In all the jobs I’ve ever worked, “downtime” is something that happens because we’re all human and can’t work at 100% all the time, but something that doesn’t exist on paper.

Besides the union-won legal breaks like a 30 minute meal break and two 15 minute breaks, there is always something you could be doing that’s work related.

But there are unspoken norms among workers like “even though we could be doing X, nothing that bad is likely to happen if we don’t” and a constant push and pull been management and staff between working and downtime vs always working. Supervisors don’t want to pressure their reportees to do busy work unless they have some incentive to do so, etc.

This is where the social dimension comes in which is so complicated. People that are generally liked can get away with taking downtime because they have a good reputation. Usually they keep that reputation by making sure the important work gets done, being reliable, caring about quality, or whatever. But if somebody new or unpopular seems to be “slacking off,” they don’t have that reputation to protect them.

I am not that good at being well-liked by my colleagues, but I try. I care about most of them and try to get along so we all have an enjoyable day and keep things running.

From your post, I’m inferring that people looked down on you because you were reading at work when there was downtime. Maybe there is a social expectation to not read, but instead be social with your co-workers. I don’t know if that’s true. That sounds exhausting to me, but I’ve done things like that to try and fit in and make work friends. Maybe when people know you better, they won’t mind if you excuse yourself and say, I’d like to catch up on reading these journal articles or whatever.

Sorry if any of this is obvious. It wasn’t to me and I’m still trying to figure it out. Your current coworkers sound like jerks, but that doctor sounds great, and I hope you can find a good match of workplace soon.