Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

[Detective Prince]

I work in a pub, right. My other colleagues go out and have cigarette breaks. I don't. I stand at the bar all shift whereas the others get to go and sit down in the beer garden.

It's hardly fair. So I think that if I want to, I should be able to go out and take a five minute break when the bar isn't so busy like the others. Maybe not to play games but just to maybe listen to a song or something.

 

[dyre]

I think hypothetical Mr Barnes certainly ought to be reprimanded. For behavior and attitude. If he violates company policy, he ought to be punished for doing so. "It's not fair" isn't a viable excuse to go around breaking rules; if you didn't think it was fair, you should have asked your supervisor if you could have gotten an extra break, instead of stalking your coworkers to make up some smart-ass excuse to break rules.

And from what I understand of smoking breaks, it's really exists so smokers don't get all withdrawl-ish at work. It's not a matter of "fairness;" it's just necessary for efficiency. It's really just petty to take 5 minutes to play video games just because someone else needs to take 5 minutes to smoke. Hell, you can't even do anything in 5 minutes of gaming.

 

[wintercoat]

You should have kept doing it anyway, then sued when he/she fired you.

Good luck. I believe there are smoke break regulations that allow employees them by law but no such thing for a nintendo DS.

Smokers get more than enough shit already, people here have seriously suggested banning smoking in one's own home (I thought they were making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the smoking bans at first). Leave Britney alone.

Yeah, I know. I've never bought onto this need to bully smokers. It's exactly their choice, and their right, to do what they want with their own lives. The disgust these forumites are expressing are ridiculously over the top; this is the type of irrational hatred our country needs to protect our minorities from, even minorities like smokers who are unfashionable to defend.

I agree, if you agree that your freedom to smoke stops at blowing your smoke into my face.

Don't stand in my way if it bothers you. [..]

Does that also go for you when I fart in your face?

Good job snipping the important point of the post. I'm not standing in front of people and blowing smoke in their direction. I'm standing outside with plenty of free space blowing upwards and standing away from a bus stop if others are on it. I deliberately don't draw smoke from the cigarette if I'm passing children on the street. You have absolutely no right to complain, and if you fart in my face you're just a dick, there's no involvement of rights in the equation.

You are taking an action that some people find distasteful.

If you are smoking in private then I don't have a problem with that, just like I said before.

But if you are smoking when others are present, and they don't like it, then you are bothering them, even if you "don't go out of your way to annoy people".

And if your response to that is "Don't stand in my way if it bothers you." then you are acting antisocial.

If no one else is present when you smoke, than no one stands in the way of your smoking.

Being that smoking is perfectly legal, other's 'distaste' is irrelevant in a public area that allows smoking. The smoker has as much right as the non-smoker to be there. The smoker isn't causing a problem, the people who make it an issue are.

You are correct, it is legal, but it is still not very considerate of your fellow humans.

So the question is, if someone asks you, politely, to stop smoking, will you do it?

And if I told you, politely, no, and please don't ask again, would you push the issue?

Since you have demonstrated that nicotine has a higher priority for you than humans, I wouldn't waste my time pushing the issue.

No, not being randomly bothered by strangers has a higher priority to me. Get off your high horse.

Not being randomly bothered by smokers has a high priority to me.

So...don't walk up to them and put yourself in a position to be bothered by them maybe?

So...don't smoke when there are non-smokers around, and no one will bother you.

Last I checked, a smoker standing by themselves isn't bothering anyone.

Correct, if there is no non-smoker around when you smoke, you are not bothering anyone.

But if you are standing 3 meters away from a non-smoker while smoking, than you are not by yourself.

And if I'm by myself smoking, and a non-smoker appears, I am not obligated to stop smoking because they might be bothered.

If they are "appearing" just to bother you, than I absolutely agree with you.

If they "have" to be there, because they have to work there for example, then I would disagree with you.

Well considering the majority of work places have designated smoking areas, there should be no problem. If you're a non-smoker in a smoking area, you chose to stand in the smoking area rather than in a non-smoking area. We're both being inconvenienced. You, by choosing to stand where it would be bothersome for you, and the smoker because they choose to have a cigarette on their break and are therefor restricted to a small area.

However, outside of work, say, at a bus stop, if the smoker is waiting for the bus and is having a cigarette, they are not obligated to stop smoking if a non-smoker arrives.

Also, just to let it be known, I quit smoking 2 years ago. Those people who make a show out of their dislike for smokers are worse than any smoker I've ever known. How do you come to the conclusion that harassment and being a nuisance is the proper way to go about things? I get that some people are just dicks, but becoming more of an annoyance than the smoker isn't exactly smart.(not targeted at you, just a general gripe)

I see it this way:

A smoker has the legal right to smoke in a public area. ( Annoying the non-smoker )

A non-smoker has the legal right to complain that the smoker is polluting the air in a public area. ( Annoying the smoker )

Take that for what you will.

And on that, I can agree.

Two people AGREEING on the internet?

Is it still the 1st of April where you are?

Inconceivable! We must rectify this mistake post haste! I do not agree with you good sir, for I am clearly the one in the right! Your mother smells like old ham! I call into question your sexual prowess!

>.>
<.<
There...that might appease the internet gods.


I'm personally not really a fan of the whole April Fool's thing. Most of the "jokes"(used as loosely as is possible) are about as clever as a seat cushion. And the really good ones are only good because they're believable, and then you're sad because it wasn't real. Like the Toonami thing.

 

[keinechance]

You should have kept doing it anyway, then sued when he/she fired you.

Good luck. I believe there are smoke break regulations that allow employees them by law but no such thing for a nintendo DS.

Smokers get more than enough shit already, people here have seriously suggested banning smoking in one's own home (I thought they were making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the smoking bans at first). Leave Britney alone.

Yeah, I know. I've never bought onto this need to bully smokers. It's exactly their choice, and their right, to do what they want with their own lives. The disgust these forumites are expressing are ridiculously over the top; this is the type of irrational hatred our country needs to protect our minorities from, even minorities like smokers who are unfashionable to defend.

I agree, if you agree that your freedom to smoke stops at blowing your smoke into my face.

Don't stand in my way if it bothers you. [..]

Does that also go for you when I fart in your face?

Good job snipping the important point of the post. I'm not standing in front of people and blowing smoke in their direction. I'm standing outside with plenty of free space blowing upwards and standing away from a bus stop if others are on it. I deliberately don't draw smoke from the cigarette if I'm passing children on the street. You have absolutely no right to complain, and if you fart in my face you're just a dick, there's no involvement of rights in the equation.

You are taking an action that some people find distasteful.

If you are smoking in private then I don't have a problem with that, just like I said before.

But if you are smoking when others are present, and they don't like it, then you are bothering them, even if you "don't go out of your way to annoy people".

And if your response to that is "Don't stand in my way if it bothers you." then you are acting antisocial.

If no one else is present when you smoke, than no one stands in the way of your smoking.

Being that smoking is perfectly legal, other's 'distaste' is irrelevant in a public area that allows smoking. The smoker has as much right as the non-smoker to be there. The smoker isn't causing a problem, the people who make it an issue are.

You are correct, it is legal, but it is still not very considerate of your fellow humans.

So the question is, if someone asks you, politely, to stop smoking, will you do it?

And if I told you, politely, no, and please don't ask again, would you push the issue?

Since you have demonstrated that nicotine has a higher priority for you than humans, I wouldn't waste my time pushing the issue.

No, not being randomly bothered by strangers has a higher priority to me. Get off your high horse.

Not being randomly bothered by smokers has a high priority to me.

So...don't walk up to them and put yourself in a position to be bothered by them maybe?

So...don't smoke when there are non-smokers around, and no one will bother you.

Last I checked, a smoker standing by themselves isn't bothering anyone.

Correct, if there is no non-smoker around when you smoke, you are not bothering anyone.

But if you are standing 3 meters away from a non-smoker while smoking, than you are not by yourself.

And if I'm by myself smoking, and a non-smoker appears, I am not obligated to stop smoking because they might be bothered.

If they are "appearing" just to bother you, than I absolutely agree with you.

If they "have" to be there, because they have to work there for example, then I would disagree with you.

Well considering the majority of work places have designated smoking areas, there should be no problem. If you're a non-smoker in a smoking area, you chose to stand in the smoking area rather than in a non-smoking area. We're both being inconvenienced. You, by choosing to stand where it would be bothersome for you, and the smoker because they choose to have a cigarette on their break and are therefor restricted to a small area.

However, outside of work, say, at a bus stop, if the smoker is waiting for the bus and is having a cigarette, they are not obligated to stop smoking if a non-smoker arrives.

Also, just to let it be known, I quit smoking 2 years ago. Those people who make a show out of their dislike for smokers are worse than any smoker I've ever known. How do you come to the conclusion that harassment and being a nuisance is the proper way to go about things? I get that some people are just dicks, but becoming more of an annoyance than the smoker isn't exactly smart.(not targeted at you, just a general gripe)

I see it this way:

A smoker has the legal right to smoke in a public area. ( Annoying the non-smoker )

A non-smoker has the legal right to complain that the smoker is polluting the air in a public area. ( Annoying the smoker )

Take that for what you will.

And on that, I can agree.

Two people AGREEING on the internet?

Is it still the 1st of April where you are?

Inconceivable! We must rectify this mistake post haste! I do not agree with you good sir, for I am clearly the one in the right! Your mother smells like old ham! I call into question your sexual prowess!

>.>
<.<
There...that might appease the internet gods.


I'm personally not really a fan of the whole April Fool's thing. Most of the "jokes"(used as loosely as is possible) are about as clever as a seat cushion. And the really good ones are only good because they're believable, and then you're sad because it wasn't real. Like the Toonami thing.

I "would" agree with you on that too, but I'm affraid that two agreements in a row would result in all the trolls on the internet exploding.

.....which would be pretty cool actually.

 

[CCountZero]

1. Do you think people should be allowed to take breaks like this? Is it unfair that just because someone smokes, they get to take extra breaks? Even if they're only for a couple minutes at a time.
2. Given some of the news stories we've seen on this site, would you actually be surprised if a story like this popped up for real, and what do you think the general reaction would be?

Is it fair that people who smoke get "extra" breaks specifically for smoking?

No. Most certainly not.

Smoking is physically and mentally addictive, and as such it can be very hard to quit, but it is ultimately a vice of ones own choosing.

The same is true for people who overeat or suffer any other addiction.

However, I also believe that society as a whole would benefit if said people were given help to combat their addictions, as it would either help make them better citizens, or alleviate the effects of their addictions on others, be it in the form of second-hand smoking, laziness or criminal acts.

Would I be surprised if such a story surfaced?

I guess not.
And in either case, in Denmark where I live, he could probably sue McD for firring him without proper reason.

And frankly, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you can't make it through a day without doing something like it, be it smoking, eating candy, fapping, checking your facebook messages or your email, then you need to work on your self-control, or you'll likely end up with a serious stress problem down the line.

Don't underestimate stress.

 

[kingthrall]

1. Its mcdonalds its not like he lost a lifelong job, well we hope not
2. Mcdonalds hires cheap labour so they probably doing him a favour in the long run

 

[I-Protest-I]

If me going for a cig in no way effects mine or my work mates job I don't see the problem, but if it was they shouldn't be allowed.

You're paid to work, do some work.

Captcha: good for nothing

 

[CCountZero]

And if I'm by myself smoking, and a non-smoker appears, I am not obligated to stop smoking because they might be bothered.

Well, that depends. If, say, you're standing out of the way on an open-air train station platform, and someone comes up on the platform, sees that it's almost completely deserted, and then walks straight on over to you and goes: "Put that out!", then I believe you're fine, and you may punch that person in the nuts. He deserves it.

But, if you're standing at a bus stop, next to the old-lady bench, and someone shows up wanting to sit down, you should be putting that sucker out, or move a couple yards.

Now, for full disclosure, my only vice is my affinity for quality chocolate. I don't drink, do drugs or smoke. Despite the chocolate, I'm reasonably healthy and not overweight.

Two of my five best friends smoke regularly, and honestly, if you gotta be taking a "drug", smoking is probably the thing I can get the most on board with, 'cus it doesn't make you brainless and prone to do dumb shit.

But, I believe that the negative health effects on the people suffering smoking second-hand puts the ball squarely in the hands of the smokers.

Do I care about people potentially messing themselves up by smoking?
Yeah, I kinda do. If they get sick, I'm gonna be supporting them through social security.
But what I care about even more, is when the actions of one or more people negatively impacts others.

Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to the legalization of marijuana. I've never tried it myself, but I have friends in the Netherlands and one of my aforementioned five best friends tried it down there.
He's a psychology student, so I guess you might say it was for educational purposes.
And even then, when processed properly, its my understanding that its safer than alcohol.

But as long as it's not legalized, I will have no sympathy for people who buy it, as such people put money in the hands of violent criminals who use said money to buy weapons and kill officers of the law.


And I think I might have gotten sidetracked a bit here... might not all apply to the quote.

 

[manaman]

Pokemon isn't a physical addiction, so I feel he was not justified in his desire for a Pokemon break.

But firing him for suggesting it is wrong.

On the other hand, his creepy monitoring of his fellow employees is a damn good reason to fire him.

Or a good reason to promote him to middle management.

 

[Something Amyss]

Regularly sanctioned breaks should be allowed for everyone, not just smokers.

It maximizes productivity for all while staying fair.

That, or I'd just go out to smoke a cigarette even though I'm not addicted, because fuck the system.

I doubt you'll find a place that doesn't already offer breaks to its workers. The problem being that most places also offer smokers additional breaks to accommodate their habit. Which is an issue with "fairness," I guess.

I've worked in places where smokers had to take it out of their other breaks, and they complained. This usually means the business will offer them special breaks.

 

[Candidus]

1)well, as others have said, it's an addiction. Though I've never been addicted to cigarettes, I have friends who are. Sometimes, people do need their fix or they will experience negative symptoms and not perform their job at peak capacity. It's just a medical condition who's influences on performance are being minimized.

2)I wouldn't be surprised really. And I think that a lot of people here would get upset over the fact he got fired and do some false equivalency arguments tying to twist it so the smokers got fired. But who knows?

Sorry but I against your descision to use the "smoke" break just to play Pokemon. People who smoke are allow to have extra time since being a smoker is being addicted to it. Sort of getting their fix per say. Likewise I do not fully know if a smoker can carry on with their job (or in a environment where they cannot smoke) without having a cig for a long period of time.
Beside what can you do in Pokemon for less than 5 minutes? A random encounter battle?

So smokers should be given extra rights because they made the conscious decision to become addicted to a cancerous plant. Cool.

Oh look, the attitude I was talking about. How surprising

As an ex smoker, I'm with Fawxy. You choose to become addicted to smoking, you take the cravings during the long stints of work between breaks on the chin-- that is, you take responsibility for what you did. Your stupid decision is not your co-workers' responsibility, so why should they watch you take five minutes in every ninety that they don't get? It's not on your boss either. Why should he or she allow you to? Because your performance will suffer?

It's an employer's market right now, they can pick the cream of the crop. If your performance suffers without a smoke break, you should get your warnings until you get fired.

 

[chadachada123]

Regularly sanctioned breaks should be allowed for everyone, not just smokers.

It maximizes productivity for all while staying fair.

That, or I'd just go out to smoke a cigarette even though I'm not addicted, because fuck the system.

I doubt you'll find a place that doesn't already offer breaks to its workers. The problem being that most places also offer smokers additional breaks to accommodate their habit. Which is an issue with "fairness," I guess.

I've worked in places where smokers had to take it out of their other breaks, and they complained. This usually means the business will offer them special breaks.

Oh, that's what I was saying. If you give smokers 5-minute breaks every hour or whatever on top of the 15-ish minutes every couple of hours, non-smokers should get them too.

 

[Skops]

I've thought this for years. Ever since I worked at an AppleBee's restaurant I've noticed smokers get an extra couple of minutes of break more than a person that doesn't smoke.

Sure call me lazy, but what the fuck makes them so special? It's the worst when your boss is a smoker.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Smoke during lunch breaks? If you can't wait that long then you should quit anyway.

 

[Firstmark_Bannor]

Having spent the vast majority of my years working in food service, As long as it isn't during the lunch/dinner rush and your side work is caught up, my bosses didn't give a fuck about smoke breaks. I used to take my "smoke breaks" to run to the ABC store and buy booze for the end of the night, so we would have something to drink while we cleaned up. And I didn't even smoke cigs.

My advice is claim your a smoker and take the extra time anyway even if you don't smoke. That way everybody wins!

 

[Craorach]

I started doing this at one point during my time working for KFC.

Not Pokemon breaks.. just "stand there and get some air and do nothing" breaks.

Started when I realised that the entire rest of the staff, including the manager, had gone for a smoke at the same time to chat while the store was quiet. I walked out and leant against the wall and they all looked at me and went "who's in the store".

I told them if they could leave it empty but for one kitchen hand, I could leave it empty too.

After a few weeks the General Manager heard I was "just walking out back and doing nothing" on another manager's shifts, and pulled me up on it. At which point I informed him that if all the others were allowed to take random time off, then I should be too.

I stand by that to this day, with any employer. If one person is allowed to take ten minutes here and there while being paid, so should every other person, reasons are irrelevant.

 

[Sis]

It isn't like they're going off and having super-happy-fun-time anyway. They're out their, poisoning their lungs for five minutes. What the hell do people think they're doing on a smoke break? Riding a T-Rex while fighting aliens?

Depends what you're smoking

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, that's what I was saying. If you give smokers 5-minute breaks every hour or whatever on top of the 15-ish minutes every couple of hours, non-smokers should get them too.

Okay, cool. Just clarifying, mostly. Though it's good to find we were on roughly the same page.

Smoke during lunch breaks? If you can't wait that long then you should quit anyway.

Should, but people don't.

Actually, it's kind of funny. I can get fired if there's is a picture on my Facebook profile (Or I'm tagged in a photo, correctly or not) of me holding a drink.

But people are allowed not only to smoke at work, but take extra breaks to afford said smoking time.