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.
Either that or they just give the appearance of working more - screwing around on the internet, then pulling up a spreadsheet when the boss rolls around, for example. This doesn't make them a better worker, just a more deceptive one.
Personally, I'd rather see the lazy fuckass smoker leaving the building than sitting around doing jack and shit on company time, which is even harder to monitor than some douchebag whose grabbing his 15th cigarette for the day.
The crux of the argument is, that just because SOME smokers abuse smoke breaks, and it's EASILY NOTICED doesn't mean that non-smokers CAN'T be less than stellarly productive.
This is just a case of scape goating. It's easier to blame the people who leave the building.
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.
No.
If SOME (not all) smokers take frequent smoke breaks, then those individuals should be penalized, or everyone else, including the smokers who do not take frequent smoke breaks should be rewarded.
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.
DAMMIT SHOE MAKE LOVE TO ME
Like Rane said:
You can not work and still not have to take extra breaks.
LOOK AT ME, I'M AT WORK, I'M NOT WORKING, I DON'T SMOKE, AND I'M NOT ON A BREAK HOLY FUCK TIME PARADOX
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.
But still. Kicking myself. Sorry, dude.
It really is no big deal. I pretty much just went back to the hotel every night and tried to get some sleep.
It's discriminatory, but it's definitely not illegal. I don't know why people are perpetuating this idea.
Possibly it is because discrimination is illegal. Maybe. Shit I don't know.
Law firms commonly have anti-nepotism hiring practices. Corporate officers often have to undergo health examinations (fat people are in fact discriminated against). The examples go on and on. Hiring practices can be discriminatory as long they don't pertain to race or gender (although they both do statistically receive discrimation in "soft" ways).
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.
No, but thank you for telling me what my intentions are. I am using my case as an example. Not everyone I work with knows how often some people take smoke breaks and you certainly wouldn't know the habits of people someplace you don't work but you are certainly arguing for one side.
He refuses to accept that Rank's situation has nothing to do with the people he hates at work.
I mean, shit, he even doubts Rank actually being productive or showing up on time. He questions whether Rank is telling the truth about not taking extra smoke breaks.
He clearly wants to live in his own angry fantasy world instead of talk to people on an actual subject.
Pony on
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
LOOK AT ME, I'M AT WORK, I'M NOT WORKING, I DON'T SMOKE, AND I'M NOT ON A BREAK HOLY FUCK TIME PARADOX
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
I'd say it's easier to not work if you're tapping away at a computer on an internet forum
your move, Shoeydooey
Raneados on
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
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, am i the only one who isn't like "rawr you suck no smoking break for you" and actually doesn't care for the idea of an employer basically monetarily rewarding his employees for sharing his view on a subject that has nothing to do with the workplace?
i mean shit
it's not much different than giving a pay raise but only to the employees who wear the same socks as you.
we have laws against that kind of discrimination where i live
i would assume the US does too, don't it?
Idealistically, you'd be absolutely right. The employer is trying to coerce his employees into taking on a form of behavior that is more acceptable to him, and supporting that act with convenient (and bullshit) reasoning.
It's pay discrimination, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, most people won't make that mental leap. They'll see it as "WTF I WANT MY SMOKE BREAKS THIS IS BS," in which case you'd have to argue that smoking, in fact, has no real impact on the quality of one's work.
Smoking does make the work environment less pleasant. Also, smokers raise the cost of health insurance by, you know, being unhealthy. The difference between this and, say, having sickle-cell anemia is that you CHOOSE to be a smoker. Further, about the socks, are you familiar with IBM? You had to wear a fucking red tie. It is totally legal for them to say "you must wear this type of clothing" just like it's legal to say "you may not drink alcohol while at work" or "you may not smoke while at work." They don't owe you a booze break because you're a drinker and they don't owe you a smoke break because you're a smoker. I don't get boxing/personal training breaks because I'm a martial artist, I do that shit on my lunch. Just because you like to do something doesn't mean the company has to make it easy for you to do it during their business hours. Now, if they were punishing you for smoking in your off-time, then THAT is discrimination. But trying to "coerce" employees into acting a certain way while they are at work is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like it, don't work there.
EDIT: I should probably say "yeah I know this has been said already but I'm saying it anyway because it gets under my skin that people feel so goddamn entitled."
Yeah, I know this has been said already but I'm saying it anyway because it gets under my skin that people feel so goddamn entitled.
Defender on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Straightzi on
0
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
guys, am i the only one who isn't like "rawr you suck no smoking break for you" and actually doesn't care for the idea of an employer basically monetarily rewarding his employees for sharing his view on a subject that has nothing to do with the workplace?
i mean shit
it's not much different than giving a pay raise but only to the employees who wear the same socks as you.
we have laws against that kind of discrimination where i live
i would assume the US does too, don't it?
Idealistically, you'd be absolutely right. The employer is trying to coerce his employees into taking on a form of behavior that is more acceptable to him, and supporting that act with convenient (and bullshit) reasoning.
It's pay discrimination, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, most people won't make that mental leap. They'll see it as "WTF I WANT MY SMOKE BREAKS THIS IS BS," in which case you'd have to argue that smoking, in fact, has no real impact on the quality of one's work.
Smoking does make the work environment less pleasant. Also, smokers raise the cost of health insurance by, you know, being unhealthy. The difference between this and, say, having sickle-cell anemia is that you CHOOSE to be a smoker. Further, about the socks, are you familiar with IBM? You had to wear a fucking red tie. It is totally legal for them to say "you must wear this type of clothing" just like it's legal to say "you may not drink alcohol while at work" or "you may not smoke while at work." They don't owe you a booze break because you're a drinker and they don't owe you a smoke break because you're a smoker. I don't get boxing/personal training breaks because I'm a martial artist, I do that shit on my lunch. Just because you like to do something doesn't mean the company has to make it easy for you to do it during their business hours. Now, if they were punishing you for smoking in your off-time, then THAT is discrimination. But trying to "coerce" employees into acting a certain way while they are at work is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like it, don't work there.
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.
It's good for the occasional thread to devolve into a shouting match between the incredibly stupid and those who just can't believe someone could be that dense because it gives me a good idea of who's retarded.
Wait, no. It's just sad, because I'd rather not know that people who are otherwise decent are retards at least some of the time. Oh well.
redhead on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
guys, am i the only one who isn't like "rawr you suck no smoking break for you" and actually doesn't care for the idea of an employer basically monetarily rewarding his employees for sharing his view on a subject that has nothing to do with the workplace?
i mean shit
it's not much different than giving a pay raise but only to the employees who wear the same socks as you.
we have laws against that kind of discrimination where i live
i would assume the US does too, don't it?
Idealistically, you'd be absolutely right. The employer is trying to coerce his employees into taking on a form of behavior that is more acceptable to him, and supporting that act with convenient (and bullshit) reasoning.
It's pay discrimination, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, most people won't make that mental leap. They'll see it as "WTF I WANT MY SMOKE BREAKS THIS IS BS," in which case you'd have to argue that smoking, in fact, has no real impact on the quality of one's work.
Smoking does make the work environment less pleasant. Also, smokers raise the cost of health insurance by, you know, being unhealthy. The difference between this and, say, having sickle-cell anemia is that you CHOOSE to be a smoker. Further, about the socks, are you familiar with IBM? You had to wear a fucking red tie. It is totally legal for them to say "you must wear this type of clothing" just like it's legal to say "you may not drink alcohol while at work" or "you may not smoke while at work." They don't owe you a booze break because you're a drinker and they don't owe you a smoke break because you're a smoker. I don't get boxing/personal training breaks because I'm a martial artist, I do that shit on my lunch. Just because you like to do something doesn't mean the company has to make it easy for you to do it during their business hours. Now, if they were punishing you for smoking in your off-time, then THAT is discrimination. But trying to "coerce" employees into acting a certain way while they are at work is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like it, don't work there.
But Defender, that isn't the case here.
That's not what Rank's boss is talking about.
He's talking about giving people a bonus in pay because they don't smoke, with the express purpose of putting pressure on those who do.
That goes above and beyond a work dress code or requiring certain conduct in the workplace.
It goes into telling people how they have to live their personal life, and effectively docking them in pay because they don't.
Posts
Also, cocks.
Either that or they just give the appearance of working more - screwing around on the internet, then pulling up a spreadsheet when the boss rolls around, for example. This doesn't make them a better worker, just a more deceptive one.
The crux of the argument is, that just because SOME smokers abuse smoke breaks, and it's EASILY NOTICED doesn't mean that non-smokers CAN'T be less than stellarly productive.
This is just a case of scape goating. It's easier to blame the people who leave the building.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
No.
If SOME (not all) smokers take frequent smoke breaks, then those individuals should be penalized, or everyone else, including the smokers who do not take frequent smoke breaks should be rewarded.
It is not 'tough luck.'
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
You can not work and still not have to take extra breaks.
LOOK AT ME, I'M AT WORK, I'M NOT WORKING, I DON'T SMOKE, AND I'M NOT ON A BREAK HOLY FUCK TIME PARADOX
My balls are on fire!
Edit: wait no, that's just the herpes
It really is no big deal. I pretty much just went back to the hotel every night and tried to get some sleep.
Next time.
Law firms commonly have anti-nepotism hiring practices. Corporate officers often have to undergo health examinations (fat people are in fact discriminated against). The examples go on and on. Hiring practices can be discriminatory as long they don't pertain to race or gender (although they both do statistically receive discrimation in "soft" ways).
The productivity issue is really not debatable either. Here is an article by the US treasury report that itemizes welfare losses: http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/tobacco.pdf
Lets just take some deep breaths and make-out a little, ok?
CASE.
FUCKING.
CLOSED.
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.
He refuses to accept that Rank's situation has nothing to do with the people he hates at work.
I mean, shit, he even doubts Rank actually being productive or showing up on time. He questions whether Rank is telling the truth about not taking extra smoke breaks.
He clearly wants to live in his own angry fantasy world instead of talk to people on an actual subject.
[/quote]
I'd say it's easier to not work if you're tapping away at a computer on an internet forum
your move, Shoeydooey
hey I'm wearing a pair of docs, ^five!
vroom vroom
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.
Smoking does make the work environment less pleasant. Also, smokers raise the cost of health insurance by, you know, being unhealthy. The difference between this and, say, having sickle-cell anemia is that you CHOOSE to be a smoker. Further, about the socks, are you familiar with IBM? You had to wear a fucking red tie. It is totally legal for them to say "you must wear this type of clothing" just like it's legal to say "you may not drink alcohol while at work" or "you may not smoke while at work." They don't owe you a booze break because you're a drinker and they don't owe you a smoke break because you're a smoker. I don't get boxing/personal training breaks because I'm a martial artist, I do that shit on my lunch. Just because you like to do something doesn't mean the company has to make it easy for you to do it during their business hours. Now, if they were punishing you for smoking in your off-time, then THAT is discrimination. But trying to "coerce" employees into acting a certain way while they are at work is perfectly reasonable. If you don't like it, don't work there.
EDIT: I should probably say "yeah I know this has been said already but I'm saying it anyway because it gets under my skin that people feel so goddamn entitled."
Yeah, I know this has been said already but I'm saying it anyway because it gets under my skin that people feel so goddamn entitled.
Promises, promises!
There will be hangouts. But try not to smoke into my face, I have asthma.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Sentinels dispatched.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
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.
Wait, no. It's just sad, because I'd rather not know that people who are otherwise decent are retards at least some of the time. Oh well.
sheri do you think lesser of me for smoking?
But Defender, that isn't the case here.
That's not what Rank's boss is talking about.
He's talking about giving people a bonus in pay because they don't smoke, with the express purpose of putting pressure on those who do.
That goes above and beyond a work dress code or requiring certain conduct in the workplace.
It goes into telling people how they have to live their personal life, and effectively docking them in pay because they don't.
why is smoking tobacco legal and smoking pot illegal
if we had found pot before tobacco do you think pot would be legal now and people would be all, what? smoke tobacco? that shit'll kill ya!