Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

[Strain42]

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?

 

[Zayle79]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Acier]

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?

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

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.

 

[Acier]

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.

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

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.

 

[Smeggs]

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.

 

[Acier]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Strain42]

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.

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

 

[Acier]

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[Terminate421]

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.

 

[Acier]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ultramarine486]

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.

 

[Squidbulb]

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.