I don’t care one whit what a smoker (or non-smoker) does on those breaks. But others have mentioned on previous threads (and avabeth mentions here) is that there is an assumption that smokers “gotta” have that smoke break. But in some workplaces, the non-smokers have to stay behind, keep working and cover for the smokers. The non-smokers actually get less breaks—less time to relax.
This sucks, big time. This should be illegal. I’ve never had a job where I was expected to cover for a smoker while they took several minutes off a few times a day to smoke. But if I ever do, I’ll also start to develop some “habit” that reqires me to also go out for several minutes, a few times a day. I don’t know what it will be—maybe it’ll be to drink a Pepsi, or chew some gum, I don’t know. But if they go out, I go out. Damned if I’m going be expected to keep working and cover for them. And if I am not allowed to go out to chew my gum or drink my Pepsi, they shouldn’t be able to go out to smoke. Fair’s fair.
If smoking was allowed at work then this problem simply wouldn’t exist. I know someones gonna say something about passive smoking (of which no evidence exists) but thats not what really bothers you, you just don’t like smokers because for whatever reason you’re prejudiced.
So what you are saying is that even though you’ve never actually experienced anything that has to do with the current discourse you seem to feel that you have something to contribute? What kind of kind of social engineering fascist are you?
No smoker here has ever asked more than what any other person expects. The ONLY thing that should concern you is how well you do your job. But Noooooo. You feel it necessary to pass judgement on your co workers for the choices (you remember ‘choices’ don’t you? as in the whole reason this country was founded)they make. You wanna go out? Then go out. Avail yourself of the very same freedoms that smokers do. Just don’t spend the entire time complaining about the cold while you stand next to the dumpster, ok?
You know, back when I waited tables, one of the non-smoking servers used to get pissed that the smoking servers got to take smoke breaks during slow times.
She implimented something called the “cookie break”. She brought a cookie with her to work every day and each time a smoker would take a break, she’d go next for the same amount of time and munch on her cookie in back.
No one said a damn thing. She was allowed, after all. Preferential treatment shouldn’t be given to smokers, that’d be silly. Everyone was happy and no one bitched about those damn smokers or said really stupid shit, like they should all rot, or they shouldn’t be hired in the first place.
Phillip Morris, the largest manufacturer of tobacco products, seems to agree with the idea that smoking in public places should be regulated due the potential harm secondhand smoke causes.
DarkPrince- smoking and having children are both choices. Some choices are inherently more beneficial than others and have valid situations to miss work. Sometimes a parent, whether it is a mother or father, does miss work. Not just WOMEN, you misogynist halfwit! My husband and I take turns when a kid gets sick so that we dont rack up too many missed hours at work. And guess what- we don’t smoke so our kids are not likely to be as sick as often as a smokers kid!!
What? What? You mean that I can’t contribute to this thread—why? Because I have an opinion you don’t like? Huh?
Not according to avabeth. Read her post. That’s what prompted mine. And in previous threads, others have experienced the same thing: they were expected to keep working while their smoking co-workers got a smoke break.
Here, let me quote her here:
I don’t give a shit about their choices. I don’t give a shit whether they smoke or not. All I’m saying that is if anyone ever asks me to “cover” for a smoking coworker so they can have their fix, I’m not doing it. I’ll be out there having a break with them, drinking Pepsi or chewing gum.
This would be, I take it, something that many bosses would not like. Because that would mean everyone would get an “extra” break, not just the smokers. Once again, read avabeth’s post. She was expected, as a non-smoker, to “pick up the slack” while her smoking peers took a break.
You’re missing the entire point. Many times people have related that they were not encouraged to “go out.” They, because they didn’t smoke, were expected to “stay in” and keep working. Only the smokers got to “go out.”
You think this is fair? Yes, or no? That’s my only point, my only beef here, my only question. Nothing else. Let’s stick to what I actually am discussing here, instead of getting all hysterical and making up stuff that you think I’m talking about.
A shitty worker is a shitty worker, smoker or not. A good worker is a good worker, smoker or not. Relax. When I go out for a smoke, I work my ass off when I get back while a lot of the non-smokers go about the entire day doing a half ass job and wasting a shitload more time doing non-work related things. And these same lazy bastards bitch about a hard working individual getting a nicotine fix.
I also think that rostfrei being a former smoker might have had something to do with her being a total bitch to this two pack a day smoker who simply wanted to freeze her ass off in order to feel decent. “If I can go without it, so can she” type thing. I don’t know how heavy a smoker you were, rostfrei, but have at least a bit of empathy.
Here is a link concerning the validity of second hand smoke causing serious long term health damage to non-smokers by none other than Cecil himself http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html. Although I am by no means advocating having smokers smoke the entire day long at their desks in front of their coworkers. Not because I have a lot of concern about the coworkers getting lung cancer, but simply because I understand that non-smokers are bothered by the smoke.
I have a sneaky suspicion that you had other issues with this woman, rostfrei, other than the mere fact that she wanted to take a few minutes to get her fix. And while it might have been technically legal for you to refuse to let this woman smoke, it doesn’t make you any less of a bitch for refusing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my beef, and the complaint of avabeth.
Unless you can guarantee that every smoker works their ass off and every non-smoker who is asked to “pick up the slack” is a slacker, I don’t care, don’t care, don’t care about how hard you work. Let me repeat: DON’T CARE.
If a boss thinks that certain workers (non-smoker or not) are slacking off, take it up with them. Make them work their share or cut them loose. If a boss thinks that certain workers work harder and deserve an extra break, great—but it should have nothing to do with whether they smoke or not.
I doubt that bosses cherry-pick which smokers get a break and which don’t. I don’t believe for a second that the majority of workplaces that allow smokers extra breaks (like avabeth’s former job) tell some smoking employees, “I’d love to allow you to have a smoke break, but you are a slacker and therefore you can’t have one.” I doubt that these bosses tell non-smokers, “Since you are such a hard worker, we’ll let you have an extra break, along with the hard-working smokers.”
I think it rarely works like that.
I am not expecting that non-smokers not have a smoke break. I don’t give a shit either way. As long as they go smoke outside, don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. All I’m saying is, that no boss better ask me to stay inside and keep working while select employees (the smokers) are outside. If the smokers get a special break, I’m gonna be out there too, drinking Pepsi or chewing gum. And if the boss won’t let me go outside and chew gum, then I see no reason why the smokers get to go outside.
I said anyone with kids, and only mentioned women alone for being pregnant. Assuming that:
A) men don’t get pregnant
B) the men don’t go to every single thing needed to miss work for the pregnancy, and
C) there are single mothers that get pregnant who most likely skew the results into women missing more time than men.
I’m going to have to guess that women miss more time from work than men do due to pregnancies. I could be totally wrong in this assumption, and will gladly admit it if shown evidence, but at the moment I don’t care to go check it up, as it doesn’t really have much to do with the point I was trying to make.
My point is that you’re saying that somehow because you have kids, it’s ok to miss work for their things, but a smoker is evil since they’d miss more work for health reasons.
So on one hand, we have you and your husband who had kids (You made the choice to have them unless your birth control failed, in which case you made the choice not to have an abortion or put them up for adoption) asking for days off to take care of them being sick or maybe going to watch them play Sheep #3 in their annual Cub Scout Bobcat Wrestling Jamboree.
On the other hand, we have someone who, again, made the choice to smoke, and is missing work since they’re dying of lung cancer or some other wonderful disease like that.
So what, besides the fact that they’re your kids and are thus precious and everyone should make exceptions for you, makes you missing time at work for the kiddies any more “valid” and “beneficial” than a smoker, who was stupid to start an addictive habit, missing work so they can go hack up a lung? Someone’s gotta pick up the slack for both you and the smoker missing work, unless you make your lost time up yourself, in which case why the in the name of L. Ron Hubbard’s man-boobs do you give a shit if the person misses work if they’re not putting more of a load on you?
And come on, did I really need a :rolleyes: face stuck on the end of that last post to show you I was being sarcastic and wouldn’t really refuse jobs to parents, women, or religious people?
I recommend that, instead of lobbying for the right to ask if a potential employee smokes, you lobby for unlimited health care paid for by someone else. That way, you could afford to have surgery for that sinus problem that prevents you from smelling the very obvious odor of tobacco smoke on someone.
My colleagues and I are allowed 2 15-minute breaks per day, or 1 for every four hours worked.
My bosses, bless them, don’t much care how we take them.
I generally break mine up into four 6 or 7 minute breaks. Get up, go out & smoke one cigarette, come back to work.
The other four phone clerks, though, combine theirs. So they cover for me for six minutes at a pop, while I cover them for half-an hour.
Is it fair? I dunno. What is fair, though, is the amount of time spent on break. I don’t take more than 30 minutes a day, nor do they.
It works for us. If I or they were taking more than the time set down in our work rules, then there’d be a problem.
My non-smoking colleagues are entitled to the same about of breaktime that I am. The world does not revolve around me. Not because I’m a smoker, anyway.
Our boss allows a 10 minute break every 1.5 hours, ( I DO like my boss) and the smokers head outside while the rest mingle and natter amongst themselves in the office.
The worst offenders for taking a few extra minutes are those who chat rather than the smokers who ‘do their thing’ then come inside and get back to work.
