I think their answer will be that they are forced to take the break when they can be puffing and working at the same time.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
"Smoke Break" is an entitlement??
- Thread starter eRRoRist
- Start date
I think their answer will be that they are forced to take the break when they can be puffing and working at the same time.
This is my opinion.
If the smoker takes too much break and still does not produce what is expected of him, then I would say he is taking things abit too far.
If the smoker takes his smoking break, and yet still able to produce what is expected of him, I do not see anything wrong about that. It's the quality of the productivity, not the quantity.
p/s: I'm a smoker too, but I don't see myself taking advantage of this "entitlement"
No, it's not as simple as that. I think what the poster is suggesting is that such breaks disrupt work with other (non-smoking) colleagues. Just because one can produce what's required does not mean they can have these kinds of breaks. If we allow this kind of argument, non-smokers should be allowed to have "breathing the fresh air" or "stretch legs" or whatever break five/six times during the working day- as long as they fulfill their job requirements.
No, I am discussing the issue fairly rationally. All workers (smoking or non smoking) take breaks. E.g. toilet breaks, coffee breaks etc. And whatever these breaks are, both smokers and non smokers take them. The difference is that smokers take one additional type of break- smoking break. And they can do this several times in the course of the work day.
The poster is just asking why is this allowed? That is a very valid question.
I think smokers should only smoke during their lunch breaks. Period. It won't kill for them to not smoke for that couple of hours before and after lunch right?
On what grounds can smoker expect/demand smoking breaks? The reasons we've heard from smokers (presumably) thus far are quite infantile: e.g. it makes me solve problems, it allows me to network with colleagues (only smoking colleagues?) etc.
The real reason is that their addiction has been indulgently sanctioned by their work place. Like I said, if I were the boss, I would say no smoking breaks. Smoke before and after work or during lunch. Especially nowadays, with air-conditioned offices, they really have to step out of the building to smoke- spending at least 15 minutes away.
Bros eRRoRist and SneeringTree, we can sympathise with you. Nobody's disagreeing on entitlement and lousy attitude by some outcast smokers (issue here, right?).eRRoRist said:
Smoking's a bad, unhealthy and even anti-social* habit. *Never mind what camaraderie amongst us puffers allege (in good humour, I think) on inspiration etc. Also, we shd not encroach on ther ppl's smoke free space
Here's another dimension (also in good humour) from a die hard smoker colleague who gets pissed off in kopitiams or starbucks with non-smokers filling up few smoking tables: how's making mandatory for them to smoke in smoking tables?:p:o
Okie, I'd better scram before schrapnel falls
Actually, if there are people who don't mind sitting in the vicinity of smokers, that's fine. Tables should not be "reserved" for smokers. The yellow zone simply mean that smoking is allowed there. It does not mean that only smokers can sit there or those who sit there must definitely smoke. Tell your friend this. In any case, I find it incredibly silly and inconsiderate to sit around and smoke after a meal. Especially if there are people waiting for your table.
I have also seen people smoking WHILE they are eating. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.
I'm a smoker, but I agree with you. I think all eating tables should be non-smoking. Because, many-a-time, smokers and non-smokers eat together at the same table, e.g. friends at dinners or colleagues at lunch. If smokers really want a puff, they should go to a smoking area that's all-smokers. After all, regardless of whatever enjoyment or satisfaction that smokers derive from smoking, we have face the fact that it's not a natural human activity like eating, and the non-smoker should have the right of way. Smoking in lifts is the worst, but the most common culprits are uncles who have the "nevermind" and "just a while" mentalilty. As a a smoker, I can't stand smoking in lifts too, but it's hard to reason or argue with uncles. What to do? Call police? Surely not a sociable option.
ive seen a woman smoke while making love too :p
really....
In porn movie is it? Heheh.
Smoke breaks during working hours are as common as toilet breaks, tea breaks or 5 minute stretching breaks. It is when the body and mind needs rest and refreshment.
Even if a worker is paid by the hour, taking a break is reasonable. Any short recess relaxes the mind and reduces the risk of error.
I don't see why smoke breaks have to be singled out and condemned. Taking too many tea breaks/powder breaks is also wrong...
I don't see why smoke breaks have to be singled out and condemned. Taking too many tea breaks/powder breaks is also wrong...
[/QUOTE]
Of course taking any breaks excessively is wrong. But smoke break is "special" cos smokers DIE DIE have to take them. And that is presumably on top of whatever other breaks their non smoking colleagues take. Do you see the point the poster is trying to say?
Of course taking any breaks excessively is wrong. But smoke break is "special" cos smokers DIE DIE have to take them. And that is presumably on top of whatever other breaks their non smoking colleagues take. Do you see the point the poster is trying to say?[/QUOTE]
Then smokers should get lower pay than non smoker.
Then smokers should get lower pay than non smoker.[/QUOTE]
No, smokers should just smoke before work, after work or during lunch time.
No, smokers should just smoke before work, after work or during lunch time.[/quote]
Best is to put them in an isolated smoking room with separate ventilation. Productivity will increase.
Best is to put them in an isolated smoking room with separate ventilation. Productivity will increase.[/QUOTE]
Productivity will increase until the smokers fall severely sick.
Smoker, coffee addict or serial toilet goer .... What's the difference in the working world today where employees are judged by deliverables instead of the hours clocked?
Similar threads
