I read that as "all Indian workers"

...no choking on Ham Sandwiches?

FirstNationalBastard: ...no choking on Ham Sandwiches?

Yup ...

From TFA:

they are forced to endure odd and punitive lunch break restrictions such as a ban on napping after eating a ham sandwich.

No heart attacks on lunch breaks.

ModernPrimitive01: I read that as "all Indian workers"

Ham sandwich is okay, not so much the roast beef.

I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Probably some overzealous middle manager. It always is.

So there's this cultural thing I became aware of recently regarding the Chinese and napping. All of our Chinese engineers who are in the US for training will nap after lunch at their desk. It's kind of weird to see 10 people scarf down a meal and then saw logs for 55 minutes, but whatever works for them I guess.

IrateShadow: Probably some overzealous middle manager. It always is.

This can be said of all stupid shiat in a business ever. They have to justify their jobs so they make up and enforce stupid policies.

Rapmaster2000: So there's this cultural thing I became aware of recently regarding the Chinese and napping. All of our Chinese engineers who are in the US for training will nap after lunch at their desk. It's kind of weird to see 10 people scarf down a meal and then saw logs for 55 minutes, but whatever works for them I guess.

After a meal there is a huge dip in alertness for most people because the human body naturally wants to sleep as part of the digestion, and most cultures respect this need and have added an after lunch nap like a siesta to the daily routine. The US, founded by crazy Calvinist workaholics, seems to be the only place in the world that takes pride in working against basic human biology and forcing people to push their way through an after-lunch stupor with copious amounts of caffeine.

LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Who are you to bring logic and reason into a Fark thread?

Seriously, though, thanks for making that point since I hadn't thought about it.

rugman11: LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Who are you to bring logic and reason into a Fark thread?

Seriously, though, thanks for making that point since I hadn't thought about it.

The other thing that struck me as odd, was that the workers complained they couldn't leave an un-guarded manhole. Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to understand why you company may not want you leaving a giant gaping hole unguarded, allowing anyone or anything to get too close and fall down into it.

Unpaid lunch breaks? Are you kidding me? They should be paying AT&T for the privilege of getting a break. Ingrates.

kidgenius: rugman11: LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Who are you to bring logic and reason into a Fark thread?

Seriously, though, thanks for making that point since I hadn't thought about it.

The other thing that struck me as odd, was that the workers complained they couldn't leave an un-guarded manhole. Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to understand why you company may not want you leaving a giant gaping hole unguarded, allowing anyone or anything to get too close and fall down into it.

That's all well and fine, but the company should pay them to guard it.

Kiss my ass and pass the potato salad!: kidgenius: rugman11: LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Who are you to bring logic and reason into a Fark thread?

Seriously, though, thanks for making that point since I hadn't thought about it.

The other thing that struck me as odd, was that the workers complained they couldn't leave an un-guarded manhole. Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to understand why you company may not want you leaving a giant gaping hole unguarded, allowing anyone or anything to get too close and fall down into it.

That's all well and fine, but the company should pay them to guard it.

This. If you're not allowed to leave, then it's not your time but company time. If it's company time, they need to pay you for it. The simple solution is to make workers stagger lunch breaks so that a paid worker is always present at the job site.

/I'll take 'things not requiring a rocket scientist' for $400 please, Alex

Those ingrate bastards in Indiana. They sdhould all be grateful that AT&T is still keeping employed. In the USA. The company can outsource work Vietnam or India.

LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and, with our long Puritan tradition of not minding our own farking business, all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

That makes sense. The issue, then, should not be "can they do it," but "can they do it with company equipment."

Dialectic: Those ingrate bastards in Indiana. They sdhould all be grateful that AT&T is still keeping employed. In the USA. The company can outsource work Vietnam or India.

Or somewhere even more remote, like across the Wabash!

ChubbyTiger: This. If you're not allowed to leave, then it's not your time but company time. If it's company time, they need to pay you for it. The simple solution is to make workers stagger lunch breaks so that a paid worker is always present at the job site.

/I'll take 'things not requiring a rocket scientist' for $400 please, Alex

Double this.
But the state of affairs is ongoing and will get worse as we continue to devalue labor and grossly overvalue capital/ownership.
The average person isn't supposed to get anything for free but business seems to think it's entitled to free labor.

It's a fact: Mama Cass did not die choking on a ham sandwich!



She died of a heart attack in her sleep.

It's a fact!

kidgenius: The other thing that struck me as odd, was that the workers complained they couldn't leave an un-guarded manhole. Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to understand why you company may not want you leaving a giant gaping hole unguarded, allowing anyone or anything to get too close and fall down into it.

The really strange part is it is not specified as open or not. And why can't they just put the cover back on when they go to lunch?

LemSkroob: I understand why. Its not good PR to have your company-branded truck sitting on the side of the street with an employee in it taking a nap. Even if its on break, anyone walking by does not know that. All they see is someone "sleeping on the job" and all that does is make them take on a negative image of the company.

Yep. I can see their point. Driving their vehicle and wearing their uniform is company advertising -- good or bad.

And many soft drink companies will not allow their employees to consume any other brands while they are wearing company uniforms, etc...

so....no ones getting fat???



/amidoinitrite?