Smoking breaks should not be given.

Debate Over​

 

I agree, I believe you should be able to smoke on your lunch break only. It's not a company's fault that you're addicted to nicotine.

 

soo.. your telling me if I just worked for 4 hours and there's no customers (or w.e your doing) i cant go out for a smoke?

 

Non-smokers are allowed to take a smokers break. A lot of companies that I have worked for require you to clock out to take a smoke, and they only give you 2 smoke breaks during a 10 hour shift. (Enough time for 2 cigs not to mention a half hour lunch).

It's reasonable, as taking a breather from working is completely understandable. If you space it out in say... an 8 hour shift, you have 2 hours, 5 minutes to sit and do whatever, 2 more hours, a 30 minute lunch, 2 hours, 5 minutes to sit and do whatever, then 2 more hours before the end of your shift.

It can make it sooo much easier to make it through the day.

 

^^ couldn't have said it better.

 

What about me, a non smoker. If I asked to go on a break and they dont let me... just because I don't smoke.

I don't know what company you work for but I've never heard of one that lets a non smoker take a smokers break.

 

I agree with Deacon Frost, in todays society, lots of people smoke.

 

I dont think they can not allow smokers to take a break and non-smokers not to take a break. thats segregation.

 

It isn't your call to make. It is up to each individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking breaks. Some may choose to do it to attract skilled employees who want to smoke.

The Legit Shop, it isn't segregation to not allow smokers to take a break...nobody forces them to work there.

 

ok it might not be segregation but that has to be un-constitutional somehow. The non-smokers should have breaks just like the smokers.

 

they should let everyone take the same type of breaks... if your a non-smoker you should be able to take the same length break as a smoker

 

So can a business say I am going to let person X take a break but not let person Y take a break just because person Y does not ________.


You fill in the blank.

That's what I think.

There are a lot of people that make bad choices, your point?

 

Why should they? So it fills your perception of what's "fair"?

If I own a business, you're telling me it's unconstitutional if I only let some people take regular breaks? You don't have to work for me.

Sure - do you see a problem with that?

 

what if a costumer comes while you're out for a smoke? and btw in that statement you also implied 'i should get paid to smoke'

 

What if I said I'm not going to hire person X because they _______.

Smoke.
Are too fat.
Drink.

Is that ok? (Just clairifying )

 

When i worked at Wendys, we use to get "Smokers" break, even if we were under age. I was 15 years old and was still allowed taking one. I don't smoke, but being able to sit down for 5 minutes after working, and being all sweaty is the best thing in the world. Its not really up to you to decide if a company can pay there employees to do nothing.

 

In America, that's not allowed. If you allow 1 group to take a break, you have to let the other group take a break. No ifs ands or buts.

This ^.

 

Well, im guessing whoever made this thread doesn't smoke and therefore wouldn't understand how much easier a cig can make the day.

 

Disagree a smokers break is the best thing you could get.
Even if you dont smoke u get a break so whats your problem.
Smoking 1 cig. doesnt take more than 5 mins at last.
And u get 2 breaks a day so that 10 mins i think they dont care about it.

 

This is unfortunately true. I disagree with this meddling though. (And for the record I said it wasn't unconstitutional, not not illegal)

I think it should be, yes. Would you really hire an enormously fat man over an equally able average sized man?