This time of year, it seems like an easy choice: eating outside the office on a nice summer day is a chance to get a little fresh air, a bit of Vitamin D and a complete change of scenery. Not to mention the nice calm, quiet reprieve and ability to enjoy your sandwich without the noise of the printer or fax machine. But not everyone thinks so.
At Slate last week, writer Mathew Yglesias argued that if you stay inside, restrooms are easier to come by, the "weather" is always climate controlled (no major sun glares or any sudden wind), and you don't come back to the office with dirt in your pockets.
Sitting on the grass sounds nice at first, but the reality is it can be tough in work attire and it's just not as comfortable as traditional tables and chairs — especially if you want to try and converse with your colleagues at the same time (you're all hunched over balancing your lunch on knees or, if you're organized, a picnic blanket, constantly watching the clock to make sure you get back to work on time).
In short, "despite all the talk about how great it is to be outside, people don't really put their money where their mouth is." Many of us stay put at our desks because we're simply used to it or it requires far less effort than setting out to find a new place to sit and eat lunch. Or, sadly, that the lunch break has become a "working lunch" for so many — continuing to answer emails while eating a quick salad or half a sandwich.
What do you think: are you pro or anti lunch breaking outside? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle, like me?
→ Read More: The Case Against Eating Lunch Outside, Mathew Yglesias for Slate
(Images: Megan Gordon)