Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Input: Yeah but it's "against the rules" in the most technical way possible though if no ones actually wanting to enforce it. My workplace technically has a rule against eating anywhere but the break room but following that rule means me and most supervisors end up running back and forth from the upstairs room to the checkouts if there's any issues, so we would have breaks in the office instead. Technically against the rules but doing so was the only way we could have breaks longer than 5 minutes and actually get to eat.    This is a situation where the worker either eats on the line or causes delays, the article basically says so. I'm much more forgiving of an employee needing to eat between assignments and this is far from letting everyone eat.

no