Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

[Vivi22]

~Will drinking alcohol improve your performance/mitigate failure to perform well at your job?

If someone were a functional alcoholic then they very well might perform better after a drink or two than if they're sobering up. But no one would suggest they should have a few drinks before going to work just because they have an addiction. They'd be told to get help and come back when they're off the sauce.

Frankly, I don't buy the it's an addiction defense for smoking and nothing else. There is such a thing as psychological addiction, and trying to suppress it could easily cause as much of a decrease in someones performance as denying a smoker their smoke break. Smokers really shouldn't be getting special treatment because they chose to start smoking. If you're going to give them breaks, everyone should get them. If you aren't going to give them breaks, then they can either suck it up and cut back/quit or find other employment. Something you (you in the general sense, not you specifically) chose to do that interferes with your ability to do your job is your own problem, and the consequences of it are yours to deal with.

 

[Jadak]

Only jobs I've worked people weren't allowed to go and take extra breaks for smoking, they had to do it on their usual breaks and that's it, which is how I think it should be. If they get extra breaks for that, then it has to be a generic extra break that everybody gets.

 

[Sansha]

Absolutely.

Just because someone has a self-inflicted toxic addiction doesn't make them special enough to be the only ones who should be able to take more time off through the day, compared to the same-level employees who work just as hard who have chosen not to inhale jet fuel, tar and nicotine for giggles.

I'm sorry if that seems harsh or aggressive but at places I've worked, this is a very real thing - smokers get more breaks to sit and puff while the rest of us do not.

It isn't fair that smokers should be entitled to extra break time - this isn't a disability like a weak heart or damaged knee/hip, something that can't be helped and the employee would be happier without, this is smoking - the conscious decision to become addicted to inhaling the burning fumes of a cancerous plant, as someone else so elegantly put it.

I don't think smokers should *not* be allowed those extra breaks. That leads to frustrated employees and reduced productivity, but the other employees should be entitled to just as much break time. Two or three minutes chillin' three or four times in an eight-hour shift, even with other breaks, can make a lot of difference.

And it shouldn't matter what someone actually does on their extra breaks. Chillin' is chillin', smoking or Pokemon.

 

[Mad World]

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

Exactly!

This doesn't seem fair. If smokers are allowed to take extra smoke breaks, then other employees should be able to have extra breaks, too.

And, no... I wouldn't be surprised to see this actually happen; many (if not most) human beings are very stupid and unfair.

 

[Sotanaht]

Absolutely.

Just because someone has a self-inflicted toxic addiction doesn't make them special enough to be the only ones who should be able to take more time off through the day, compared to the same-level employees who work just as hard who have chosen not to inhale jet fuel, tar and nicotine for giggles.

I'm sorry if that seems harsh or aggressive but at places I've worked, this is a very real thing - smokers get more breaks to sit and puff while the rest of us do not.

It isn't fair that smokers should be entitled to extra break time - this isn't a disability like a weak heart or damaged knee/hip, something that can't be helped and the employee would be happier without, this is smoking - the conscious decision to become addicted to inhaling the burning fumes of a cancerous plant, as someone else so elegantly put it.

I don't think smokers should *not* be allowed those extra breaks. That leads to frustrated employees and reduced productivity, but the other employees should be entitled to just as much break time. Two or three minutes chillin' three or four times in an eight-hour shift, even with other breaks, can make a lot of difference.

And it shouldn't matter what someone actually does on their extra breaks. Chillin' is chillin', smoking or Pokemon.

100% this. Although I might add that there might be another, totally separate problem with playing video games at work whether you are on a break or not. The fact remains that if smokers are going to be allowed extra breaks, everyone should be. Beyond the simple fairness of it, I can actually imagine situations where someone takes up smoking simply because it allows him to take extra breaks at work, which is the last thing anyone should encourage.

 

[EHKOS]

This just shows that smoking is an addiction that is treated much too commonly. We should work on banning cigerretes.

 

[Pandabearparade]

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.

No.

Diabetes is a disease, smoking is an addiction. A smoker can go without a cigarette, a diabetic could die without insulin.

 

[Arakasi]

You should have kept doing it anyway, then sued when he/she fired you.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

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?

Being a smoker myself I can tell you that is exactly what happens. We HAVE to go on a "smoke break" ever hour to keep the aliens away.

We keep you safe, you're welcome.

 

[Sansha]

Absolutely.

Just because someone has a self-inflicted toxic addiction doesn't make them special enough to be the only ones who should be able to take more time off through the day, compared to the same-level employees who work just as hard who have chosen not to inhale jet fuel, tar and nicotine for giggles.

I'm sorry if that seems harsh or aggressive but at places I've worked, this is a very real thing - smokers get more breaks to sit and puff while the rest of us do not.

It isn't fair that smokers should be entitled to extra break time - this isn't a disability like a weak heart or damaged knee/hip, something that can't be helped and the employee would be happier without, this is smoking - the conscious decision to become addicted to inhaling the burning fumes of a cancerous plant, as someone else so elegantly put it.

I don't think smokers should *not* be allowed those extra breaks. That leads to frustrated employees and reduced productivity, but the other employees should be entitled to just as much break time. Two or three minutes chillin' three or four times in an eight-hour shift, even with other breaks, can make a lot of difference.

And it shouldn't matter what someone actually does on their extra breaks. Chillin' is chillin', smoking or Pokemon.

100% this. Although I might add that there might be another, totally separate problem with playing video games at work whether you are on a break or not. The fact remains that if smokers are going to be allowed extra breaks, everyone should be. Beyond the simple fairness of it, I can actually imagine situations where someone takes up smoking simply because it allows him to take extra breaks at work, which is the last thing anyone should encourage.

That sounds utterly insane, but not unheard of. But, yes. Considering cigarette dependency is different from more debilitating conditions and disabilities, as argued above and below, if they get extra time off, everyone should. And like I said, even a few minutes chilling can make workers a ton happier.

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.

No.

Diabetes is a disease, smoking is an addiction. A smoker can go without a cigarette, a diabetic could die without insulin.

Precisely, a pretty good summary of what I said.

 

[RagTagBand]

1. No. Not at all. There is no reasonable justification for needing smoking breaks outside/on top of already allotted break time. Every attempt at justifying it so far in this thread has been, frankly, pathetic.

2. I would find it curious but not surprising; This kind of sentiment is, I imagine, quite widespread.

 

[Spygon]

I think having a break is a good thing for people like getting a few minutes to have a drink or even just get some fresh air or phone someone.But playing pokemon just feels like you wasting the break you are being given.

So i can see bosses going well if you dont need to take a break then i wont give you one.

 

[freaper]

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

Attitude or not, he's right. Besides smaller breaks more often are more stimulating than a single big one.

Albeit being hypothetical, firing someone over a game seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[Daojia]

As an Australian in the Hospitality industry, this has been covered as a matter of policy; smoke breaks are not allowed for two reasons.

Firstly, employers are increasingly wondering whether they are legally liable for sanctioning time off for their employees to do something patently harmful. Secondly, as was suggested in the OP, it's unfair to the employees who don't smoke. Me and the rest of the staff work 11-hour shifts and take a half-hour break five hours in. That's the only time people get to smoke; there certainly aren't any other sanctioned opportunities.

Also, at the risk of sounding judgemental, if your habit makes it hard to work to the point where it noticeably affects your efficiency if you go six hours without a cigarette, then frankly that's your problem, and employers have no obligation to cater to it.

 

[keinechance]

Equal rights for smokers and non-smokers.

If smokers get a smoking-break, than non-smokers should have a non-smoking-break.

If non-smokers get no non-smoking-break, smokers should have no smoking-break.

 

[isometry]

Two wrongs do not make a right. Don't break rules because other people do. The right thing to do would have been to talk to your boss about the smokers getting extra break time.