Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

[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.

 

[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.

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.

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[footnote]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[/footnote] 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.

 

[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

 

[Acier]

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.

"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

 

[Squidbulb]

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.

 

[Strain42]

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.

"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 ^^

 

[wintercoat]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[ultramarine486]

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

I thought the argument revolved around the idea that there are breaks sanctioned by law, as put previously 10 minutes every 4 hours or so, and the breaks smokers get to take when they need to feed their addiction. I don't recall in the example the cigarette breaks being sanctioned or not.

 

[wintercoat]

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?

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.

No we are not, we are talking about supervisor approved breaks, where the boss of the division says 'yeah sure' when you ask him to take a break to have a smoke.

A sanctioned break would be in the contract with a set time to take one, the latter I have no problem with, the former is unfair and unnecessary.

EDIT: I'm tired now, if you want to continue this discussion then feel free to message me.

Also check out the Escapist: lets play on the gaming discussion.

Just so we're clear, you are for sanctioned caffeine breaks, but not nicotine breaks.

 

[Broady Brio]

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.

I'm sure Mr. Barnes meant well with his breaks. However, a mix on how he said it and the Manager's ability to take it the wrong way caused him to be fired.

 

[ultramarine486]

Just so we're clear, you are for sanctioned caffeine breaks, but not nicotine breaks.

I'm pretty sure he never even alluded to sanctioned caffeine breaks. Your either trying to put words in his mouth or you logic is set to 'insane troll'.