A Lounge in the Wind

Status
Not open for further replies.
At any job I've worked at, except Circle K which worked you all kinds of hours without breaks and often literally as the only person in the building which is also a safety hazard for a 24/7 convenience store, I've been legally required to take a full half hour lunch break if I work x amount of hours (usually 6 1/2 or more) and not allowed to come back any earlier even if I chose to.
 
I usually don't get one either but I'm also able to kind of snack and get by without it. Though most of my previous jobs gave me an hour long lunch break, this 20 minute bull**** sounds like employers squeezing even more time out of their employees lives.
For us I guess they think it's justified because we get paid for our breaks instead of an hour unpaid like others.
 
When I worked at the water plant, many times we ate while still working (walked around with a sandwich while checking all the gauges and stuff). One time the head of the water company came over in a snit....they had been trying to call the plant and no one answered....when she got there, the operator was sitting outside eating. She tried to fire him for not doing his job. At his hearing about this, his lawyer showed the water board the LAW. In the state of Kentucky (at that time, don't know about now)....it states that if a company requires a person to not leave the premises....the employee will get 10 minutes that they are not required to answer the phone, there will be a designated break room with fridge, stove, microwave, and sink. The guy kept his job and we got a new breakroom. About a year after this, the head of company was ousted by the board for her hard ass actions that kept causing the company trouble. She had come to work that day in the company car....she left on foot walking home. Many employees came out to wave at her as she left.
 
At my work, we're not *required* to clock out for lunch (we're allowed to snack at our desks so some hourly employees opt to skip lunch and 'work through' so that they can maybe get off work a little bit earlier). There's also no set time limit for how long a lunch break can last, either (so long as you get your hours in for the day/week). The company 'encourages' people to take at *least* a 20-30 min. lunch break, but they don't force it. Me? I'm usually under the 20 min. mark most days (it's handy having the break room just right outside our area). Tuesdays are now an exception though since me and a coworker (who is no longer in the same department as me and is instead up on a different floor) decided to have a standing lunch on Tues. where we actually leave the building and go to one of the nearby places (we've found it's really good for decompressing and just to talk). Those tend to take at least an hour (though we try to not push it too much more than that)
 
We run machinery so we can't eat on the floor, we have to go to the break room which is a nice one (other than Fox News being on all the time). We can't leave the building, but we have decent vended food and they allow deliveries of pizza and the like.
 
On the lunch 'thing', companies would want it/like it if lunch wasn't taken - simple as. It is up to the employee to say physically, 'I am getting up from my desk and having a break', we all feel the pressure in modern employment to reach targets set, much is dependent on the level of employment we are at obviously, I have never reached management (where free time is more openly available) and so often I've always eaten at my desk and if you don't physically leave it and eat at your desk, people just by-pass the fact you are eating and ask you to do stuff, they ignore your 'lunch' to get what they want.

The biggest bug-bear I have (and it is happening less and less these days as people give up) is legitimate smoking breaks for those who do, as they take usually 10 min x 3 smoking breaks during day, which non-smokers should be allowed to finish 30 minutes earlier but are never recompensed for the amount of time smokers get off.
 
We have no smoking at all in our building or on the grounds. No smoking for anyone, period.
 
On the lunch 'thing', companies would want it/like it if lunch wasn't taken - simple as. It is up to the employee to say physically, 'I am getting up from my desk and having a break', we all feel the pressure in modern employment to reach targets set, much is dependent on the level of employment we are at obviously, I have never reached management (where free time is more openly available) and so often I've always eaten at my desk and if you don't physically leave it and eat at your desk, people just by-pass the fact you are eating and ask you to do stuff, they ignore your 'lunch' to get what they want.

The biggest bug-bear I have (and it is happening less and less these days as people give up) is legitimate smoking breaks for those who do, as they take usually 10 min x 3 smoking breaks during day, which non-smokers should be allowed to finish 30 minutes earlier but are never recompensed for the amount of time smokers get off.

Non smokers can take smoke breaks. Buy a pack of cigarettes. Say you're taking a smoke and take a break. You dont have to actually puff on the cigarette.

When I worked fast food 90% of employees took smoke breaks. A lot of fast food employees smoke partly for the breaks. But some faked it tho or would just take a single puff on another employee's cig to justify the break.

My job has me on my own a lot of the time so I can take a break or eat or drink something pretty much whenever as long as it doesnt interfere with my job. It's nice. I dont miss having to ask for breaks.
 
Non smokers can take smoke breaks. Buy a pack of cigarettes. Say you're taking a smoke and take a break. You dont have to actually puff on the cigarette.

When I worked fast food 90% of employees took smoke breaks. A lot of fast food employees smoke partly for the breaks. But some faked it tho or would just take a single puff on another employee's cig to justify the break.


Doesn't disguise the fact, non-smokers should be given the same time off as a smoker for a 'legit break' where they shouldn't have to mix with horrible smoke environment if they don't want too simply to get the same outcome.
 
Doesn't disguise the fact, non-smokers should be given the same time off as a smoker for a 'legit break' where they shouldn't have to mix with horrible smoke environment if they don't want too simply to get the same outcome.
They should. But they aren't and wont be any time soon. An employee has to learn to make the system work for them until things improve.

And smoke breaks are taken outside. Not in an enclosed vacuum sealed room. Smoke dissipates fast outside. If a person isnt allergic to cigarettes or dealing eith a respiratory condition a bit of smoke quickly dissipated by air and wind wont bother them. If they cant tolerate that in the interest of taking a break then dont take a break. *shrug* I've got asthma but if I really needed a break smelling some cig smoke is a tiny price to pay. No more troublesome than putting up with some wood smoke for 10 minutes.
 
Obviously all depends on what job everyone does, but I come from an office environment mainly and it's heavily swayed in favour, there's absolutely no way I'm putting myself in danger simply to say I've had a break. Plus the smoke smell stays on your clothes, regardless of whether one smokes or not, all round it's a pain in the arse.
 
We get a 40 minute lunch at my job. I wish I were allowed to leave early for being done with my work but still get paid in full. I wouldnt even bother to take a lunch if that were the case.
 
LId4nTq.jpg



lLGhiKx.jpg
 
About breaks. Yeah, I've had more than one job with 0 breaks, with long hours. Management comes to mind as one of them. One had breaks, but it was a 5 min walk to the break room, physical, part of the day standing on metal, and 12.5 hours. My feet killed me, even if it paid well.

Starting out from high school I thought breaks were mandatory. Little did I know, lol.

I know there are always caveats, but doesn't Germany have 30 hour weeks?
 
so during breaks from daredevil....2 eps left... ive been watching stand up... i never really watched Bill Burr cause i had that idiotic thought of "he can't be that funny hes in breaking bad"...

this dude is ****ing hilarious.
 
so during breaks from daredevil....2 eps left... ive been watching stand up... i never really watched Bill Burr cause i had that idiotic thought of "he can't be that funny hes in breaking bad"...

this dude is ****ing hilarious.

Wha? I thought you were a huge fan of Burr's standup already?
 
i had him mixed up with someone else for a long time lol
 
so during breaks from daredevil....2 eps left... ive been watching stand up... i never really watched Bill Burr cause i had that idiotic thought of "he can't be that funny hes in breaking bad"...

this dude is ****ing hilarious.

He has a podcast. If you're interested in that sort of thing.
 
Question for the Americans here, what do you guys learn about the Vietnam war in school, if at all? Like is it glossed over with the eventual "we lost" or does the curriculum go into more detail about how it started and what happened?

Asking because I'm in Saigon right now and just left the war museum.
 
It was briefly covered in every history classes I took. Most of the focus was on the highlights, the political situation in the US at the time, and the war protesting. And the monk, Thích Quảng Đức, burning himself alive was always mentioned.

There are still Vietnam vets alive and a lot of people know about the war from them so it and desert storm and the war in Iraq tend to get glossed over in general history classes.

My history books presented it as a conflict to stop the spread of communism and the influence of the USSR.
 
Bill Burr will go down on the Mt. Rushmore of comedians. He's arguably the best working comic today.
 
My high school's lessons on Vietnam were pretty detailed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"