like yesterday when i had to take the price stickers off more than 200 packs of gift cards and other shit after counting exactly how many of them we had
this was to send stuff back to the supplier, so i can understand needing to know how many things we are returning
but i was told to take the price tags off so that the supplier wont know how much we mark the products up
now i work at a major department store and if the supplier wants to know how much things are being marked up they can walk into any one of the many stores across the country and take a look
Fat people aren't taking frequent breaks because they are fat.
Smokers aren't taking frequent breaks because they're smokers.
The ones that do, do so because they have bad work ethics.
So what's your goddamned point?
Pony was operating under the assumption that EVERYONE can be non-productive or extremely productive, regardless of personal habits.
They are taking breaks because they smoke. Whether they actually need to or not. As far as I can tell fat people don't take breaks because they are fat.
I, for one, was talking about Rank's situation -- and in Rank's situation, from what Rank said, they are smoking in their legally-required breaks, not in extra ones.
But his boss said 'frequent smoke breaks' so it doesn't matter. We are taking the opinion of one side of the argument for complete fact when we have no idea.
My employer offers an honorarium (essentially a bonus, or raise, if you will, since we're all salaried) to everyone who rides a bike or takes the METRO to work, or utilizes the company van pool.
Now, no one from work lives in my neighborhood, so I do not qualify for the vanpool. Unfortunately, the bus isn't a viable option, either, since due to a quirk of my location relative to the routes, it would turn my 5-10 minute drive into a 40-50 minute bus ride (with at least one transfer) each way. Biking would be fine, except I live at the top of a sequence of very steep hills; getting TO work would be easy, but getting home would require someone far, far fitter than myself (my ex, who went to college on a soccer scholarship, couldn't manage it when she lived here).
Am I being discriminated against, here?
t Rank Oh, I know. And yes, I get the Corky reference. I fucking hated that show, though.
The idea of commuting is that yes it will take longer, but it is better than individuals driving. Therefore the 40-50 minute bus ride argument is a poor one, and negates your discrimination claim.
Commuting via public transit = giving up convenience for the sake of the environment. Yes it's a bitch, but it's worth it if you care about it.
yeah, but sam i don't think a person's workplace as a right to dictate to them, based on financial advancement, what their environmental policies outside of work should be.
technically they do.
i used to work for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. the basic rule was that if you could demonstrate that you were being adversely affected by some workplace policy that did not affect similarly situated people at your workplace in the same way, that was discrimination and the employer could be found liable. offering stipends for people who take public transportation or bike does not adversely affect anyone, save the employer financially.
you'd have no case, at least in the U.S. with current EEOC law.
hehe, no problem. I probably wouldn't have been much fun anyway. I would have just bitched about how much my feet hurt from standing and walking all fucking week at the show.
I dunno, I consider the right of the employer to control his business trumps that of the worker. Like, yeah, it sucks, but the employer should be allowed to do that kind of stuff if they want to. There are plenty of jobs out there - having a boss that disrespects an aspect of your life seems sorta silly to me. But I'm just speaking in my own little ideal world here I guess.
My employer offers an honorarium (essentially a bonus, or raise, if you will, since we're all salaried) to everyone who rides a bike or takes the METRO to work, or utilizes the company van pool.
Now, no one from work lives in my neighborhood, so I do not qualify for the vanpool. Unfortunately, the bus isn't a viable option, either, since due to a quirk of my location relative to the routes, it would turn my 5-10 minute drive into a 40-50 minute bus ride (with at least one transfer) each way. Biking would be fine, except I live at the top of a sequence of very steep hills; getting TO work would be easy, but getting home would require someone far, far fitter than myself (my ex, who went to college on a soccer scholarship, couldn't manage it when she lived here).
Am I being discriminated against, here?
t Rank Oh, I know. And yes, I get the Corky reference. I fucking hated that show, though.
The idea of commuting is that yes it will take longer, but it is better than individuals driving. Therefore the 40-50 minute bus ride argument is a poor one, and negates your discrimination claim.
Commuting via public transit = giving up convenience for the sake of the environment. Yes it's a bitch, but it's worth it if you care about it.
See, I wish I COULD take the bus. I even do our opt-in subsidized bus pass program ($9.00/month for a two-zoner...GREAT DEAL!). But adding what could be an hour-and-a-half to my commute? That's a little unrealistic, in my opinion.
But I don't really feel discriminated against (I see them as rewarding those who can, not punishing those who can't), so it doesn't matter. I just wanted to see if people felt my situation was a suitable analogue for Rank's.
Fat people aren't taking frequent breaks because they are fat.
Smokers aren't taking frequent breaks because they're smokers.
The ones that do, do so because they have bad work ethics.
So what's your goddamned point?
Pony was operating under the assumption that EVERYONE can be non-productive or extremely productive, regardless of personal habits.
They are taking breaks because they smoke. Whether they actually need to or not. As far as I can tell fat people don't take breaks because they are fat.
So, by your reasoning, the boss should be cracking down on those who take "breaks" to make personal calls, yes? Or those who check personal email on the company time, or quit working to fuck with their cellphone or iPod? What about those that play games?
Christ in heaven, this is not that hard. If ALL smokers were taking additional breaks, and no one else was, that's one thing, and punishment, while discriminatory, is deserved. If LOTS of people are taking unauthorized breaks for various reasons, the boss either has to crack down equally on ALL OF THEM, or turn a blind eye if the problem is really not THAT severe.
Fat people aren't taking frequent breaks because they are fat.
Smokers aren't taking frequent breaks because they're smokers.
The ones that do, do so because they have bad work ethics.
So what's your goddamned point?
Pony was operating under the assumption that EVERYONE can be non-productive or extremely productive, regardless of personal habits.
They are taking breaks because they smoke. Whether they actually need to or not. As far as I can tell fat people don't take breaks because they are fat.
I, for one, was talking about Rank's situation -- and in Rank's situation, from what Rank said, they are smoking in their legally-required breaks, not in extra ones.
But his boss said 'frequent smoke breaks' so it doesn't matter. We are taking the opinion of one side of the argument for complete fact when we have no idea.
so again we come to the fact that Phonehand just doesn't believe Rank.
Possibly because he doesn't want to.
I mean if we're going to jump to conclusions instead of being honest with people why don't we make a game of Twister out of it.
Pony on
0
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
But his boss said 'frequent smoke breaks' so it doesn't matter. We are taking the opinion of one side of the argument for complete fact when we have no idea.
If it were someone whose opinion and honesty I did not trust for some reason, I might question it. But I don't think Rank would lie about it. Sure, he may be a little biased by being the one who's on the opposite side, but I don't think he's going to outright lie and say he doesn't take extra breaks when he does.
And you'll note that pretty much everyone who's arguing with you is pretty much saying that non-productivity is a case-by-case thing, an individual thing, and cannot just be ascribed to 'because he's a smoker,' because frankly, it doesn't hold up.
Well if he's taking frequent smoke breaks, and smoke breaks are a sign of bad work ethic and not of just being a smoker, then shouldn't that tell you something about the dude?
matthias00 on
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
there's a lot of yelling in here
Raneados on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Okay, all the awesome posters here, get out, I'm setting this thread on fire.
LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY BECAUSE OF FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS
FAT PEOPLE MAY MOVE SLOWER BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE STILL WORKING
FAT PEOPLE DON'T TAKE FAT BREAKS
IT IS A RETARDED ANALOGY
FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY SMOKE.
YES BUT THEY USE THE GUISE OF SMOKING TO TAKE BREAKS
AND IN SOME CASES IT IS BECAUSE THEY SMOKE LIKE MY WORK FOR EXAMPLE
And they use that guise because THEY HAVE POOR WORK ETHICS, NOT BECAUSE THEY SMOKE.
but, and let me try to make this point and get out of the way, lazy people use smoke breaks as an excuse not to work, whereas lazy people who don't smoke cannot take 15 breaks a day, and are thus forced to work more, and I think this is the point he's trying to make.
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
But his boss said 'frequent smoke breaks' so it doesn't matter. We are taking the opinion of one side of the argument for complete fact when we have no idea.
If it were someone whose opinion and honesty I did not trust for some reason, I might question it. But I don't think Rank would lie about it. Sure, he may be a little biased by being the one who's on the opposite side, but I don't think he's going to outright lie and say he doesn't take extra breaks when he does.
And you'll note that pretty much everyone who's arguing with you is pretty much saying that non-productivity is a case-by-case thing, an individual thing, and cannot just be ascribed to 'because he's a smoker,' because frankly, it doesn't hold up.
I also pointed out, in that very same post, that we are already limited to the number of breaks that we are allowed to take in a single day.
Phonehand, you just really are ignoring the facts I'm talking about here to argue against smoking in general, which really isn't the issue here.
It is possible for someone to smoke so much that they would have a physical fit if they didn't get their self-prescribed amount of nicotene every so often. This means that they would have to take an extra break or two.
Not that this happens in Rank's workplace
But in general
Stop talking in absolutes here about a demographic
But his boss said 'frequent smoke breaks' so it doesn't matter. We are taking the opinion of one side of the argument for complete fact when we have no idea.
If it were someone whose opinion and honesty I did not trust for some reason, I might question it. But I don't think Rank would lie about it. Sure, he may be a little biased by being the one who's on the opposite side, but I don't think he's going to outright lie and say he doesn't take extra breaks when he does.
And you'll note that pretty much everyone who's arguing with you is pretty much saying that non-productivity is a case-by-case thing, an individual thing, and cannot just be ascribed to 'because he's a smoker,' because frankly, it doesn't hold up.
And what if the case at his work is that SOME (NOT ALL) smokers take frequent smoke breaks. If he doesn't but others do then tough luck.
Phonehand on
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY BECAUSE OF FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS
FAT PEOPLE MAY MOVE SLOWER BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE STILL WORKING
FAT PEOPLE DON'T TAKE FAT BREAKS
IT IS A RETARDED ANALOGY
FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY SMOKE.
YES BUT THEY USE THE GUISE OF SMOKING TO TAKE BREAKS
AND IN SOME CASES IT IS BECAUSE THEY SMOKE LIKE MY WORK FOR EXAMPLE
And they use that guise because THEY HAVE POOR WORK ETHICS, NOT BECAUSE THEY SMOKE.
but, and let me try to make this point and get out of the way, lazy people use smoke breaks as an excuse not to work, whereas lazy people who don't smoke cannot take 15 breaks a day, and are thus forced to work more, and I think this is the point he's trying to make.
lazy people can just not work, you don;t need a walking-around break to not work
Raneados on
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
SMOKERS TAKE SMOKE BREAKS TO LIGHT GARBAGE CANS ON FIRE
NONSMOKERS TAKE SMOKE BREAKS TO KILL BABIES
AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Guys, the simple fact is that Phonehand, and everyone else who is leaping into this thread without really reading Rank's post to bitch about smokers taking extra breaks, clearly have their own hang-ups and bitterness towards smokers. Probably (and explicitly stated in Phonehand's case) smokers they work with who act like a bunch of lazy cocks.
So it's not worth argueing with Phonehand or any of those folks on the matter. He just wants to be angry and try to justify someone else being discriminatory because he knows people that are assholes.
My employer offers an honorarium (essentially a bonus, or raise, if you will, since we're all salaried) to everyone who rides a bike or takes the METRO to work, or utilizes the company van pool.
Now, no one from work lives in my neighborhood, so I do not qualify for the vanpool. Unfortunately, the bus isn't a viable option, either, since due to a quirk of my location relative to the routes, it would turn my 5-10 minute drive into a 40-50 minute bus ride (with at least one transfer) each way. Biking would be fine, except I live at the top of a sequence of very steep hills; getting TO work would be easy, but getting home would require someone far, far fitter than myself (my ex, who went to college on a soccer scholarship, couldn't manage it when she lived here).
Am I being discriminated against, here?
t Rank Oh, I know. And yes, I get the Corky reference. I fucking hated that show, though.
The idea of commuting is that yes it will take longer, but it is better than individuals driving. Therefore the 40-50 minute bus ride argument is a poor one, and negates your discrimination claim.
Commuting via public transit = giving up convenience for the sake of the environment. Yes it's a bitch, but it's worth it if you care about it.
See, I wish I COULD take the bus. I even do our opt-in subsidized bus pass program ($9.00/month for a two-zoner...GREAT DEAL!). But adding what could be an hour-and-a-half to my commute? That's a little unrealistic, in my opinion.
But I don't really feel discriminated against (I see them as rewarding those who can, not punishing those who can't), so it doesn't matter. I just wanted to see if people felt my situation was a suitable analogue for Rank's.
I have to take the bus for an hour too and from university. It's rough, but I do feel better about the environment and shit. But I can totally understand not wanting to change a 5-10 minute ride into an hour one. I'm with you on that.
I think that if you can take the bus and get to your destination within a reasonable time, do it. Especially if it's not that long (20 minutes/half an hour is ideal).
Meissnerd on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY BECAUSE OF FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS
FAT PEOPLE MAY MOVE SLOWER BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE STILL WORKING
FAT PEOPLE DON'T TAKE FAT BREAKS
IT IS A RETARDED ANALOGY
FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY SMOKE.
YES BUT THEY USE THE GUISE OF SMOKING TO TAKE BREAKS
AND IN SOME CASES IT IS BECAUSE THEY SMOKE LIKE MY WORK FOR EXAMPLE
And they use that guise because THEY HAVE POOR WORK ETHICS, NOT BECAUSE THEY SMOKE.
but, and let me try to make this point and get out of the way, lazy people use smoke breaks as an excuse not to work, whereas lazy people who don't smoke cannot take 15 breaks a day, and are thus forced to work more, and I think this is the point he's trying to make.
hehe, no problem. I probably wouldn't have been much fun anyway. I would have just bitched about how much my feet hurt from standing and walking all fucking week at the show.
I am pretty sure that the reason I didn't get to call was because I was flying to MD the next day and, since I was leaving the next day, Mom and I went out to dinner with Katie Ford, of the Ford family.
LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY BECAUSE OF FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS
FAT PEOPLE MAY MOVE SLOWER BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE STILL WORKING
FAT PEOPLE DON'T TAKE FAT BREAKS
IT IS A RETARDED ANALOGY
FREQUENT SMOKE BREAKS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY SMOKE.
YES BUT THEY USE THE GUISE OF SMOKING TO TAKE BREAKS
AND IN SOME CASES IT IS BECAUSE THEY SMOKE LIKE MY WORK FOR EXAMPLE
And they use that guise because THEY HAVE POOR WORK ETHICS, NOT BECAUSE THEY SMOKE.
but, and let me try to make this point and get out of the way, lazy people use smoke breaks as an excuse not to work, whereas lazy people who don't smoke cannot take 15 breaks a day, and are thus forced to work more, and I think this is the point he's trying to make.
lazy people can just not work, you don;t need a walking-around break to not work
true, but it is easier to not work and not get in trouble for it when you're not in the workplace and you have an excuse not to be in the workplace
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
that's what i was trying to say about the caffeine and christian analogy
READ THE INITIAL POST THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING
CHRIST IN HEAVEN PEOPLE
WHY YOU GOTTA MAKE DADDY RAISE HIS VOICE?
like yesterday when i had to take the price stickers off more than 200 packs of gift cards and other shit after counting exactly how many of them we had
this was to send stuff back to the supplier, so i can understand needing to know how many things we are returning
but i was told to take the price tags off so that the supplier wont know how much we mark the products up
now i work at a major department store and if the supplier wants to know how much things are being marked up they can walk into any one of the many stores across the country and take a look
technically they do.
i used to work for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. the basic rule was that if you could demonstrate that you were being adversely affected by some workplace policy that did not affect similarly situated people at your workplace in the same way, that was discrimination and the employer could be found liable. offering stipends for people who take public transportation or bike does not adversely affect anyone, save the employer financially.
you'd have no case, at least in the U.S. with current EEOC law.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
hehe, no problem. I probably wouldn't have been much fun anyway. I would have just bitched about how much my feet hurt from standing and walking all fucking week at the show.
Except
You didn't properly read his post or posts subsequent clarifying it until very recently, which you admitted.
So I still think my points stand.
But I don't really feel discriminated against (I see them as rewarding those who can, not punishing those who can't), so it doesn't matter. I just wanted to see if people felt my situation was a suitable analogue for Rank's.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
The End.
If I was your boss my reply to your pussy-hurting would be as follows:
Fuck off, I'm not paying you to take breaks due to your "addiction". Do it on your own time son.
So, by your reasoning, the boss should be cracking down on those who take "breaks" to make personal calls, yes? Or those who check personal email on the company time, or quit working to fuck with their cellphone or iPod? What about those that play games?
Christ in heaven, this is not that hard. If ALL smokers were taking additional breaks, and no one else was, that's one thing, and punishment, while discriminatory, is deserved. If LOTS of people are taking unauthorized breaks for various reasons, the boss either has to crack down equally on ALL OF THEM, or turn a blind eye if the problem is really not THAT severe.
AND IN SOME CASES IT IS BECAUSE THEY SMOKE LIKE MY WORK FOR EXAMPLE
yeah that's true, i suck, i'm goign to leave, this is getting weird haha, cya
so again we come to the fact that Phonehand just doesn't believe Rank.
Possibly because he doesn't want to.
I mean if we're going to jump to conclusions instead of being honest with people why don't we make a game of Twister out of it.
If it were someone whose opinion and honesty I did not trust for some reason, I might question it. But I don't think Rank would lie about it. Sure, he may be a little biased by being the one who's on the opposite side, but I don't think he's going to outright lie and say he doesn't take extra breaks when he does.
And you'll note that pretty much everyone who's arguing with you is pretty much saying that non-productivity is a case-by-case thing, an individual thing, and cannot just be ascribed to 'because he's a smoker,' because frankly, it doesn't hold up.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
but in some cases they do dumbass
so um shut up
but that isn't a problem of smoking employees thats a problem of shitty management.
but, and let me try to make this point and get out of the way, lazy people use smoke breaks as an excuse not to work, whereas lazy people who don't smoke cannot take 15 breaks a day, and are thus forced to work more, and I think this is the point he's trying to make.
I also pointed out, in that very same post, that we are already limited to the number of breaks that we are allowed to take in a single day.
Phonehand, you just really are ignoring the facts I'm talking about here to argue against smoking in general, which really isn't the issue here.
Guys
It is possible for someone to smoke so much that they would have a physical fit if they didn't get their self-prescribed amount of nicotene every so often. This means that they would have to take an extra break or two.
Not that this happens in Rank's workplace
But in general
Stop talking in absolutes here about a demographic
There are some serious smokers in this world
And I see a black guy take an extra break
I am allowed to give everyone who is not black a raise
lazy people can just not work, you don;t need a walking-around break to not work
YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME WITH ALL SMOKERS SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL ARGUING ABOUT.
caps and big fonts make me feel pretty inside
SMOKERS TAKE SMOKE BREAKS TO LIGHT GARBAGE CANS ON FIRE
NONSMOKERS TAKE SMOKE BREAKS TO KILL BABIES
AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So it's not worth argueing with Phonehand or any of those folks on the matter. He just wants to be angry and try to justify someone else being discriminatory because he knows people that are assholes.
I have to take the bus for an hour too and from university. It's rough, but I do feel better about the environment and shit. But I can totally understand not wanting to change a 5-10 minute ride into an hour one. I'm with you on that.
I think that if you can take the bus and get to your destination within a reasonable time, do it. Especially if it's not that long (20 minutes/half an hour is ideal).
I'm not sure people should be taking work related advice from you
I am pretty sure that the reason I didn't get to call was because I was flying to MD the next day and, since I was leaving the next day, Mom and I went out to dinner with Katie Ford, of the Ford family.
But still. Kicking myself. Sorry, dude.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
true, but it is easier to not work and not get in trouble for it when you're not in the workplace and you have an excuse not to be in the workplace
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.