The world revolves around smokers..

The BBQ Pit
141

Well, sure there’s a rational argument for smoking – it’s the same argument for drinking tequila shooters, or lighting up a doobie, or eating candy, or going skydiving: people enjoy doing it, in spite of the health risks involved.

Sure, we could ban it, just like we banned alcohol via Prohibition or like we ban marijuana today. And we can see how well those measures have worked out.

But let’s draw an important distinction that has gotten muddled in this thread: the difference between what government should be able to do and what private enterprises should be able to do. The ability of the latter to impose restrictions on their employees is broader than the former.

A private employer can deny you employment for pretty much any reason, outside of certain prohibited reasons defined by civil rights laws (race, gender, etc). Which is as it should be. It has been shown that smokers, as a class, lose more productive time than their nonsmoking counterparts, due both to break times and medical leave time taken. That is a legitimate concern for an employer, as are the increased costs to the company’s health-care program, if any such program is offered.

Consider salaried white-collar employees, for whom “breaks” are a fairly fluid concept. Also note that, contra to what some have written earlier in this thread, medical leave is not the equivelant of vacation time, to be taken at a whim; an employer can reasonably expect his employees to take modest steps to minimize their likelihood of needing sick days off.

Sure, many individual smokers are careful, diligent workers who are relatively healthy in spite of their habit. But weeding out the diligent from the unproductive imposes costs of its own; an employer may well find it more cost-effective to essentially play the odds. Particularly for large organizations, making decisions based on carefully tailored evaulations of each individual may not be practical.

But there’s a countervailing interest favoring smokers: a company that refuses to hire or retain smokers is intentionally reducing their available supply of labor. That raises their cost of hiring – it means they will have to interview more candidates, and may need to pay those candidates more money. It also means that they may be passing on talented, creative people who will provide a competitive edge to their competitors.

There are also attendant costs to employee morale – even nonsmokers will probably dislike the notion of their employer dictating their private vices, and may be concerned that their vices will be targeted next (“When they came for the smokers, I said nothing because I was not a smoker; when they came for the doughnut-eaters, I said nothing because I did not eat doughnuts…”). That morale cost will hurt productivity, and may make it more difficult for the company to attract talented people. Again, hiring costs will rise because potential employees will want to be compensated for giving up the right to engage in perfectly legal activities.

In short, the market will sort this out.

142

Are informative hyperlinks and clinical studies neccessary to provide us the common sense that second hand smoke is harmful to one’s health?

Why, for pete sakes?

143

Because that’s how you fight ignorance.

144

Obviously, many things have not been scientifically tested or few tests have been done.
Clinical tests are not always necessary for an individual to impliment ‘good common sense’. The fact that second hand smoke is harmful, needs no proof. If our bodies were designed to smoke, we would’ve been born with chimmneys attached.
I think most everyone concerned with this issue would like to see better scientific proof, sure.

But who pays for the studies done? Our tax dollars?

Sheesh

145

Someone said in this thread that obese people don’t reek, so that’s different than smoking in the office.

They never smelled the desk of the obese guy at my last job. Yikes.

I cannot believe how whiny nonsmokers are. “But they get more breaks! Whaaaa!”

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say someone needs regular insulin injection for diabetes. Say for some reason this has to happen every 2 hours. (Not realistic, but stay with me.) Would you go complaining to HR about the extra breaks they got?

If you would, then you are incredibly whiny and self-centered.

If you would not, then you are judgemental and a little too smug in your superiority.

Other people’s breaks are not your business. Your breaks are your business. Do your job and save the soapboxing for messageboards.

Oh, wait…

146

What a load of bullshit. Getting insulin injections is a life-sustaining activity. Getting a nic-fix is not. No one decides one day, “Gee, I think I’ll become a diabetic.” It happens and it’s always bad news when it does.

Let’s look at it this way: You take on an addictive habit, you deal with the addiction during the scheduled break times. Grow up. It’s not anyone else’s obligation to accomodate you in dealing with your completely self-inflicted addiction. The scheduled break times should suffice to get the nicotine, and if they are not, I assume that the Patch or nicotine gum will calm those nerves.

Or, if your manager is generous and wants to give you “extra” time to feed your addiction, hey, that’s just dandy. Just as long as they give everyone else “extra” time to feed their Pepsi addiction, or coffee addiction, their spearmint gum addiction, or Ding-Dong addiction.

It’s everyone else’s business when they have to “pick up the slack” for the addicted who feel entitled to feed their fix with extra breaks.

147

So you admit that it’s not the extra breaks you have a problem with; it is the smoking itself.

But is it just the smoking, and not the breaks, that you have a problem with? How about white collar jobs where nobody needs to (or even can) “pick up the slack” for them? How about those people taking more breaks? Do you still have a problem then?

148

No, it’s the extra breaks.

All employees should get “extra” breaks to cater to their various self-inflicted addictions (or hell, just preferences), or none. Very simple.

One more time: it’s the extra breaks.

Let’s put it this way: If my boss said that only Coke drinkers could have extra breaks to get that “Coke fix,” while all Mountain Dew drinkers couldn’t get an extra break, and were expected to “pick up the slack,” then I’d have a problem with that. Whether I were a Coke drinker or a Mountain Dew drinker—I’d still mind.

One more time: If they get extra breaks, everyone should get extra breaks. Don’t give a shit what the reason for the “extra” breaks are. Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. My deep and abiding need to have an “extra” break in order to drink Pepsi is no less important than someone else’s deep and abiding need to smoke. I do not think it is proper or fair for a boss to cherrypick which addiction is “important” enough to cater to with “extra” breaks.

One more time: Either everyone gets “extras,” or none. If the boss wants to give “extras” based on merit, that’s fine—but not on the basis of who has what they (the boss) consider to be a “Favored Self-Inflicted Addiction.” That’s bullshit.

149

You repeatedly cite other people having to pick up the slack as part of the problem, but when I removed that from the equation your stance does not soften at all. That tells me that the undue burden on others isn’t what pisses you off.

Let me give you another hypothetical. I’m a smoker, and worked closely with a guy who was a dipper. Both of us are programmers, and my work almost never could be done by someone else, other than him, and about half of his work could only be covered by me.

He’d occasionally come outside with me when I smoked to talk about what we were programming, or the Rangers/Giants. :slight_smile:

But he would normally dip in the office, using a a little cup to spit in. Most of us found it gross, but not so much so that we’d feel the need to complain. Mostly, we’d make fun of him about it.

But let’s say some hyper-anal employee came to work with us. Let’s call her SierraHottie. SierraHottie is completely repulsed by the dipping, so much so that she complains to the boss. The boss takes the dipper aside and says “Looks like fun time is over. No more dipping in the office. Go outside when you need to dip. Don’t take too many dip breaks, though, or somebody will complain and I’ll have to issue an offical policy.”

So now the dipper comes out with me 3 or 4 times a day when I go smoke. (I usually would take 6-8 breaks per day.)

So, do you have a problem with his extra dip breaks?

See, but you do give a shit what the reason is, because you said the insulin breaks were different.

150

Two problems: Picking up slack, and a visible and obvious inequity between the treatment of employees.

That was the boss’s decision. He can ignore the complaints, or he can heed them.

Let me give you a hypothetical: Let’s say that the boss gives not one particle of a damn about smoker’s addictions. Let’s say that the boss makes all smokers adhere to strict, minimum-allowed breaks. No extras, never, no how. But let’s say that this boss just loves to chat in Polish, and therefore anyone who can converse in Polish is welcome to take extra long breaks and shoot the breeze. So only Polish speakers are allowed these extra breaks, but no one else. And needless to say, no smoking would be allowed during the “Polish chat breaks.”

I assume you’d have no problem with this? Especially if you saw the Polish speakers do less work, yet getting the same pay as the smokers who were chained to their desks all day?

I have a problem with the extra dip breaks and the extra smoking breaks. I’d also have a problem with extra Coca-cola breaks, or extra Ding-Dong breaks. If the Mountain Dew drinkers can’t go out to drink their beverage of choice, while the Coca-cola drinkers can, that’s a problem. How many times must that be repeated?

One more time: I give a shit if it’s a self-inflicted addiction. Coca-cola addiction, Ding-Dong addiction—whatever, don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. If someone has voluntarily decided to take on an addictive habit, it’s their job to deal with it without expecting “extras.”

I consider serious medical conditions (like diabetes) to be completely different. And even if I didn’t see any difference and didn’t give a damn, the law does. It makes sure that the handicapped and people with serious medical conditions get proper accomodations and protection in the workplace. Funny—no one ever has seen the need to extend these accomdations to smokers or cola drinkers. Them’s the breaks.

You know this already. I don’t believe for a second that you seriously think that a tobacco addiction is the same as diabetes.

151

But the question is, what exactly counts as breaks? Seriously. I’ve had people where I work complain about the “extra breaks” smokers take when they to go outside the building to smoke. Yet those same people think nothing of sitting in someone else’s office for an hour shooting the breeze, reading the newspaper or eating breakfast after their workday has begin, or spending hours on personal phone conversations. Apparently, those are not “breaks” because they didn’t leave the building.

You were responding to someone who asked about white collar jobs where no one can pick up the slack. Your postition, if I understand it correctly, is that if smokers get a break to smoke, you should get a break to drink Pepsi. But the fact is, I have never had a white collar job where a person needed to leave the building to drink a Pepsi. Or one where there were scheduled break times. If I’m sitting in my office drinking a Pepsi while discussing an article in the newspaper on the phone with my best friend, no one will even notice, or keep track of the amount of time I spend that way, as long as my work is done. But people will notice when someone leaves the building to smoke. It’s almost the opposite of smokers getting extra breaks- no one notices or keeps track of how much time non-smoker A spends on personal phone calls or non-smokers B & C spend shooting the breeze. There’s always someone keeping track of how many times a smoker goes outside to smoke and complaining about “extra breaks”.

It’s one thing to say that smokers shouldn’t get “extra breaks” in a job where others will have to pick up the slack or where the worker is fairly restricted- no eating,drinking or phone calls while you’re at the cash register , teller window or switchboard and you must be at that position whenever you’re not on a scheduled break. It’s another to say that smokers shouldn’t get “extra breaks” in an workplace where the only difference between Pepsi drinkers and smokers is that the smokers can’t indulge at their desks.

152

No, clearly I understand that diabetes and smoking are different reasons for additional breaks. I’m trying to hammer the point into your head that you are not complaining about extra breaks; you are complaining about nicotine breaks. As a smoker, I’d prefer to take no breaks whatsoever and smoke at my desk. Then someone like you complains about the smell, so I am forced to stand out in the rain and cold when I smoke. Then you whine about not getting as many breaks. The only reason I’m taking a break in the first place is because you whined about the smoke.

How about you get the same number of breaks, but you have to weather the same climate. You have to spend your break outside in -20 degree windchill, or 90 degree blazing heat in full office attire. And us guys don’t get to wear skirts or dresses, so you must be wearing socks, shoes, and full length pants in that heat. And you don’t get to pick and choose which days you go out, because we go out every day, rain or shine.

That is the fair way. Would you agree that it is fair? And would you lobby so hard for the breaks if that were the case?

Craving something detracts from productivity. If you get somebody to complain about you drinking pepsi at your desk, then you get to stand in the weather to satisfy your pepsi craving. Until then, you get to stay at your desk. I wish I could stay at my desk for my cigarettes.

As for your Polish-speaking example? I cannot stress this strongly enough: I don’t give a rat’s ass how many breaks anybody else gets. They are not my business.

I don’t whine about “but it’s not faaaaaaiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrr!!!” Life isn’t fair. You too can have extra breaks, but you have to get lung cancer to get them. Sounds like you nonsmokers get the better end of it anyway, so deal with it.

153

Sorry, should have previewed. Would have quoted yb from page 3 if I’d seen doreen sneak in there.

154

I weakly implied, but never stated, btw, that I agree that smoke breaks need to be regulated when the job requires others to pick up the slack.

I have known waitstaff, as I have been known to be a regular at a local watering hole, and have seen the desperate-for-a-smoke-thank-god-the-rush-is-over double smoke countless times.

Having a smoke while the restaurant is hopping, leaving your fellow waitstaff to cover your tables, just ain’t cool.

They have been known to keep a cigarette burning in my ashtray, and each time they walked by, they would take a drag. Seems like a good policy, providing you have some friendly regulars.

155

Breaks are when people stop working and drink Pepsi or smoke.

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.”

Drink Pepsi and work? Fine. Drink Pepsi and kick back and not work? That’s not okay.

The Pepsi drinker is fortunate that they can drink and work at the same time. (If they work in a place that allows them to drink Pepsi at their desks, that is.) If they are addicted to something that doesn’t stink up the place and therefore they are allowed to indulge inside, then they are indeed fortunate. However, if they want to drink Pepsi and stop working to do it, no dice.

I guess the moral of the story is: pick an addiction that can be done indoors without stinking up the place and possibly causing certain sensitive people to have allergic reactions.

I’m complaining about breaks that are not mandated by a law or doctor’s order. Simple as that.

You are “forced” in no way to do anything. You choose to go outside to smoke. You could also choose to not smoke at all, or to smoke during regularly scheduled breaks. You are not helpless or choiceless. You could choose to quit smoking outright. It’s all your choice. You deal with those choices without expecting any extra accomodations in the way of extra breaks.

Oh, cry me a river. You poor victim you. You choose to take on an addictive, stinky habit that causes many people to have adverse reactions, and it’s all about you. You are such a victim. :rolleyes: You have every right to choose to smoke, but your rights end where everyone else’s lungs begin.

If drinking Pepsi is not allowed inside, then I’d do that, or I’d choose not to drink Pepsi at all. See how simple that is? If I don’t like the conditions outside, I can ever so easily choose not to go there! I can wait and have my Pepsi at home!

You can choose to wear a kilt if you like. :smiley:

Once again, no one is dragging you outside in the weather. You can choose to stay inside and not smoke. It’s all about choice. No one is forcing you to do anything! Isn’t that grand?

Sure! Because I can always choose to not go outside if I don’t like the weather outside. I figure, extra breaks on good weather days are a helluva lot better than no extra breaks.

You should have thought about that before you made the choice to take on an addictive habit. Not my problem, cry me a river, don’t care, don’t care, don’t care.

Or, I could choose to not go outside. I could choose to stop drinking so much Pepsi. I could order those coffee drops from See’s Candies and suck on coffee drops all day.

Oh, boo hoo hoo. You poor thing, you. You wish you could stink up the place and possibly cause others serious reactions, just so you could indulge in your self-inflicted addiction. I’m so touched. This is me, crying my eyes out for poor little victimized you.

I find that slightly disingenuous, but whatever. If you say you don’t care, you don’t care.

That’s right. That’s why you can’t smoke inside, and that’s why you are not entitled to any “extra” breaks to indulge your self-inflicted habit. That’s why you smoke outside in bad weather.

:rolleyes:

Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. Cough up a lung, be the epitome of pathetic with your potential lung cancer line and the whines about smoking out in the freezing blizzard. Don’t care. One more time, with feeling: DON’T CARE. You still are not entitled to “extra” breaks.

156

This just occurred to me:
[quote[Ellis Dee wrote:

I don’t give a rat’s ass how many breaks anybody else gets. They are not my business.[/quote]
Then I would assume that you would consider where other people take their breaks to also be none of your business?

Why do you bellyache because you have to smoke outside yet others get to stay inside? What they do and where they do it is none of your business, after all.

157

Eh. I should have previewed.

158

That is the most accurate translation of fingers-in-the-ears, eyes closed, screaming “blah blah blah I can’t hear you” I have ever seen committed to words.

Well done. You California healthfreaks are seriously nuts.

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.

I see your I DON’T CARE and raise you a WHAT I DO AT WORK IS NOT YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS

You are the one who feels that the world revolves around you, not the smoker. 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. Grow up. “But I don’t get the same breaks as the smokers.” Boohoo, cry me a fucking river.

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.

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.

On preview I notice:

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. 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. In point of fact, I do not care at all when where or how often other people take breaks; I’m not even entirely sure what a real break is, as I haven’t had one since I was in my teens.

btw, the kilt line cracked me up; I never thought of that. Though no office in the land will let a man expose his legs at any point, kilt or no kilt.

159

Damn, I was planning on going to sleep hours ago. Too hyped up from this thread.

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?

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.

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.

Or is your motivation in demanding minute-by-minute break equivalency just to be a pain in the ass in order to banish those evil smokers – your very own special brand of righteous indignation?

160

Keep an eye on eBay, Lynn, my husband sold 5 cards last spring for a total of about $800 - the lotus, moxs and beta dual lands fetch high dollars. If your collection is all pre-iceage it could be worth a few thousand dollars.