life, legal or not, it's not benign.

When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except that without insulin the 'hypothetical diabetic' will lapse into a coma and die.

It's not the same as being a bit grumpy. So no, it really isn't the same.

So they take a few minutes out of their day to mitigate the effects of a medical condition that can influence their work performance, just like a smoker.
How is it not the same? When broken down to that level, it is the same as far as wasting company time is concerned.

Just so we're clear, I'm not equating going into a coma and being grumpy as "the same". I'm equating smoking a cigarette and controlling insulin levels in regards to time being wasted as the same. Hopefully that makes my statements clearer.

Edit-quote derp

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

EClaris:
When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except with smokers, it's not an outside force. It's their own life choice. You're conflating people who have protections from the ADA with people who willingly started on an addictive substance. Hell, even alcoholics have a better excuse than smokers, since alcohol is only physically addictive to a few unlucky souls with a genetic mutation, while nicotine is addictive to everyone.

Alright, you seem to be missing my point. So I'll try to be clear.

Why does any of what you typed matter?

Why is the time a smoker wastes inherently more destructive to the company than time that anyone else wastes ever?

Because it's inherently their fault that they're wasting it, and they have the inherent ability to cut back on their smoking so it's no longer a problem. People with disabilities don't have that option -- and in fact, as someone pointed out above, your hypothetical diabetic would die without the insulin breaks. The smoker will eventually be killed /by/ the smoke breaks, if they live long enough not to die of something else. Not the same thing at all.

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

EClaris:
When it comes to work performance, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a medical condition that takes a few minutes off work time to mitigate its effect on work performance. I also didn't characterize a smoking addiction as anything but that, an addiction. And I certainly never tried to argue it was benign. People just get upset because they see smokers taking smoke breaks and feel like they're super special and no one else gets to take breaks and that no one else has factors that affect their performance. Which is bullshit. Smokers aren't the only ones who take breaks, smokers aren't the only ones whose work is affect by outside forces. So everyone needs to stop acting like the deserve to be fired for doing essentially the same thing that the hypothetical diabetic does.

Except with smokers, it's not an outside force. It's their own life choice. You're conflating people who have protections from the ADA with people who willingly started on an addictive substance. Hell, even alcoholics have a better excuse than smokers, since alcohol is only physically addictive to a few unlucky souls with a genetic mutation, while nicotine is addictive to everyone.

Alright, you seem to be missing my point. So I'll try to be clear.

Why does any of what you typed matter?

Why is the time a smoker wastes inherently more destructive to the time that anyone else wastes ever?

Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it and that pisses everyone else who doesn't feel like being an absolute retard and sucking down on a death-stick. They made a decision to smoke, it may have been when they were fifteen and with a group of friends, so fucking what, A levels are at fifteen you can't write them off as a 'silly mistake you shouldn't be punished for' if you fail them.

You come to work to work, not to get high, if you want to smoke then quit work or wait until you get to go home, there is no justification for allowing smoking breaks, they make a bad and destructive habit seemingly a good thing.

People don't realize that they can just leave their DS on standby and open and close it, and do a little bit at a time throughout the day.

I'd find it unjustifiable for a request. Firing someone for asking something is never the good thing.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Because it's inherently their fault that they're wasting it, and they have the inherent ability to cut back on their smoking so it's no longer a problem. People with disabilities don't have that option -- and in fact, as someone pointed out above, your hypothetical diabetic would die without the insulin breaks. The smoker will eventually be killed /by/ the smoke breaks, if they live long enough not to die of something else. Not the same thing at all.

So fire everyone who wastes time? And I'm not limiting this to people with disabilities, the diabetic example was the most direct (in regards to wasting time while on the clock) that I could think of. I'm saying that there's no real reason to fire a smoker for taking smoke breaks. It wastes time, but so does everyone at the work place. Not to mention, the smoker is actively preventing detriment to their performance and almost always (and for the sake of this argument, lets just assume this) has permission from the supervisor to take this break. This is no different than taking a few minutes to handle insulin, drink coffee in the break room, lurk around the water cooler with workplace gossip, going to the restroom after eating those sketchy fish tacos, surfing the web, zoning out or any other way that employees waste time.
I'm not saying smoking is super cool, I'm saying that smokers taking a break isn't an affront to your rights as a worker. It boils down to the same basic principle as the activities listed above in regards to company time and work performance, which is the basis tat people should be fired from. Non-smokers don't like smoke breaks because they don't get them, but they magically forget all the little ways they drain company time. This is not an issue of health, or who's choice it was. This is an issue of productivity, and from that angle, smokers are perfectly justified in having their breaks, just like you are perfectly justified in going ot the bathroom or getting a cup of coffee or taking a mental breather. You don't have to like smokers, but stop pretending they're terrible workers because you think they're better than them and they get something you don't think they deserve.

Tree man:

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Except with smokers, it's not an outside force. It's their own life choice. You're conflating people who have protections from the ADA with people who willingly started on an addictive substance. Hell, even alcoholics have a better excuse than smokers, since alcohol is only physically addictive to a few unlucky souls with a genetic mutation, while nicotine is addictive to everyone.

Alright, you seem to be missing my point. So I'll try to be clear.

Why does any of what you typed matter?

Why is the time a smoker wastes inherently more destructive to the time that anyone else wastes ever?

Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it and that pisses everyone else who doesn't feel like being an absolute retard and sucking down on a death-stick. They made a decision to smoke, it may have been when they were fifteen and with a group of friends, so fucking what, A levels are at fifteen you can't write them off as a 'silly mistake you shouldn't be punished for' if you fail them.

You come to work to work, not to get high, if you want to smoke then quit work or wait until you get to go home, there is no justification for allowing smoking breaks, they make a bad and destructive habit seemingly a good thing.

Case and point, none of this matters, none of this is reason to fire someone, and you're upset that they get breaks, just like you. They get something you don't, that makes no *real* difference. And you get upset. Saying they "get away with it". I don't know, maybe you are the best worker and you never zone out or take breaks and you productivity is always 100% on top. But I'm willing to bet that you aren't.
And smoke breaks making seem smoking like a good thing? Really? It's not a Joe Camel commercial, it's people smoking in a designated area.

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Because it's inherently their fault that they're wasting it, and they have the inherent ability to cut back on their smoking so it's no longer a problem. People with disabilities don't have that option -- and in fact, as someone pointed out above, your hypothetical diabetic would die without the insulin breaks. The smoker will eventually be killed /by/ the smoke breaks, if they live long enough not to die of something else. Not the same thing at all.

So fire everyone who wastes time? And I'm not limiting this to people with disabilities, the diabetic example was the most direct (in regards to wasting time while on the clock) that I could think of. I'm saying that there's no real reason to fire a smoker for taking smoke breaks. It wastes time, but so does everyone at the work place. Not to mention, the smoker is actively preventing detriment to their performance and almost always (and for the sake of this argument, lets just assume this) has permission from the supervisor to take this break. This is no different than taking a few minutes to handle insulin, drink coffee in the break room, lurk around the water cooler with workplace gossip, going to the restroom after eating those sketchy fish tacos, surfing the web, zoning out or any other way that employees waste time.
I'm not saying smoking is super cool, I'm saying that smokers taking a break isn't an affront to your rights as a worker. It boils down to the same basic principle as the activities listed above in regards to company time and work performance, which is the basis tat people should be fired from. Non-smokers don't like smoke breaks because they don't get them, but they magically forget all the little ways they drain company time. This is not an issue of health, or who's choice it was. This is an issue of productivity, and from that angle, smokers are perfectly justified in having their breaks, just like you are perfectly justified in going ot the bathroom or getting a cup of coffee or taking a mental breather. You don't have to like smokers, but stop pretending they're terrible workers because you think they're better than them and they get something you don't think they deserve.

Tree man:

EClaris:
Alright, you seem to be missing my point. So I'll try to be clear.

Why does any of what you typed matter?

Why is the time a smoker wastes inherently more destructive to the time that anyone else wastes ever?

Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it and that pisses everyone else who doesn't feel like being an absolute retard and sucking down on a death-stick. They made a decision to smoke, it may have been when they were fifteen and with a group of friends, so fucking what, A levels are at fifteen you can't write them off as a 'silly mistake you shouldn't be punished for' if you fail them.

You come to work to work, not to get high, if you want to smoke then quit work or wait until you get to go home, there is no justification for allowing smoking breaks, they make a bad and destructive habit seemingly a good thing.

Case and point, none of this matters, none of this is reason to fire someone, and you're upset that they get breaks, just like you. They get something you don't, that makes no *real* difference. And you get upset. Saying they "get away with it". I don't know, maybe you are the best worker and you never zone out or take breaks and you productivity is always 100% on top. But I'm willing to bet that you aren't.
And smoke breaks making seem smoking like a good thing? Really? It's not a Joe Camel commercial, it's people smoking in a designated area.

Then I want a designated Magners area for when I feel a bit stressed and want to get hammered, when you can defend that then you have a point, because as of right now you are grasping at some sort of moral high ground that doesn't actually exist and attempting to dismiss rational arguments with the term 'none of what you write matters'

EClaris:
And you get upset. Saying they "get away with it". I don't know, maybe you are the best worker and you never zone out or take breaks and you productivity is always 100% on top. But I'm willing to bet that you aren't.

Should that matter? No one is 100% all the time, smokers included, but they still get a sanctioned break as opposed to nonsmokers who don't.

I'd let the guy go in this situation but in all honesty nobody should get a break just because of their habits. Especially not smokers, who are basically getting time off to kill themselves.

Tree man:

EClaris:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Because it's inherently their fault that they're wasting it, and they have the inherent ability to cut back on their smoking so it's no longer a problem. People with disabilities don't have that option -- and in fact, as someone pointed out above, your hypothetical diabetic would die without the insulin breaks. The smoker will eventually be killed /by/ the smoke breaks, if they live long enough not to die of something else. Not the same thing at all.

So fire everyone who wastes time? And I'm not limiting this to people with disabilities, the diabetic example was the most direct (in regards to wasting time while on the clock) that I could think of. I'm saying that there's no real reason to fire a smoker for taking smoke breaks. It wastes time, but so does everyone at the work place. Not to mention, the smoker is actively preventing detriment to their performance and almost always (and for the sake of this argument, lets just assume this) has permission from the supervisor to take this break. This is no different than taking a few minutes to handle insulin, drink coffee in the break room, lurk around the water cooler with workplace gossip, going to the restroom after eating those sketchy fish tacos, surfing the web, zoning out or any other way that employees waste time.
I'm not saying smoking is super cool, I'm saying that smokers taking a break isn't an affront to your rights as a worker. It boils down to the same basic principle as the activities listed above in regards to company time and work performance, which is the basis tat people should be fired from. Non-smokers don't like smoke breaks because they don't get them, but they magically forget all the little ways they drain company time. This is not an issue of health, or who's choice it was. This is an issue of productivity, and from that angle, smokers are perfectly justified in having their breaks, just like you are perfectly justified in going ot the bathroom or getting a cup of coffee or taking a mental breather. You don't have to like smokers, but stop pretending they're terrible workers because you think they're better than them and they get something you don't think they deserve.

Tree man:

Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it and that pisses everyone else who doesn't feel like being an absolute retard and sucking down on a death-stick. They made a decision to smoke, it may have been when they were fifteen and with a group of friends, so fucking what, A levels are at fifteen you can't write them off as a 'silly mistake you shouldn't be punished for' if you fail them.

You come to work to work, not to get high, if you want to smoke then quit work or wait until you get to go home, there is no justification for allowing smoking breaks, they make a bad and destructive habit seemingly a good thing.

Case and point, none of this matters, none of this is reason to fire someone, and you're upset that they get breaks, just like you. They get something you don't, that makes no *real* difference. And you get upset. Saying they "get away with it". I don't know, maybe you are the best worker and you never zone out or take breaks and you productivity is always 100% on top. But I'm willing to bet that you aren't.
And smoke breaks making seem smoking like a good thing? Really? It's not a Joe Camel commercial, it's people smoking in a designated area.

Then I want a designated Magners area for when I feel a bit stressed and want to get hammered, when you can defend that then you have a point, because as of right now you are grasping at some sort of moral high ground that doesn't actually exist and attempting to dismiss rational arguments with the term 'none of what you write matters'

Thank you. This guy is apparently incapable of understanding the difference between taking a break to keep up your addiction and taking a break that is legally protected to avoid workplace discrimination against those who can't help the fact that they need to do whatever it is they need to do. If you're so addicted to nicotine that you can't get through to your regularly scheduled break[1] without lighting up, it's affecting your performance negatively, and you have the power to cut back -- or even to do your self a huge favor and entirely quit.

P.S.: And we're not upset that they get breaks "just like us." We're upset that they get breaks that anybody else would get in trouble for taking.

[1] Workers in the U.S. are guaranteed a short break after a certain amount of work; these hypothetical smokers are taking extra just to smoke

"This isn't even a cigarette. It's just a white crayon. Bubs only gives me one type of break per day, and I've already used up pee, coffee and maternity leave." ~ Strong Bad

Tree man:

Then I want a designated Magners area for when I feel a bit stressed and want to get hammered, when you can defend that then you have a point, because as of right now you are grasping at some sort of moral high ground that doesn't actually exist and attempting to dismiss rational arguments with the term 'none of what you write matters'

Alright here we go
~Will drinking alcohol improve your performance/mitigate failure to perform well at your job? If yes, go ahead. If no. There's no reason for it to be at your workplace.
~Will the time you waste using the area and drinking be roughly equivalent to all other forms of wasting time? If yes, go ahead. If no, then no.
~Does your supervisor allow you to do it? If yes, then I'm cool wit' it. If not, then no it shouldn't be allowed.

Now pretending I'm the supervisor, I would argue you would not be allowed to have a "booze zone". Regarding the first question, if you plan on getting wasted, I can say with a good deal of certainty that it will not improve your performance or mitigate negative impacts on your performance. In fact, it will probably cause you productivity as a worker to nose dive. Though depending on the profession and amount of alcohol allowed to the employees, this may not be true, but I'm working under a typical white collar office/food service gig. For the second question, if we're going under the "wasted" aspect you posited, it would probably take a decent chunk of time to get you at that level and after you were done your performance would be negatively influenced for sometime after you drank all that cider. So it would be a huge detriment to HypoTheti Co. Inc. But then again, depending on the workplace. I don't see why not.
Please don't try to "trap" me by goading me into defending something I'm not here to defend and is different than what we're talking about. Besides, you still haven't shown me why smoke breaks should be done away with in regards to the productivity of the worker and company time. At best, your argument have been "because I don't get a smoke break", "smoking is bad", and "I don't get to get wasted at work". These really aren't compelling arguements and they don't really matter.
As far as my "moral high ground" is concerned, I'm not even a smoker and I'm not terribly interested in ever starting. I think it's a gross and dangerous habit. BUT, I don't think smokers deserve to be fired or insulted because they get smoke breaks and other people think they don't get breaks at all, which is incredibly far from the truth.
You don't have to smoke, or think smokin' is cool. But there's no reason for a smoker to be fired for "wasting company time" or for smoke breaks to be disbanded. And until you can give me reasons other than "I don't like them", I'm not going to listen. And seeing as I don't feel like I'm in the gaming forum anymore and you're resorting to petty false comparisons and not adding anything to the conversation, we're done here. If you have a serious problem or you wish to continue this with actual points, then feel free to PM me. Same for you Owyn.

Strain42:
"This isn't even a cigarette. It's just a white crayon. Bubs only gives me one type of break per day, and I've already used up pee, coffee and maternity leave." ~ Strong Bad

LOL, sorry for derailing your thread. But I love this quote

EClaris:

Tree man:

Then I want a designated Magners area for when I feel a bit stressed and want to get hammered, when you can defend that then you have a point, because as of right now you are grasping at some sort of moral high ground that doesn't actually exist and attempting to dismiss rational arguments with the term 'none of what you write matters'

Alright here we go
~Will drinking alcohol improve your performance/mitigate failure to perform well at your job? If yes, go ahead. If no. There's no reason for it to be at your workplace.
~Will the time you waste using the area and drinking be roughly equivalent to all other forms of wasting time? If yes, go ahead. If no, then no.
~Does your supervisor allow you to do it? If yes, then I'm cool wit' it. If not, then no it shouldn't be allowed.

Now pretending I'm the supervisor, I would argue you would not be allowed to have a "booze zone". Regarding the first question, if you plan on getting wasted, I can say with a good deal of certainty that it will not improve your performance or mitigate negative impacts on your performance. In fact, it will probably cause you productivity as a worker to nose dive. Though depending on the profession and amount of alcohol allowed to the employees, this may not be true, but I'm working under a typical white collar office/food service gig. For the second question, if we're going under the "wasted" aspect you posited, it would probably take a decent chunk of time to get you at that level and after you were done your performance would be negatively influenced for sometime after you drank all that cider. So it would be a huge detriment to HypoTheti Co. Inc. But then again, depending on the workplace. I don't see why not.
Please don't try to "trap" me by goading me into defending something I'm not here to defend and is different than what we're talking about. Besides, you still haven't shown me why smoke breaks should be done away with in regards to the productivity of the worker and company time. At best, your argument have been "because I don't get a smoke break", "smoking is bad", and "I don't get to get wasted at work". These really aren't compelling arguements and they don't really matter.
As far as my "moral high ground" is concerned, I'm not even a smoker and I'm not terribly interested in ever starting. I think it's a gross and dangerous habit. BUT, I don't think smokers deserve to be fired or insulted because they get smoke breaks and other people think they don't get breaks at all, which is incredibly far from the truth.
You don't have to smoke, or think smokin' is cool. But there's no reason for a smoker to be fired for "wasting company time" or for smoke breaks to be disbanded. And until you can give me reasons other than "I don't like them", I'm not going to listen. And seeing as I don't feel like I'm in the gaming forum anymore and you're resorting to petty false comparisons and not adding anything to the conversation, we're done here. If you have a serious problem or you wish to continue this with actual points, then feel free to PM me.

I am a light weight, so getting drunk is pretty easy. My motor skills decrease while drunk but my public speaking and confidence in doing so goes up. My job includes, for a large part, public speaking. So my productivity won't really decrease.

And regarding the 'goad me into defending' thing, I'm not, I'm offering you a hypothetical situation where you are being asked to defend a habit that should not, and is not, allowed in a workplace.

Nicotine is a drug, when you smoke a drug it impedes your productivity, this is fact. Your argument seems to be based around the odd idea that smokers take their breaks for smoking during normal break times (they don', if they did then that would be fine)

So, we have a smoker taking time out to indulge in his/her habit, while still being paid for it, then we add in the factor that this is not deducted from their normal break times plus the fact that other employees do not get this privilege.

If you cannot see a problem with that scenario then you are an idiot and have most likely not worked a day in your life.

Tree man:

So, we have a smoker taking time out to indulge in his/her habit, while still being paid for it, then we add in the factor that this is not deducted from their normal break times plus the fact that other employees do not get this privilege.

If you cannot see a problem with that scenario then you are an idiot and have most likely not worked a day in your life.

Have to agree with this.

EClaris:
BUT, I don't think smokers deserve to be fired or insulted because they get smoke breaks and other people think they don't get breaks at all, which is incredibly far from the truth.

Well I can't speak for what everybody else is saying, but that was never the point I was trying to make here (actually, I wasn't even really trying to make a point, the whole point of this topic was a hypothetical situation that got turned into this lol)

But lets say you work a standard nine hour day, 9-5. Generally you get an hour for lunch, and I believe standard practice is you can get a 10 minute break for every four hours you work. My numbers might not be accurate there, but I think that's within the ballpark.

So that means throughout the day, you can get about 3 breaks in. Any of which would be a perfect time to smoke a cigarette, or to make other examples for non-smokers: drink a cup of coffee, use the restroom or whatever.

Now, I know you said you were looking at this argument from the perspective of an office job/food service position, and that's fine, but I don't think you can look at those two things from the same idea. Most office workers I know are usually just given assignments throughout the day that just need done by quitting time, and as long as they get that work done, time spent at the water cooler or even surfing the web is irrelevant as long as the work is done (some may argue it's still irresponsible, but we're not here to have that discussion)

Working in food services though (as someone who has done it quite a few times and now refuses to go back...) you often get yelled at if you're standing still for more than a couple seconds, because "something always needs done."

Even if smokers do need nicotine to get through the day, they don't have to take several long smoke breaks throughout a single shift on top of the breaks they already get. Even with the argument of "well, the nicotine increases their productivity and makes them better employees" they could just carry a pack of nicotine gum and if they need a fix, pop in a piece of gum. It takes ten seconds and they don't even need to stop working to get their fix.

EClaris:

Strain42:
"This isn't even a cigarette. It's just a white crayon. Bubs only gives me one type of break per day, and I've already used up pee, coffee and maternity leave." ~ Strong Bad

LOL, sorry for derailing your thread. But I love this quote

Yeah, me too. I actually quoted it wrong, here's the link to the actual video if anyone wants to check it out lol

http://www.homestarrunner.com/onbreak.html

I busted that quote out during my last job. People liked it there too ^^

Tree man:

EClaris:

Tree man:

Then I want a designated Magners area for when I feel a bit stressed and want to get hammered, when you can defend that then you have a point, because as of right now you are grasping at some sort of moral high ground that doesn't actually exist and attempting to dismiss rational arguments with the term 'none of what you write matters'

Alright here we go
~Will drinking alcohol improve your performance/mitigate failure to perform well at your job? If yes, go ahead. If no. There's no reason for it to be at your workplace.
~Will the time you waste using the area and drinking be roughly equivalent to all other forms of wasting time? If yes, go ahead. If no, then no.
~Does your supervisor allow you to do it? If yes, then I'm cool wit' it. If not, then no it shouldn't be allowed.

Now pretending I'm the supervisor, I would argue you would not be allowed to have a "booze zone". Regarding the first question, if you plan on getting wasted, I can say with a good deal of certainty that it will not improve your performance or mitigate negative impacts on your performance. In fact, it will probably cause you productivity as a worker to nose dive. Though depending on the profession and amount of alcohol allowed to the employees, this may not be true, but I'm working under a typical white collar office/food service gig. For the second question, if we're going under the "wasted" aspect you posited, it would probably take a decent chunk of time to get you at that level and after you were done your performance would be negatively influenced for sometime after you drank all that cider. So it would be a huge detriment to HypoTheti Co. Inc. But then again, depending on the workplace. I don't see why not.
Please don't try to "trap" me by goading me into defending something I'm not here to defend and is different than what we're talking about. Besides, you still haven't shown me why smoke breaks should be done away with in regards to the productivity of the worker and company time. At best, your argument have been "because I don't get a smoke break", "smoking is bad", and "I don't get to get wasted at work". These really aren't compelling arguements and they don't really matter.
As far as my "moral high ground" is concerned, I'm not even a smoker and I'm not terribly interested in ever starting. I think it's a gross and dangerous habit. BUT, I don't think smokers deserve to be fired or insulted because they get smoke breaks and other people think they don't get breaks at all, which is incredibly far from the truth.
You don't have to smoke, or think smokin' is cool. But there's no reason for a smoker to be fired for "wasting company time" or for smoke breaks to be disbanded. And until you can give me reasons other than "I don't like them", I'm not going to listen. And seeing as I don't feel like I'm in the gaming forum anymore and you're resorting to petty false comparisons and not adding anything to the conversation, we're done here. If you have a serious problem or you wish to continue this with actual points, then feel free to PM me.

I am a light weight, so getting drunk is pretty easy. My motor skills decrease while drunk but my public speaking and confidence in doing so goes up. My job includes, for a large part, public speaking. So my productivity won't really decrease.

And regarding the 'goad me into defending' thing, I'm not, I'm offering you a hypothetical situation where you are being asked to defend a habit that should not, and is not, allowed in a workplace.

Nicotine is a drug, when you smoke a drug it impedes your productivity, this is fact. Your argument seems to be based around the odd idea that smokers take their breaks for smoking during normal break times (they don', if they did then that would be fine)

So, we have a smoker taking time out to indulge in his/her habit, while still being paid for it, then we add in the factor that this is not deducted from their normal break times plus the fact that other employees do not get this privilege.

If you cannot see a problem with that scenario then you are an idiot and have most likely not worked a day in your life.

So you would be all for the banning of coffee breaks during work hours then?

wintercoat:

Tree man:

EClaris:
Alright here we go
~Will drinking alcohol improve your performance/mitigate failure to perform well at your job? If yes, go ahead. If no. There's no reason for it to be at your workplace.
~Will the time you waste using the area and drinking be roughly equivalent to all other forms of wasting time? If yes, go ahead. If no, then no.
~Does your supervisor allow you to do it? If yes, then I'm cool wit' it. If not, then no it shouldn't be allowed.

Now pretending I'm the supervisor, I would argue you would not be allowed to have a "booze zone". Regarding the first question, if you plan on getting wasted, I can say with a good deal of certainty that it will not improve your performance or mitigate negative impacts on your performance. In fact, it will probably cause you productivity as a worker to nose dive. Though depending on the profession and amount of alcohol allowed to the employees, this may not be true, but I'm working under a typical white collar office/food service gig. For the second question, if we're going under the "wasted" aspect you posited, it would probably take a decent chunk of time to get you at that level and after you were done your performance would be negatively influenced for sometime after you drank all that cider. So it would be a huge detriment to HypoTheti Co. Inc. But then again, depending on the workplace. I don't see why not.
Please don't try to "trap" me by goading me into defending something I'm not here to defend and is different than what we're talking about. Besides, you still haven't shown me why smoke breaks should be done away with in regards to the productivity of the worker and company time. At best, your argument have been "because I don't get a smoke break", "smoking is bad", and "I don't get to get wasted at work". These really aren't compelling arguements and they don't really matter.
As far as my "moral high ground" is concerned, I'm not even a smoker and I'm not terribly interested in ever starting. I think it's a gross and dangerous habit. BUT, I don't think smokers deserve to be fired or insulted because they get smoke breaks and other people think they don't get breaks at all, which is incredibly far from the truth.
You don't have to smoke, or think smokin' is cool. But there's no reason for a smoker to be fired for "wasting company time" or for smoke breaks to be disbanded. And until you can give me reasons other than "I don't like them", I'm not going to listen. And seeing as I don't feel like I'm in the gaming forum anymore and you're resorting to petty false comparisons and not adding anything to the conversation, we're done here. If you have a serious problem or you wish to continue this with actual points, then feel free to PM me.

I am a light weight, so getting drunk is pretty easy. My motor skills decrease while drunk but my public speaking and confidence in doing so goes up. My job includes, for a large part, public speaking. So my productivity won't really decrease.

And regarding the 'goad me into defending' thing, I'm not, I'm offering you a hypothetical situation where you are being asked to defend a habit that should not, and is not, allowed in a workplace.

Nicotine is a drug, when you smoke a drug it impedes your productivity, this is fact. Your argument seems to be based around the odd idea that smokers take their breaks for smoking during normal break times (they don', if they did then that would be fine)

So, we have a smoker taking time out to indulge in his/her habit, while still being paid for it, then we add in the factor that this is not deducted from their normal break times plus the fact that other employees do not get this privilege.

If you cannot see a problem with that scenario then you are an idiot and have most likely not worked a day in your life.

So you would be all for the banning of coffee breaks during work hours then?

Coffee breaks?

I'm sorry what, we're talking about unsanctioned breaks that are not included in the working contract, coffee breaks are normal breaks were you drink coffee; regardless, I'm a teacher, I can dam well bring my coffee into class, I won't get the time to drink it but I can try.

Tree man:

wintercoat:

Tree man:

I am a light weight, so getting drunk is pretty easy. My motor skills decrease while drunk but my public speaking and confidence in doing so goes up. My job includes, for a large part, public speaking. So my productivity won't really decrease.

And regarding the 'goad me into defending' thing, I'm not, I'm offering you a hypothetical situation where you are being asked to defend a habit that should not, and is not, allowed in a workplace.

Nicotine is a drug, when you smoke a drug it impedes your productivity, this is fact. Your argument seems to be based around the odd idea that smokers take their breaks for smoking during normal break times (they don', if they did then that would be fine)

So, we have a smoker taking time out to indulge in his/her habit, while still being paid for it, then we add in the factor that this is not deducted from their normal break times plus the fact that other employees do not get this privilege.

If you cannot see a problem with that scenario then you are an idiot and have most likely not worked a day in your life.

So you would be all for the banning of coffee breaks during work hours then?

Coffee breaks?

I'm sorry what, we're talking about unsanctioned breaks that are not included in the working contract, coffee breaks are normal breaks were you drink coffee; regardless, I'm a teacher, I can dam well bring my coffee into class, I won't get the time to drink it but I can try.

But you don't need to drink coffee in order to perform your job. Therefor it's as superfluous as a cigarette break.

wintercoat:

Tree man:

wintercoat:

So you would be all for the banning of coffee breaks during work hours then?

Coffee breaks?

I'm sorry what, we're talking about unsanctioned breaks that are not included in the working contract, coffee breaks are normal breaks were you drink coffee; regardless, I'm a teacher, I can dam well bring my coffee into class, I won't get the time to drink it but I can try.

But you don't need to drink coffee in order to perform your job. Therefor it's as superfluous as a cigarette break.

On my break I can dam well do what I want, as can anyone who wants to smoke, we're talking about non-regulation breaks where they are simply taking time out to smoke on top of their normal breaks.

Tree man:

wintercoat:

Tree man:

Coffee breaks?

I'm sorry what, we're talking about unsanctioned breaks that are not included in the working contract, coffee breaks are normal breaks were you drink coffee; regardless, I'm a teacher, I can dam well bring my coffee into class, I won't get the time to drink it but I can try.

But you don't need to drink coffee in order to perform your job. Therefor it's as superfluous as a cigarette break.

On my break I can dam well do what I want, as can anyone who wants to smoke, we're talking about non-regulation breaks where they are simply taking time out to smoke on top of their normal breaks.

No, we're talking about regularly sanctioned cigarette breaks. Reread the thread.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked