Browny
Smash Hater
So I’ve always had a massive bias against smokers. If someone wants to speed along the death process and waste countless dollars while doing it, they can go right ahead. I’d prefer it if it wasn’t members of my immediate family (2 grandparents, one had a stroke and one died from smoking related illnesses) though. But what annoys me off the most is why ‘smoke breaks’ are legal in workplaces. I’ve only been working full time for a few days now but I’ve seen enough already to verify my baseless hatred from the previous years. I don’t hate these people because they smoke and I don’t hate that they waste thousands of dollars, per person, of their employer’s money. What I hate is that this addiction is considered mainstream, while other addictions are degenerative and will get you in trouble at work.
I am addicted to the internet, there is no doubt about it. So as I sit in my cubicle, so often I just want to quickly check SWF or chat online with friends, if just for a few minutes. But doing that will get you in trouble. All the while, people are getting out of work all day long for smoke breaks. Just today I saw one lady take 3 within about 3 hours. At 10 minutes each, its effectively 16.67% of your total time at work wasted. That directly equals 16.67% of her salary. Every single year the company is losing something in the order of $10,000 COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WASTED EVERY YEAR on this degenerative habit. Not only are they funding her addiction, by allowing it, it simply increases the chances she will take time off work for sick leave etc and probably be forced to quit a job because of a hospital visit, the company loses even more money in having to train someone new/have someone less qualified do her work prematurely.
But at the end of all this, it’s perfectly fine. No one seems to care and no one dares impose some sort of common sense rule into this farce for fear of public backlash which has happened in the past. The only justifiable reason I can see for why this is allowed (I’m not for banning it, but employees should have their smoke time monitored and salary cut accordingly since it’s the entire company, thus all the other employees, who ultimately lose out), is because it is assumed a mainstream addiction in a way. However like idk... just about EVERYTHING that people used to do in the past, all those habits die out over time and what is normal’, changes. From what fields of study students gravitate towards, to the massive obsession with coffee and sandwich bars, so many habits and lifestyle aspects come and go yet this one remains. On that note, obsessions with coffee breaks can also be applied to all smoking scenarios from here onwards.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here, I’m raging about why is it that my mainstream addiction is considered so downright destructive, I don’t dare do it in my new job. I’ve had to sit through a few scare talks about not using facebook and how personal web browsing will be monitored and scrutinised. God forbid if I was to use a chat client and talk to my friends and family away from home. While I understand the obvious reasons for controlling and monitoring internet use, I’m referring to the fact that if you only spent 10 mins every hour doing random things on the net, that would be heavily scrutinised while that time could be spent smoking/getting coffee and no one cares. The argument that you are using company resources for your own personal use, thus banned, is complete hypocritical bull**** since smoke breaks are no different. The person is a resource. The company bought them, they install them, get their use from them, upgrade them and then replace them. Literally every single ‘resource’ aspect of a computer and internet can be equally applied to a human resource.
So yeah, iMad. I wouldn’t care if both were allowed or both were banned, as long as the hypocrisy dies. If I am to earn the same salary as the person next to me, I’d ****ing expect they would put in the same amount of hours as me. This whole thing just stems from ignorant, outdated ******** public opinion. There is not a single justifiable reason for us to keep living with these 1950’s workplace rules while today’s lifestyles are shunned. Because we all KNOW that in the future, internet addiction will take a hold of nearly everyone. Not so much to the degree it has over me, but that everyone I know has increased their time spent online DRAMATICALLY, at the rate they are increasing they would overtake me in a year (obviously they slow down as an addiction is something that is built up slowly).
From when I started university to the final year, the change was incredible. From every student paying attention, to literally more than half the class on a laptop/phone on facebook or some equivalent. What’s the point in denying the inevitable, as Gen Y take over the workplace, I’d bet anything that personal internet use will become FAR more prevalent. We are just delaying that transition under the idea that we are increasing workplace productivity while at the same time allowing a dangerously destructive enemy of workplace productivity to live on.
Smoking doesn’t affect me, but it offers an unfair escape from those who choose to be addicted to it. Why should I feel threatened of my job security while a more destructive habit is allowed. I’d like to escape work every so often to keep my addiction moderated (cold turkey sucks) but I don’t have a choice.
In short, **** you activists for allowing smoke breaks to continue to remain at full pay and costing me and every other employee time and money because of your addiction.
@ Employers and the country in general, they need to check a goddam calendar and take a look at the year we are in and get an analyst (or anyone with a brain) to spend 5 minutes finding out what the real cause of missing productivity is. The answer is dead set obvious. Who cares what we used to do in the past, it’s almost always proven wrong or made infinitely better in the future.
I am addicted to the internet, there is no doubt about it. So as I sit in my cubicle, so often I just want to quickly check SWF or chat online with friends, if just for a few minutes. But doing that will get you in trouble. All the while, people are getting out of work all day long for smoke breaks. Just today I saw one lady take 3 within about 3 hours. At 10 minutes each, its effectively 16.67% of your total time at work wasted. That directly equals 16.67% of her salary. Every single year the company is losing something in the order of $10,000 COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WASTED EVERY YEAR on this degenerative habit. Not only are they funding her addiction, by allowing it, it simply increases the chances she will take time off work for sick leave etc and probably be forced to quit a job because of a hospital visit, the company loses even more money in having to train someone new/have someone less qualified do her work prematurely.
But at the end of all this, it’s perfectly fine. No one seems to care and no one dares impose some sort of common sense rule into this farce for fear of public backlash which has happened in the past. The only justifiable reason I can see for why this is allowed (I’m not for banning it, but employees should have their smoke time monitored and salary cut accordingly since it’s the entire company, thus all the other employees, who ultimately lose out), is because it is assumed a mainstream addiction in a way. However like idk... just about EVERYTHING that people used to do in the past, all those habits die out over time and what is normal’, changes. From what fields of study students gravitate towards, to the massive obsession with coffee and sandwich bars, so many habits and lifestyle aspects come and go yet this one remains. On that note, obsessions with coffee breaks can also be applied to all smoking scenarios from here onwards.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here, I’m raging about why is it that my mainstream addiction is considered so downright destructive, I don’t dare do it in my new job. I’ve had to sit through a few scare talks about not using facebook and how personal web browsing will be monitored and scrutinised. God forbid if I was to use a chat client and talk to my friends and family away from home. While I understand the obvious reasons for controlling and monitoring internet use, I’m referring to the fact that if you only spent 10 mins every hour doing random things on the net, that would be heavily scrutinised while that time could be spent smoking/getting coffee and no one cares. The argument that you are using company resources for your own personal use, thus banned, is complete hypocritical bull**** since smoke breaks are no different. The person is a resource. The company bought them, they install them, get their use from them, upgrade them and then replace them. Literally every single ‘resource’ aspect of a computer and internet can be equally applied to a human resource.
So yeah, iMad. I wouldn’t care if both were allowed or both were banned, as long as the hypocrisy dies. If I am to earn the same salary as the person next to me, I’d ****ing expect they would put in the same amount of hours as me. This whole thing just stems from ignorant, outdated ******** public opinion. There is not a single justifiable reason for us to keep living with these 1950’s workplace rules while today’s lifestyles are shunned. Because we all KNOW that in the future, internet addiction will take a hold of nearly everyone. Not so much to the degree it has over me, but that everyone I know has increased their time spent online DRAMATICALLY, at the rate they are increasing they would overtake me in a year (obviously they slow down as an addiction is something that is built up slowly).
From when I started university to the final year, the change was incredible. From every student paying attention, to literally more than half the class on a laptop/phone on facebook or some equivalent. What’s the point in denying the inevitable, as Gen Y take over the workplace, I’d bet anything that personal internet use will become FAR more prevalent. We are just delaying that transition under the idea that we are increasing workplace productivity while at the same time allowing a dangerously destructive enemy of workplace productivity to live on.
Smoking doesn’t affect me, but it offers an unfair escape from those who choose to be addicted to it. Why should I feel threatened of my job security while a more destructive habit is allowed. I’d like to escape work every so often to keep my addiction moderated (cold turkey sucks) but I don’t have a choice.
In short, **** you activists for allowing smoke breaks to continue to remain at full pay and costing me and every other employee time and money because of your addiction.
@ Employers and the country in general, they need to check a goddam calendar and take a look at the year we are in and get an analyst (or anyone with a brain) to spend 5 minutes finding out what the real cause of missing productivity is. The answer is dead set obvious. Who cares what we used to do in the past, it’s almost always proven wrong or made infinitely better in the future.
