# The world revolves around smokers.. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 24, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927 "2003-12-24T23:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/161 "2004-01-02T07:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ellis Dee \* > > Breaks mandated by law? _derisive snort_ Did I not agree with you a couple posts up about the service industry “cover for me” smokes? That’s not what I’m debating. You’re missing the point. You feel “entitled” to “extras” because of your self-described miserable habit. You expect to work less because of it. You expect to get _paid_ to work less because of it. Why not try this on for size? Take extra breaks, and stay late to make up for it. Sounds fair to me. Now, if the place of employment has a quota-based system, where everyone is expected to produce so many widgets per day, then I really don’t give a rat’s ass who smokes or when or whatever. They can go out to smoke every ten minutes for all I care. As long as they make their quota, everyone’s happy. But that’s not how it works when people are paid by the hour. By the hour means that they work the hour, not smoke (or drink Pepsi) during part of it. And if it’s okay for _some_ people to get paid to smoke, then it should be okay for everyone else to consume whatever addictive or pleasing substance they want and also get paid for it. > [@](#): > > I see your **I DON’T CARE** and raise you a **WHAT I DO AT WORK IS NOT YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS** Most employees consider “unfairness” (watching someone work less and take more breaks) to be something that is their business. Why should some employees get “extras” while others don’t? That’s a legitimate question that most people have. You don’t mind if you get paid less but are expected to work more? Fine. But others do care. > [@](#): > > You are the one who feels that the world revolves around you, not the smoker. I beg to differ. > [@](#): > > The smoker doesn’t care what you do with your time; but you seem eager to track every moment of another person’s time, so that you can work exactly as many minutes as every smoker. Oh, you speak for every smoker on earth? You have a hive-mind? Funny, I think I recall reading posts from some smokers on this very thread who _don’t_ think that smokers should get extra breaks. > [@](#): > > You have made it abundantly clear that the problem you have is a personal, self-centered, holier-than-thou judgement that you are superior to smokers, and by god you won’t let them get away with anything. You are highly motivated to see it this way, because you feel you are some injured party and a hapless victim of a perfectly wonderful habit that only “whiners” complain about. (All those people puking and having their lungs shut down when they smell smoke—yeah, what a bunch of _whiners._) You think that the world revolves around you and that you _deserve_ extras because you _chose_ to take on a habit that you knew ahead of time was addictive and was not universally favored. You chose to do it anyway, and now feel ill-used because, surprise! People are not enchanted with it and don’t want to have it inflicted upon them. > [@](#): > > I hope to run across you in the real world someday. I would love to blow smoke in your face and watch you hack and sputter at the injustice of it all. And what if I puked on your shoes? See, this only reinforces the impression that I’ve been getting—you think it’s _all_ about you. You and your “deserved” extras. You and your pathetic victimhood—being _forced_, _ **forced** _, I tell you, to SMOKE! You have no control, they _MAKE_ you smoke! And because you _MUST_ smoke, they are so horribly _CRUEL_ to “whine” about your smoking so you are **FORCED** to go outside! It’s so heartless! Oh my goodness! There you are, **FORCED** to smoke, (no choice at all in the matter) and therefore **FORCED** to go out to the Sahara Desert or the Gulag or Antartica and are **FORCED** to endure these conditions because you are completely helpless—it’s completely beyond your control—you are **FORCED** to smoke! You poor, pitiful victim, you! To have such a burden inflicted upon you! To _have_ to smoke! What evil person **MADE** you smoke and continues to put that gun to your head and **FORCES** you to continue? Maybe it’s some terrorist plot! Did you ever consider that, you poor helpless victim, you? Here—let me put a cool cloth on your forehead—I know what a burden it must be to be **FORCED** to go to Antarctica several times a day because you have that gun to your head, **FORCING** you to smoke! Lucky for me, as much as I love Pepsi, I don’t see anyone with a gun to my head. So I can choose to not drink it. But who knows—maybe the evil terrorist plot that is **forcing** you to smoke will come to all of us Pepsi drinkers next. Who knows what evil lurks? > [@](#): > > I was trying to illustrate the point that you seem to feel the smoker’s break is some magical fantasy world where life is a hill covered in daffodils, when in fact smoke breaks are miserable adventures much of the time. So what? I still don’t care. You _choose_ this misery, willingly, with full knowledge of how miserable it is, and yet you want—what? Extra accomodations anyway? Forget it. You _chose_ misery. Enjoy your misery. > [@](#): > > I was trying to point out that if you had to be miserable on your break, you wouldn’t take it, but begrudge others the same choice. You miss the point: You don’t _have_ to be miserable on your break. You can stay inside and not smoke. > [@](#): > > Yosemitebabe, consider my diabetic example again. What if the diabetes was caused by obesity? That is a self-destructive choice just like smoking. Would that make any difference? True, it is a self-destructive choice. The difference is, (once again) insulin is a life-sustaining thing. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone to _die_ (or risk death) in order to not take “extra” breaks. > [@](#): > > How about somebody who needs to go to 5 dentist visits in a month because they got all their teeth knocked out in the hockey league they play in on Saturdays? That is also a self-destructive choice. And don’t most people have to use personal time or sick time when they go to the doctor? I have never had a boss _pay_ me regular time while I visited the doctor. > [@](#): > > Lots of self-destructive choices can lead to less time working when you are working; you have no way of knowing if they make up the time on weekends or after you leave for the night or early in the morning, no matter if it’s due to smoking or doctor’s visits or whatever. And once again, usually when people work less, they get _paid less_. Or they use up their sick time or personal time. Not so with smoking breaks, which are a steady day-in, day-out thing—every day, every day, every day. Getting paid to smoke on a daily basis. That ain’t the same as taking a sick day or personal day, now is it? And it isn’t as if sick days are unlimited—once they’re all used up, they’re used up. No more getting paid to be sick. Unlike smokers like you, who apparently expect to get paid to smoke. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/162 "2004-01-02T08:00:15Z")
_sigh_ I haven’t worked for an hourly wage since the eighties. It’s been all white-collar salaried positions for me. I have a cigarette whenever I damn well please, and think nothing of it. I haven’t sat on my ass “taking a break” since the hourly wage days. How is it that you know the smokers work less? Do you see them arrive and leave? Do you monitor their lunch breaks? Do you monitor exactly how much time they work? And do you then factor in any time you may have spent on a messageboard, or chatting with coworkers, or taking personal phone calls? How, exactly, do you know that they work less than you? You play the martyr to perfection, but your cries of injustice ring hollow in the white collar world. > [@](#): > > Why not try this on for size? Take extra breaks, and stay late to make up for it. Sounds fair to me. It sounds fair because it is fair, and I always do. It’s rare for me to leave the office within two hours of when the hourly group clocks out. Of course, I generally don’t waltz in before 10:00am, but that’s another story. Lunch is about as long as most people’s coffe breaks…just enough time to wolf down a sandwich at my desk. 10 smokes in 10 hours is a good workday, though it’s usually 6-8 smokes. But what happens? My poor boss has to hear shit from whining ninnies like you. Why don’t you mind your own business? I repeat my question: how do you know how much they work? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > [regarding inclement weather conditions on a smoke break] > So what? I still don’t care. You choose this misery, willingly, with full knowledge of how miserable it is, and yet you want—what? Extra accomodations anyway? Forget it. You chose misery. Enjoy your misery. But you would deny me my misery by denying me my smoke break. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > > > [@](#): > > > > _I said:_ > > The smoker doesn’t care what you do with your time; but you seem eager to track every moment of another person’s time, so that you can work exactly as many minutes as every smoker. > > Oh, you speak for every smoker on earth? You have a hive-mind? Funny, I think I recall reading posts from some smokers on this very thread who don’t think that smokers should get extra breaks. Hourly rate service jobs? We all agree. I’m talking about salaried, white collar positions. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yosemitebabe_ > See, this only reinforces the impression that I’ve been getting—you think it’s all about you. You and your “deserved” extras. You and your pathetic victimhood—being forced, forced, I tell you, to SMOKE! You have no control, they MAKE you smoke! And because you MUST smoke, they are so horribly CRUEL to “whine” about your smoking so you are FORCED to go outside! It’s so heartless! Oh my goodness! There you are, FORCED to smoke, (no choice at all in the matter) and therefore FORCED to go out to the Sahara Desert or the Gulag or Antartica and are FORCED to endure these conditions because you are completely helpless—it’s completely beyond your control—you are FORCED to smoke! > > You poor, pitiful victim, you! To have such a burden inflicted upon you! To have to smoke! What evil person MADE you smoke and continues to put that gun to your head and FORCES you to continue? Maybe it’s some terrorist plot! Did you ever consider that, you poor helpless victim, you? Here—let me put a cool cloth on your forehead—I know what a burden it must be to be FORCED to go to Antarctica several times a day because you have that gun to your head, FORCING you to smoke! > > Lucky for me, as much as I love Pepsi, I don’t see anyone with a gun to my head. So I can choose to not drink it. But who knows—maybe the evil terrorist plot that is forcing you to smoke will come to all of us Pepsi drinkers next. Who knows what evil lurks? Was that a psychotic break? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/163 "2004-01-02T08:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ellis Dee \* > _sigh_ I haven’t worked for an hourly wage since the eighties. It’s been all white-collar salaried positions for me. I have a cigarette whenever I damn well please, and think nothing of it. I haven’t sat on my ass “taking a break” since the hourly wage days. And do your non-smoking brethren also get to have “Pepsi breaks” whenever they please? If so, there is nothing really to discuss. There’s nothing wrong with that. They take their breaks as they see fit, you take your breaks, everyone gets their work done, no problem. If, however, the non-smokers are not _allowed_ to take that Pepsi break, then there is an inequity there and it has to be one of two ways: either everyone takes breaks when they see fit, or everyone adheres to the same break schedule. Do you object to this? Do you feel entitled to more because you smoke? > [@](#): > > How is it that you know the smokers work less? Do you see them arrive and leave? Do you monitor their lunch breaks? Do you monitor exactly how much time they work? And do you then factor in any time you may have spent on a messageboard, or chatting with coworkers, or taking personal phone calls? All other things being equal (which I know they aren’t always) when someone _takes more breaks they work less._ This is rather obvious, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > How, exactly, do you know that they work less than you? How do you know that smokers produce the same amount of work as non-smokers? > [@](#): > > It sounds fair because it is fair, and I always do. It’s rare for me to leave the office within two hours of when the hourly group clocks out. Of course, I generally don’t waltz in before 10:00am, but that’s another story. If you stay later to do extra work and compensate for the “extra” time you took, then there is no inequity and no reason for complaint, now is there? > [@](#): > > But what happens? My poor boss has to hear shit from whining ninnies like you. Why don’t you mind your own business? I would not complain to a boss unless there was an inequity. My idea of inequity means: smokers producing less, taking more time off and not “making up” for it. And/or non-smokers not being allowed to take the same amount of time off to drink Pepsi or chew gum. If both smokers and non-smokers are allowed an equal amount of flexibility in their breaks, and there is no large disparity in the amount of work being produced, there is no inequity. And therefore, no reason for complaint. > [@](#): > > But you would deny me my misery by denying me my smoke break. Only if the same breaks are not allowed for everyone else. What? Do you _seriously_ think that you should have extras because you smoke? > [@](#): > > Was that a psychotic break? It was deliciously _fun_ mocking that poor-pitiful-me line about how tragic it is that you are **forced** to go outside and you **have** to smoke. Where’s that gun to your head, anyway? You make it sound like others are _doing_ something to you—almost as if your smoking is some sort of tragic burden that someone else foisted upon you, against your will. And now all of us meanies are making up false complaints and “whining” about how the smoke bugs us, when it’s really not your fault and no one really has a justifiable complaint about the smoke anyway. They are just trying to be tough on poor victimized you. You’ve got that gun to your head, after all. Won’t anyone have _pity_ on poor little ol’ you? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/164 "2004-01-02T09:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > And do your non-smoking brethren also get to have “Pepsi breaks” whenever they please? You do not listen. I don’t know and I don’t care; it is not any of my business. If it were up to me, I do not see a good reason to have a “pepsi break” when you can drink pepsi at your desk. A “fresh air” break, however, makes perfect sense to me. It’d be a tough sell, if I were the boss, to convince me that you should be able to sit on your fat ass for 6 minutes in the break room out of some sort of wounded pride righteous indignation. It would appear infantile and I would look for the first excuse I could find to let you go. At least the smokers aren’t crying about “I need a smoke break because she took a break so I get one.” They cry about “I need a smoke break because I am jonesing for a cigarette so bad I can’t concentrate.” That at least shows some relevance toward the job at hand, as opposed to a gradeschool-level mentality crying “but it’s not fair!” Your arguments show no awareness of the intricacies of corporate life. If all hell is breaking loose, clearly I cannot peel away for a cigarette. But let’s say this is a quiet day for me, where I am designing the layout to table structures or a user interface. Or even better, trying to wrap my head around a complex algorithm. There will be many more breaks on a day like that. Maybe upwards of a dozen. They help me focus. Sort of like a writer not staring at a blank page. Now let’s say on this same day, you are busy. All your arguments to this point say that you get a dozen pepsi breaks. Cut to tomorrow. I’m busy as hell, and you are not. I take no breaks, so you don’t get any? Are you 10 years old? My breaks have nothing to do with you whatsoever, and your breaks have nothing to do with me. You make the arguments of a child. And you still have never addressed the question of how you know how many minutes a day smokers work. You just assume that if you see them take a break when you are not taking a break, you are getting shortchanged. That makes you selfish, self-centered, egotistical, self-righteous, and a bitch to boot. > [@](#): > > If, however, the non-smokers are not _allowed_ to take that Pepsi break, then there is an inequity there and it has to be one of two ways: either everyone takes breaks when they see fit, or everyone adheres to the same break schedule. Do you object to this? Do you feel entitled to more because you smoke? I don’t give a fuck what other people do. You are the one on a highhorse about “if they get it, I want it”. And a “break schedule” is a concept so foreign to white collar jobs as to be irrelevant by the fourth post on this page. > [@](#): > > All other things being equal (which I know they aren’t always) when someone _takes more breaks they work less._ This is rather obvious, don’t you think? No, I think you are a complete idiot. Unless you monitor when they arrive, when they leave, when and for how long they take lunch, and when and for how long they take breaks, and when and for how long they make personal calls, surf the net, and chat on messageboards, then you don’t having a fucking clue how much they work, and have no basis for your whiny bitching. > [@](#): > > How do you know that smokers produce the same amount of work as non-smokers? If you stay later to do extra work and compensate for the “extra” time you took, then there is no inequity and no reason for complaint, now is there? So why do whiny bitches like you complain about the smoking breaks? > [@](#): > > I would not complain to a boss unless there was an inequity. That’s my fucking point, you idiot. **YOU DON’T KNOW.** > [@](#): > > My idea of inequity means: smokers producing less, taking more time off and not “making up” for it. And/or non-smokers not being allowed to take the same amount of time off to drink Pepsi or chew gum. How the fuck do you propose to have this knowledge? > [@](#): > > If both smokers and non-smokers are allowed an equal amount of flexibility in their breaks, and there is no large disparity in the amount of work being produced, there is no inequity. And therefore, no reason for complaint. Yet people just like you have complained when they see me going out for a smoke. > [@](#): > > Only if the same breaks are not allowed for everyone else. What? Do you _seriously_ think that you should have extras because you smoke? How do you have any knowledge of extras? Your words in this thread show you to be eager to accept the martyr’s role; I would be stunned if you knew anything about which you complained. > [@](#): > > It was deliciously _fun_ mocking that poor-pitiful-me line about how tragic it is that you are **forced** to go outside and you **have** to smoke. > > Where’s that gun to your head, anyway? You make it sound like others are _doing_ something to you—almost as if your smoking is some sort of tragic burden that someone else foisted upon you, against your will. And now all of us meanies are making up false complaints and “whining” about how the smoke bugs us, when it’s really not your fault and no one really has a justifiable complaint about the smoke anyway. They are just trying to be tough on poor victimized you. You’ve got that gun to your head, after all. Won’t anyone have _pity_ on poor little ol’ you? I give up. Take a midol and shove a tampon up your bleeding cunt. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/165 "2004-01-02T10:31:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ellis Dee \* > You do not listen. I don’t know and I don’t care; it is not any of my business. Ah. Of course not. You get your breaks when you see fit, so you wouldn’t be paying attention _if_ others were itching for a break but couldn’t have one, because their reasons maybe weren’t “good” enough. > [@](#): > > A “fresh air” break, however, makes perfect sense to me. It’d be a tough sell, if I were the boss, to convince me that you should be able to sit on your fat ass for 6 minutes in the break room out of some sort of wounded pride righteous indignation. Do you seriously think that the _only_ reason I’d take a break is because someone else is getting one? Don’t you think that _every_ non-smoker who wants a break really _wants_ it? Like maybe they need to get (like you mentioned) fresh air, or to close their eyes for a few seconds and decompress, or whatever? Why the hell do you think anyone would bitch about someone else getting “extras”? _Because they sure as hell could use those “extras” themselves._ > [@](#): > > They cry about “I need a smoke break because I am jonesing for a cigarette so bad I can’t concentrate.” And that’s the crux of it. You think that your reason for getting an extra break is a _good_ reason, but cannot fathom that every other person probably has an equally valid (to them) reason as well. And they _complain_ because their perfectly valid (in their estimation) reasons for wanting to take an extra break are not honored (if in fact they are not) while yours are. > [@](#): > > If all hell is breaking loose, clearly I cannot peel away for a cigarette. But let’s say this is a quiet day for me, where I am designing the layout to table structures or a user interface. Or even better, trying to wrap my head around a complex algorithm. And the non-smoker might find that drinking a Pepsi or closing their eyes for a few minutes will also help them work better. But if everyone’s “reasons” for wanting an “extra” break are not regarded equally—if some people are considered “special” and therefore are granted the extra breaks while others are not, the others who can’t get those extra breaks are gonna bitch. Because as far as they are concerned, their desire to drink Pepsi and relax for a minute are just as valid as getting a nic fix. > [@](#): > > I take no breaks, so you don’t get any? Are you 10 years old? My breaks have nothing to do with you whatsoever, and your breaks have nothing to do with me. If I am not allowed to have _any_ Pepsi breaks or fresh air breaks or closing my eyes for a second breaks, while I see you daily traipsing out and smoking, then yeah, it will piss me off. Once again, why are your nic fits more “deserving” than my Pepsi breaks? If, however, I am allowed to take Pepsi breaks as needed, I wouldn’t give a shit about how much you smoke, now would I? > [@](#): > > You make the arguments of a child. And you still have never addressed the question of how you know how many minutes a day smokers work. I don’t know, and you don’t know either. It’s one of those things that might be obvious in one workplace and not at all obvious in another. But one thing does seem to make sense (as I mentioned before, if you would only pay attention) is, _all other things being equal_, the one who takes more breaks will have less time to do work. Unless you think that those who take more breaks enter some sort of special time warp where they take extra time off and yet still have the same amount of minutes to work. > [@](#): > > You just assume that if you see them take a break when you are not taking a break, you are getting shortchanged. If the employer _only_ allows smokers extra breaks, yeah. If I want to take a Pepsi break, if I’m _desperate_ for a Pepsi break, but I am stuck at my desk while the smokers all get to take extra breaks on a regular basis, then why the hell wouldn’t that piss me off? > [@](#): > > No, I think you are a complete idiot. Unless you monitor when they arrive, when they leave, when and for how long they take lunch, and when and for how long they take breaks, and when and for how long they make personal calls, surf the net, and chat on messageboards, then you don’t having a fucking clue how much they work, and have no basis for your whiny bitching. You mean that you _never_ have encountered a workplace where it is common knowledge who is the “dead wood” and who really busts their butt? True, there will be times when no one really knows what others are doing. But I seriously doubt that coworkers _never_ have a feel of who is working hard and who is goofing off. Hell, every week or so we read a rant on these boards about a slacker or worthless coworker. How do these people _know_ that their coworkers are less productive, without monitoring their every move? > [@](#): > > So why do whiny bitches like you complain about the smoking breaks? Who says I would? I wouldn’t, if there was no inequity that I could see. > [@](#): > > **YOU DON’T KNOW.** You mean I wouldn’t _know_ that someone was regularly going out for a smoking break, while I was _not_ allowed to go out for Pepsi breaks or fresh air breaks? You mean that it would be _impossible_ for me to figure this out, or for anyone else to figure this out? > [@](#): > > I give up. Take a midol and shove a tampon up your bleeding cunt. My goodness. Up until now I figured we were having a semi-amusing little Pit fight peppered with sarcasm, but now I see that you are really nothing more than a nasty, ill-tempered fellow. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/166 "2004-01-02T15:12:37Z")
> [@](#): > > originally posted by yosemitebabe > I consider that “not working” and I’ve never seen a boss not be bothered just because someone was “not working” inside rather than outside. If I, a non-smoker, stop working to drink Pepsi or shoot the breeze, I will (and should) be told to “get back to work.” You know, I never mentioned a boss being bothered. The reason I didn’t is because my boss couldn’t be bothered by smoking breaks, or any other type of break even if he were so inclined. He works about a mile away from me, sees me once or twice a month and speaks to me on the phone maybe twice a week. The people who sometimes complain and make comments are the others working in the office, who may not smoke, but stop working for other reasons. They are not being told to “get back to work” when they’re making a personal phone call, or shooting the breeze, or reading the newspaper. Even when I was in college, working at fast food hourly jobs, when there weren’t any customers waiting, we could step into the kitchen and have a soda- and it didn’t count against our break time. Couldn’t do that for a cigarette (had to go into the smoking section of the dining area), but I guarantee that some of the people who were inclined to complain about smokers “extra breaks” didn’t account for their soda breaks when they were getting annoyed. > [@](#): > > True, there will be times when no one really knows what others are doing. But I seriously doubt that coworkers never have a feel of who is working hard and who is goofing off. Hell, every week or so we read a rant on these boards about a slacker or worthless coworker. How do these people know that their coworkers are less productive, without monitoring their every move? It’s entirely possible to know that someone is unproductive without knowing exactly how many minutes they spend working. I have a caseload. Cases get assigned to me from others in my office when a particular event occurs. Once I get that case, I can evaluate the quality of the work done by the person it was previously assigned to. But I can’t tell how many hours the poor quality work took- that person could be spending ten hours a week working or fifty… When one of my counterparts asks me for help when their caseload is half the size of mine, I can be pretty sure that person is less productive than I am. But I still don’t know how many hours they spent working in a particular week. And I can’t know unless I monitor when they come in, when they leave, how long they take for lunch , how much time they spend on the phone, etc. > [@](#): > > But that’s not how it works when people are paid by the hour. By the hour means that they work the hour, not smoke (or drink Pepsi) during part of it. **Ellis Dee** originally asked you about white collar jobs. He later mentioned salaried jobs. You seem to have a particular sort of job in mind- one where people are not permitted to leave their desks except to smoke, and where people are permitted a certain amount of time for breaks and supervisors keep track of the time, and productiveness is directly related to how much time is spent working and where people are paid by the hour. There are plenty of jobs like that- but there are also plenty that are not. And the fact that the job isn’t like that _doesn’t keep people from complaining._ As an example- my sister works for a city agency. A year or two ago, a local newspaper had a little article which said that one of the managers took twelve smoking breaks in a single day, adding up to about an hour. Sounds bad to you so far, right. He ended up being fired, apparently because of the publicity. Probably sounds fine to you . The article also said he routinely worked twelve hour days. I know from personal knowledge that the city requires its employees to work 7 hour days, and that since he was a manager, he was paid no more for working 60 hour weeks than he would have been paid for 35 hour weeks. So by taking an hour a day in smoking breaks he was only working four hours a day for free instead of five.But still someone complained- otherwise the reporter and photographer wouldn’t have been outside watching and timing him because they wouldn’t have known if someone didn’t alert them. ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/167 "2004-01-02T15:14:43Z")
> [@](#): > > You know this already.(medical condition not comparable to tobacco addiction) **I don’t believe for a second that you seriously think that a tobacco addiction is the same as diabetes.** I agree! Will omeone please just give that troll a smoke break, will ya!😉 Btw, good rebuttal, yosemitebabe. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/168 "2004-01-02T22:35:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by doreen \* > but I guarantee that some of the people who were inclined to complain about smokers “extra breaks” didn’t account for their soda breaks when they were getting annoyed. I would think those people would be wildly out of line. My premise has been: **IF** certain kinds of breaks are “blessed” while others are not (smoking breaks: golden, Pepsi breaks: unjustified) then of course people are going to bitch, and rightfuly so. One person’s desire to drink a Pepsi is just as valid as another’s wish to smoke. > [@](#): > > **Ellis Dee** originally asked you about white collar jobs. He later mentioned salaried jobs. You seem to have a particular sort of job in mind- one where people are not permitted to leave their desks except to smoke, and where people are permitted a certain amount of time for breaks and supervisors keep track of the time, and productiveness is directly related to how much time is spent working and where people are paid by the hour. Yes, for the most part, that’s where my mind’s been. But even taking productivity out of it, if some employees are allowed a more fluid and flexible break schedule, and others are not, that also is an inequity. Even if productivity is equal—why should some people (in this case, smokers) get to come and go “as needed,” while others cannot? If, however, the workplace is set up so that _all_ employees are allowed an equally fluid break schedule, then I see absolutely no reason for complaint. > [@](#): > > And the fact that the job isn’t like that _doesn’t keep people from complaining._ I had a job that was like that—salaried, where we took breaks “as needed,” and it _never occurred_ to me to complain about the smokers. Why should I? They got their jobs done and I wasn’t experiencing restrictions that they were not. > [@](#): > > I know from personal knowledge that the city requires its employees to work 7 hour days, and that since he was a manager, he was paid no more for working 60 hour weeks than he would have been paid for 35 hour weeks. So by taking an hour a day in smoking breaks he was only working four hours a day for free instead of five. Well **of course** there was no reason to fire this fellow, since he more than made up for the time he took off. I’ve been talking about _all other things being equal_, the one who takes more breaks is probably going to do less work. That stands to reason. Less time=less work. If they “make it up later,” then why the hell would anyone care? ---
**Author:** ![Chairman\_Pow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Chairman\_Pow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chairman_Pow)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/169 "2004-01-03T03:12:48Z")
Is this a bad time to bring up the [fuzzy costs] associated with increased group healthcare benefits, lowered real wages (on account of the health care) and people missing from their desks when one goes to look for them (granted, some people spend a long time in the crapper when you’re looking for them…) and potentially having tasks put off 'till later on account of smoke breaks (granted, that’s a poor employee, but…)? ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/170 "2004-01-03T07:18:02Z")
**Yosemitebabe** (who, I feel is making the most sense here, overall, and I’m a smoker), how would you feel about my smoke breaks, that are taken outside, along with some work? I’m a case worker, and I recieve many letters from constituents. If I’m going downstairs anyway, I usually take a couple down with me and read them there, instead of at my desk. Would you still have a problem with my smoke breaks? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/171 "2004-01-03T07:54:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lezlers \* > **Yosemitebabe** (who, I feel is making the most sense here, overall, and I’m a smoker), how would you feel about my smoke breaks, that are taken outside, along with some work? > > I’m a case worker, and I recieve many letters from constituents. If I’m going downstairs anyway, I usually take a couple down with me and read them there, instead of at my desk. > > Would you still have a problem with my smoke breaks? Oh, absolutely not. No problem at all. Just as long as I can bring a Pepsi with me and go outside to do some work too. 😉 I reviewed this thread and I noticed that I kept on repeating the same thing, over and over: about “inequity.” About, “if one group of people gets extra breaks, _everyone_ should get extra breaks.” That’s all it’s been about for me. Look—it isn’t about me wanting to _take away_ breaks from smokers. I want to _join_ them. I want to be included. (Not included in the smoking, but I hope you know what I mean.) If I had my way, _everyone_ would be allowed to have that “extra,” not _no one._ If everyone is included, or everyone is free to have “fluid” breaks, then what does it matter what the breaks are _for?_ It matters not to me. On a seemingly unrelated note, I had some bosses who thought that anything related to kids was a good enough reason to leave early or have time off, but if you didn’t have kids, suck it up and stay late. (I even had a boss tell me that I couldn’t stay home to look after handicapped relatives the day of the Northridge Quake—you know, the big quake in LA in '94—because I wasn’t looking after kids. So to this boss, kids were important, handicapped adults were not. And this is a little like that, but on a far more trivial way. To some bosses, smoking is “important” enough to warrant special treatment, but Pepsi or just relaxing because you’re about to pop a cork isn’t. And that **pisses me off.** Everybody should be treated equally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927.md?page=8)