Smoking & Work

[Zeekater]

Recently, Belgian firms have admitted that they prefer non-smokers over smokers when they have to choose. Not hiring someone because he smokes is illegal here, but it can hardly be proven.
English firms write announcements like: "Smokers need not apply".
Dutch firms give smoking employees less vacation.

All these are based on a few things:
* smokers lose time while smoking, those 10 minutes twice a day cost them a lot of time on a yearly basis. (non-smokers of course don't take smoking pauses)
* smokers are sick more often.


Do you think this is discrimination? Should firms be allowed to do this in your opinion?

 

[Tassadar]

It remember me 20 year ago when i went at imperial tobacco as a lab technicien student, i saw about everywhere sign on the wall saying '' thank you for smoking'' lol.

I would say that if i had a job interview i wouldnt smoke, just play the game and once hired, then you can show that you are a smoker. Today getting a job is like submiting yourself to insurence compagny policy and medical investigation ( you know , the one with the latex glove), a racing horse got more respect today then a ''miserable employee''.

 

[Moss]

I personally do not prefer employees who smoke. In my experience they tend to take longer breaks than non-smoking employees and feel the need to take breaks more often because of their need for a light.

However, a good worker is a good worker, whether he or she smokes or not.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If you really need a job, surely you can refrain from smoking for 8 hours or so. How would they know you smoke unless youre stupid enough to tell them in the interview?

 

[chunkymonkey]

I read somewhere that some smokers can end up being healthier in some aspects, and more alert than their desk-bound colleagues since they get out into the fresh air once in a while and give their brain a chance to think about other things.

Sitting behind a computer for eight hours a day can seriously damage your health.

 

[amadeus]

If employers want to treat people differently because of their smoking preference, they should be able to treat them differently because of their race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, physical appearance, etc.

If you're going to have "equal opportunity," the company should be fined for discriminatory practices.

 

[Cheetah]

Should an employer be allowed to not hire a guy who drinks during his work or workbrakes? If so, why not being allowed not to hire a smoker?

I imagine that both cases takes time away from work, and they aren't exactly making it a better worklplace for the nonsmokers/nondrinkers.

I'll admit it may not be to correct to compare alcohol-consumption and smoking, but I don't think it is to far off.

PS: I'm biased. Smoking is unhealthy both to the smoker and to me. People who smoke are stupid. (Of course that last sentence might not be completely correct, but never the less: the act of smoking is stupid.)

 

[EdwardTking]

I think that smokers should be made to
clock out during their 10 minute breaks.

 

[Sanaz]

I hate smoking in all forms, but this is clear discrimination and should be illegal. As was pointed out, if you open the door to this discrimination then the door is open to all types of discrimination. The only thing tat should matter is how well they can perform the job. If anything gets in the way of doing a good job, including smoking, then a decision can be made. But deciding beforehand that someone will be a worse worker only because they smoke is wrong.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

I don't think smokers should get any extra breaks, if they want to smoke they can use their dedicated lunch or tea breaks. At least non smokers should get a similar amount of breaks.

 

[BasketCase]

If employers want to treat people differently because of their smoking preference, they should be able to treat them differently because of their race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, physical appearance, etc.

I hate smoking in all forms, but this is clear discrimination and should be illegal. As was pointed out, if you open the door to this discrimination then the door is open to all types of discrimination.

The door is already open to discrimination. People already flagrantly violate laws banning discrimination against blacks, women, Koreans, gays, you name it. And not many of them get caught.

 

[joycem10]

If you really need a job, surely you can refrain from smoking for 8 hours or so. How would they know you smoke unless youre stupid enough to tell them in the interview?

The usual manner that you see this is an employer requires a applicant to disclose medical information for employee benefits such as medical coverage, life insurance policies and long term/short term disability coverage. They then subsequently withdraw the job offer after information such as smoking habits are disclosed.

In the US courts are divided as to whether this is a violation of ERISA.

 

[Zeekater]

Well, here it is illegal to not hire someone because he smokes, but if the person feels he has been discriminated because he smokes, how will he prove it?
The firm will just say that they didn't hire him for other reasons, simple as that...

 

[The Last Conformist]

In jobs were productivity can me tolerably objectively measured, this shouldn't be a problem; just link pay to work done.

Hm. It occurs to me, that if my personal experience is anything to go by, kindergarteners and pre-school teachers are more prone to smoke than the rest of the adult population. This can't possibly be a good thing ...

 

[test_specimen]

In some countries smoking is not allowed at the workplace, so smokers have to go outside of their office (which means that they have to stamp their timecard) and "lose" those 10-15 minutes of payment. This can add up to several days a year, some have to give up their vacation because of this. Can't remember which country that was in though. A very good system, as a non smoker I completely support it.

However I hope they don't invent the same for caffeine addicts

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sweden doesn't allow you to smoke on the workplace if it's indoors. I suppose you get to smoke, tho, if you work at a restaurant or pub, since the patrons are allowed to (they won't be come January, however).

Obviously, if your self-employed and work in your own home, you can smoke too. And dance naked while sacrificing barbie dolls to the nether gods every twenty minutes, if that rocks your boat.

 

[CurtSibling]

Smokers should leave their arrogant habit out of the workplace.

After all, why should fellow workers join these suicidal addicts in the cancer ward?

.

 

[Iggy]

I smoke, but I banned smoking inside our work place three years ago. About 40% of the staff were smokers and I gave them (and myself) no extra breaks.

I prefer none smoking employees if they are going to have face to face contact with customers. Smokers smell.

 

[CurtSibling]

Good point...

After all, smoking can be done in the pub!
Oh, wait! They are going to ban it there too!

.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Smokers can smoke in their own homes, in those of smoking friends, and outdoors. If they don't think that's enough, they should have a chat with the potheads.