Discrimination?
Some of you may know that I’m looking for a new job.
Well, anyway, I had a Phonecall from Kalamazoo Reynolds earlier, who, 3 questions into the interview asked.
“Do you smoke?”
“Yes”
“Ok, then please feel free to re-apply if you ever give up, we have a company policy in place that we do not employ smokers”
Is this legal?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Well, the company is free to give jobs to whoever they want, of course this is legal. And to be honest… I can understand this policy.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
As far as I know it is legal (in the US anyway), but awfully weird. I can see not allowing smoking on the job, but not even employing a person if the smoke is really odd. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission says you can’t discriminate based on: sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Apparently it is legal:
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200710/1193555108.html
August 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
strictly speaking, yes, smokers are not a legally protected demographic.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
[...] Martin, yes it is: [...]
August 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Yes, it’s a great idea! There should be no thing as “smokers’ rights”. You chose that habit, so don’t expect others to be fine with it.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Unfortunately yes its legal
August 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Just tell them that you quit smoking and smoke at home :))
August 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
It is most defineately NOT legal. That’s one.
Second you could make it a “religious” issue. Aren’t you native american ? Lots and lots of cultures (and religions) smoke, sigarettes may not be very much used, but pipes are present in just about any religion. Even in Christianity there are (ancient) rituals that involve smoking. Using this would be lying, obviously, but then again, most religious lawsuits are lies too, and they get lots of money sometimes.
That said, unless you really still think that “human rights” law is applied equally to all citizens, I wouldn’t try it. After all this is discrimination in order to advance “progressive” ideals and the judge will be reluctant, to say the least, to stop that.
Or you could restart your application … and lie. There’s no law against that.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Legal in the EU as well.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
So quit already, it’s stupid anyway. And you know that!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
IT’s legal in UK, and it’s ‘legal’ in the PT_BR meaning of the word also ;P
August 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Everybody knows you should lie to that question.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
It would be really stupid if it was illegal. Imagine yourself running a company and you have a damn right to employ whoever you want! It’s *your* company and you know best how to manage it. At the previous place I worked smokers usually took twice the breaks the non-smokers did, so such policy is quite understandable - but IMHO it’s quite stupid in a company which relies heavily on education and skills of certain person .. in any case, life goes on.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I must ask - are you offended by their policy?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The certainly can…especially here in the states if the company provides insurance. Plus, there could be other considerations such as they may have employees with sensitivity to smells (perfume and such…and smokers tend to…well…smell like smokers).
August 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I am not a lawyer, but I have taken quite a few classes on Business Management and Constitutional Law. The answer to you question of “Is this legal?” is yes, and here is why:
1) An employer may not discriminate based on gender, unless safety is a legitimate defensible explanation.
2) An employer may not discriminate based on religious beliefs.
3) An employer may not discriminate based on age, but this only actionable if you are over 50.
4) The Americans with Disabilities Act forces employers to make reasonable accommodations (at their own expense) to employees with disabilities (if alcoholism is a disease, why isn’t nicotine addiction), and they cannot discriminate, unless safety is a legitimate defensible explanation.
Are you getting the point? There are a total of 9 protected classes in the U.S., and smokers are not any of them, neither are white males or homosexuals.
Until I read your post, I thought that the worst thing to be in the U.S. was a terrorist, but apparently, it is a white homosexual male smoker. My guess is that you would be happier work for a company that is not myopic, like that one.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Yes, I am. Personally, I think it’s my own right and own freedom to smoke if I wish. I can understand their point of view, but I can also understand that I’m a considerate smoker.
I also find, personally, that that 5/10 minutes outside when I’m having a cigarette generally, when coding, allows me to re-focus my mind. I’m sure my previous employers will tell you that I’ve generally come in from a cigarette break asking questions, or proposing new ideas. It’s for the same reason that I run rsibreak. Whether I was a smoker or not, I’d still have those breaks (to go make a cup of tea, or something similar) that allow my mind to calm down and re-focus. Generally I’ll come back from a smoke break and be more productive than before I went on it.
Also, I find it gives me a chance to have a walk around, and stretch my legs, which, with my disability, is pretty important for me.
I agree with all the other posts here, smoking is bad, but it’s my choice to do so. I’m not forcing you to. I have to go outside… it’s MY choice (and I’m planning to give up anyway!)
August 7th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Ianal, but I hope it’s legal. No one should have to deal with smokers. They are annoying and a health hazard to everyone around them. They are also inconsiderate (as a group, not specifically you). They light up when they want without regard to who is around them. They also seem to think it’s okay to toss their trash wherever they want. I hope more and more people adopt positions that discriminate against smokers. I’d like to see it illegal.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I don’t smoke, but one of my coworker smokes. It’s really unpleasant to do pair programming (or meetings, or ad-hoc hallway discussions) when he comes back after a smoking break, stinking.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
As an aside.. I recently had to visit a specialist medical practitioner with my daughter. She had a condition which was exacerbated by cigarette smoke. Neither my wife nor I smoke, but other family members do. The Professor we saw said that even if family members smoke outside, when they come in they continue to breathe out very nasty particulates over the rest of the family.
Passive smoking doesn’t doesn’t mean someone has to be sat next to you for you to be inhaling their exhaled nasties. It can happen for some time after too.
Picture yourself as one of the co-workers, sat near a smoker. Is it fair on them that you come back from a cigarette break and breath that over them?
If I were employing people, after checking the legality, I too would not employ smokers. For the above stated reason and also because I think they vastly under-estimate the amount of time they spend away from their desk smoking.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:01 am
FWIW it was not my intention to condemn smokers; I wanted to point out that counting minutes spent on breaks is perhaps not the main reason for such a policy.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I would imagine it’s probably legal. I sympathize but at least on our boat the smokers’ take many short breaks a day to go outside and smoke, probably costs an hour to hour and a half each day. I’m trying to get a special day off approved for our division’s non-smokers to compensate.
If you were only to smoke outside during designated break periods I can see no real reason why people should complain (it’s your break time after all). However it may be possible that the company does not want to employ you due to insurance concerns, I don’t know.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:09 am
As an aside, at my previous job, we didn’t actually get a lunchbreak - just went round the corner, and got a baguette, and ate it at our desk.
I can see the whole “hour” thing (probably about right for what I smoked, erring on the cautious side) but I’d probably go for 2/3 a day, either at a time where I’d been working intensively, and needed to re-focus, or a lull in what needed to be done (like, after dealing with all the bugs for that day, or while waiting for the boss to review a spec or similar)
August 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I wonder if the reasoning behind this is that they are trying to minimize the cost of insuring employees. If insurance is the reason, it makes sense; smokers are high-risk, thus it costs more to share that risk. The employees may not care if you actually smoke (or if you don’t) but maybe don’t like what it does to their bottom line.
Now, is this probably a policy that’s offensive to most smokers. Especially since they didn’t state their reasons behind it, it could easily be construed as prejudice against smokers. Your concern may very well be valid.
Finally, I have no idea what laws and practices are where you are from so I don’t know if the place you are seeking employment even has an insurance industry (as opposed to government health plans, etc). I just figured I’d add a little perspective. Thanks, I enjoy reading your blog on Planet Ubuntu.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:04 am
If you have a lawyer handy, claim it as a disability. It _is_ an addiction after all, and addictions are disabilities.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:39 am
And so it should be!
I can understand that people smoke - I just don’t want to breathe their air, thanks!
I found this at UDS - It’s great talking to you people, but not when I’m finding it hard to breathe due to your smoke! A coworker always comes in and talks to us, right after she’s had a smoke too - urgh! I want my clean air back!
August 8th, 2008 at 1:59 am
First of all - it was not a question about smoking during workinghours?
I would not like to be employed at a company where everybody are clones. How boring is that?? If you are cloned (Western version of Mao uniforms?) it is more than likely that “life” is utterly boring.
Eventually most clones will break out one way or another. (Smoking pot at weekends, cocaine, mountainclimbing, MTB, diving, swinging, collecting stamps).
Streamlining humans is a bad thing. Humans are not perfect and they do not have perfect health. You can be healthy and kill your colleagues with pure boredom.
The banning of smokers as employees is just the same as excluding women, pregnant women, homosexuals, army veterans, non-white, garliceaters, curryeaters, disabled, old, young, whaterver.
The smokers are out - then overweight - then diabetes - then those with relatives died of cancer - then parents of disabled kids - then with healthy kids - then people with glasses.
Where do you draw the line? When does it become healthfacism? In my opinion the question is: Does whatever you do or whatever you are preventing you to perform your job well?
Someone WILL replace the smokers in the bottom of the peckingorder.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:02 am
This is one of the side effects of having employers provide our health care. They have a vested interest in keeping us healthy to keep their costs down. If we would buy our health insurance like we buy all other insurance (personally), the employer’s would no longer have any reason to tell us how to live our lives (healthwise).
August 8th, 2008 at 2:36 am
I don’t think this is unreasonable at all.
Job interviews are all about selecting the best person for the job. If you are a smoker, you won’t be able to work as effectively as an equivalent non-smoker, as you will have to take frequent forced breaks in order to stop you from going crazy.
You call it discrimination because you are no longer the best person for the job?
August 8th, 2008 at 2:44 am
please excuse my poor english i am a bbc
“I also find, personally, that that 5/10 minutes outside when I’m having a cigarette generally, when coding, allows me to re-focus my mind.”
- most universities and colleges now enforce 5-10 minute breaks every 45 minutes as it has been proven that it helps concentration
“At the previous place I worked smokers usually took twice the breaks the non-smokers did, so such policy is quite understandable”
Your right, lets ban all smokers from the work place, and while we’re at it dont those anoying drinkers annoy you aswell.. lets ban drinkers from the workplace .. rolling in monday morning still hung over from the night before.. lowered overall productivity due to fatigue and headaches..
whilst were on the subject of lowered productivity why not ban muslims from work also? i mean come on during fasting season they are terribly tired .. strict muslims even deprave themselves from fluids during this time, so they may also be dehydrated.. talk about lowered productivity..
women shiesh women should be banned or rather women that forsee themselves becomming pregnant.. talk about leeching money from a company..
old people.. cmon.. “you cant teach an old dog new tricks” you would honestly hire a 50yr old over a 20yr old even if they have the same qualifications in every way.. ofc not.. the 50 yr old will be retiring soon one would assume
jim says:”They are annoying and a health hazard to everyone around them.”
-u ever see an elderly company driver? no? why not? because as we all know elderly people are in general slower to react, senses are dimmed talk about a health hazard to everyone around them.
.. okay enough of the crap
If a company can hire “only ethnic minorities” during a recruitment drive to ensure “equality” under our own english laws then it seems anything goes..
sad but true - what type of discrimination is leagal in this ‘pc’ world.. who the hell knows.
“I hope more and more people adopt positions that discriminate against smokers. I’d like to see it illegal.”
To me it honestly sounds petty and unfair real discrimation shouldnt fking exist in this day and age and yet you would want such a strict rulling against this.. on a personal note i hate smoking and i despise drunken louts but it is their choice to do those things.. and that i donot hate, our own choices define us. controlling every aspect of what we do down to our very choices of what we do/see/hear doesnt seem like freedome to me
August 8th, 2008 at 3:36 am
I’d continue this interview:
“Excuse me. May I ask a question?”
“Yes”
“Do you drink alcohol? I have a strong policy to not work with alcoholics. Feel free to try to hire me if you quit.”
August 8th, 2008 at 3:44 am
it’s legal. and it’s lame.
But I’m all for lying. I don’t know if it’s a state law (New York) or federal, but I’m entitled to two paid 15 minute breaks and one half-hour break when working six or more hours (required! some companies are cool and give you more than that). During said breaks (especially the half hour one), you aren’t required to be at your “work station”. So you could just leave the premises, go have your cigarette, hose yourself down with some Axe (or what have you), have an Altoid, and be good to go.
Been there. Done that. It works.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:54 am
I don’t know in your country, but in mine (Brazil) it is somewhat encouraged.
I believe the employer is free to give jobs based in any criteria he believes is better. Maybe he is like me, and he doesn’t want to live smelling ashes at his own office.
I don’t smoke and I feel furious when someone pollute the air I breath with his smoke or even with his stench.
Instead of been sniveler, you could do a favor for your health, for people around you and for your chances to get a job dropping you cigarettes.
no offenses!
August 8th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Would the new company be responsible for your health care or a health benefits package? My guess is that as a smoker you might potentially be a “more expensive” employee…
August 8th, 2008 at 4:58 am
You wouldn’t want to work for a bunch of people like that in the end of it all. People who either can’t accept or don’t give their employees choice in how they live their lives are no people I would want to work with.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Fortunately, there is at least one enlightened state in the union. In Kentucky it is illegal to discriminate against smokers:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/344-00/040.PDF
I’m unsure if other states have other laws.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
WTH?
What’s wrong with our society?
I mean, companies will employ no smokers, even if they have better reputation and more experience then non-smokers?
Really, if this will be the next level of racism, I think the better idea is to put nicotine under heavy drugs law, and see how far the state comes, regarding missing tax income of smokers…
Mez, I’m on your side..smokers unite..we are better people…we pay more for the social system then a non-smoker, we are more intelligent (I need to find the scientific paper again coming from the US), and we die earlier and don’t waste money of health insurances…and because we die earlier, we are not wasting the time of our young kids, taking care of us when we are old and can’t walk and the only thing we do is peeing into our pants.
Hell, I hope something happens, that our society will be healed from their social sickness…
\sh
August 8th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Note to self: When around popey, smoke as often as possible.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:49 am
While I don’t know about the legal aspects of it various countries, I’d find it somewhat disturbing they could refuse to employer purely on the grounds of being a smoker.
Having it a condition of employment (applicable to everyone) that you don’t smoke at work, I’d be okay with - but refusing to employer a smoker, even if they are not going to smoke at work, sound dodgy to me.
Here’s my responses to various reasons given above for not employing smokers:
Wastes a hour a day smoking - as well as the large number of places where you can’t smoke at work, can I assume you won’t want to employ anyone who wastes time at work? Like the people who have a cup of tea three or four times a day, or do stretches for a few minutes every hour (as the OH&S rules at work technically say we’re supposed to)
Smells, agitating allergies, etc. - this is more reasonable, but there are quite a few other things that could do it too, and I doubt that they’re stopping anyone in the workplace wearing perfume, wearing deoderant after they finish their jogging at lunch time, or accepting flowers from their partner on their anniversary.
In summary, while not letting you smoke at work might be okay, I can’t see how refusing to employ you purely on the grounds of being a smoker could be any better than refusing to because you have red hair, have a New Zealand accent, or play gold on the weekends.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think the point is that smoking’s a choice, unlike skin colour.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Yes. It is most definately legal.
There can be many reasons someone may choose to employ non smokers. Many have been listed throughout this post. Break times, Insurance costs, allergic/comfort of other employees, etc. Many places I have met over time which have reduced the number of smokers over the years have also reported a reduction in building maintenance costs, having to repaint stairwell walls less often, as they claimed they tended to turn yellow after a while of smokers using them when it was heavily raining outside (unless you are wanting the company to spend more of its building/maintenance budget building a special kennel outside for the smokers?
August 8th, 2008 at 9:58 am
It’s legal because you can’t choose your “sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities” but you CAN choose whether to smoke or not. Personally I think the smell and direct/indirect health implications are more than sufficient to avoid hiring smokers.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“minutes outside when I’m having a cigarette generally, when coding, allows me to re-focus my mind” - because you were getting distracted by your craving?
seriously, don’t write on forms that you smoke, it’s never a good thing. I guess you couldn’t go all day without a cigarette (or until lunch)?
August 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Wow, that’s just great news! I didn’t know such companies exist…that’s just wonderful. I wonder if such companies exist around here too…I’d change job immediately.
Btw, if you want to die early….there’s faster ways than smoking. And there’s even ways that don’t harm others - isn’t that great?
August 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
WOW.
I can’t imagine all the people in favor of discriminating smokers.
They must be American, since i can’t imagine this behavior in Europe.
WOW, WOW, WOW. What a bunch of a rascist biggots.
How is “You should not smoke, let me help you by oppressing you” any different from “You should believe in god, let me smack you up with a bible!” ?
Really, what is the difference. You are enforcing your beliefs onto somebody else.
Also, if you are american, smoking is not going to kill you. It’s your car (the smog) that is causing long cancer. But even that is not killing you before you die of eating popsticles-on-a-stick. (seriously, wtf?)
EVER HEARD THE EXPRESSION: WE CAN WORK IT OUT?
Before you turn into fascist beliefs-enforcing biggots?
If you have 100 programmers, couldn’t the 10 that smoke work together.. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Big fucking deal.
And no, I don’t smoke [anymore]. But the prosecution of these people is frightning.
It’s weird enough the governemt bans some random selection of drugs.
Why keep adding things we are not allowed to to the list? Why not just make a list of things we are allowed to? Then we can all be exactly like you.
Wait, no, not you. You smoke. No,. not you, you eat too much. No, not you, you drive a car (stinkin pollutor!), no not you, you watch TV,….
But sure, hey, go feel superior to people that smoke. You are not. You are just displaying your ignorance.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:19 am
@Marius..
Talk to him about it.
If he washes his hands and takes a mint he won’t smell.
He doesn’t know he smells. (i didn’t notice how much smokers smelled until I quit)
If you ask him to, i’m sure he would much rather prefer a solution like that.
He might even be a little ashamed, because he wasn’t aware he was causing trouble for you.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Meneer,
I am an EU citizen and I agree with such “no somers” policy, you are actually the racist by trying to assign a discrimination policy to a specific nation.
No one is trying to enforce beliefs , smoking or not smoking is not a belief, it’s an health care issue, specially when you work on a team.
I do not smoke and hate to get the smoke from my colleagues, what is your suggestion for me ?
Are smoker right’s superior to my health concerns ?
August 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Whoops, I realized that my “smoke around popey” comment implies that I would do so to get his daughter sick.
Readers please note that popey and I are seperated by an ocean so when I smoke around him there is still usually a long flight and (rarely) a shower.
Do note that slowly killing popey with second hand smoke is still very much a real goal.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Jorge, get me a job at canonical and your goal will be much easier to achieve. Also I can bring down your smokers empire from within.. Mwahahahaha!
August 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
That company should be rewarded for its policy.
And you should stop smoking.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
he said you can reapply when you quit. That makes it legal.
You want the job? Then respect their policy. I can totally understand it.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@jegHegy : Legal in the EU as well.
Certainly not in france.
It’s forbidden to smoke on the office, but you have the right to be a smoker.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
@Joao Pinto, I’m a european citizen, too…
You know, it’s much more unhealthy to walk around in our cities with all the cars polluting the air?
There are more car drivers killing more people then smokers commiting suicide?
Do you drink alcohol? You know, one beer per day, and you are seen as an alcoholic regarding the medical view. So yes, every italian guy, every french guy, german guy who is drinking wine, wine and beer every day (only one glas or one bottle) is medically an alcoholic.
So, do you want to not be employed, because you have your way of living? No one is saying, that smoking is good, but those people at HR and with their thinking? well, honestly, good to know that some companies are still sane…
August 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This is ridiculous.
1. Health Implications - Should employers be allowed to discriminate on the basis of Obesity? How about if someone drinks? Eating or drinking too much are choices too.
2. Smell - Right….so can I start refusing to hire people who eat too much curry? I once had a co-worker who would eat so much spicy stuff it literally came out of his pores. I also worked with a woman who wore the most offensive perfume I’ve ever smelled. Should we be able to refuse to hire people who don’t floss because they get halitosis?
3. Too many breaks - Ridiculous. A company is entitled to set a limit on breaks for all employees, including smokers. As long as these are adhered to then there is no problem.
4. Health of co-workers - Good Lord I hope you’re joking. If you can point to a single reputable study that shows health suffers from passively inhaling “particles” from a person who has just smoked outside….well I’ll eat every single ciggy I have.
—-
Smokers have just become the new “trendy” people to hate. People are such bloody hypocrites.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I’m sorry but this is just petty,
The same logic people are using to castrate smokers can be used on a variety of groups:
* Alcoholics
* Overweight people (i believe the average person in america and england ar enow overweight)
* Certain religious groups
* The elderly
It seems to me that in the current state of affairs unless you are a perfect drone in terms of behaviour social status and habbits you will be persecuted.. is this fair? no, do we have to deal with it in this face-like-snake world? yes..
You should have just lied, if they query you at a later date having been caught smoking claim it to have been a recent habbit..
The truth is if they can adobt such a policy then they should be prepared for people to decieve them.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Midnightsun, how come we get trash “ooh they just hate smokers” comments like you only from smokers? Non-smokers don’t seem to have much problems, and they won’t attempt to apply chewbacca logics into every rational discussion
August 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Rawsausage:
Perhaps because we’re the ones being discriminated against, so we respond the most vociferously? It’s very easy to be apathetic when it’s not your freedoms being messed with. If you would kindly explain how I’m using Chewbacca logic? I feel I was perfectly rational. I’ll leave you with a poem:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
August 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I find it extremely amazed at how people link “no smoking” with some particular religion and get offended by the same. What the company might have meant by smoking would mostly be “smoking during working hours, and/or just before entering the office”, which is totally understandable as many of the employees may be non-smokers or people with breathing problems who might seriously get offended and affected by a fellow smoker. At work, you indeed need to interact with people, and in some jobs the whole job might be about interaction. In such scenarios, smoking might have a serious impact on work life. Also, the company might have had bad experiences with insurances, as smokers are more prone to cardio problems and hence the chance of paying insurance for such employees are more. May be the company considers that smoking is one of the main causes of ill health and thus doesn’t want to encourage it among it’s employees as well.
Whatever, this is not the only place to work on earth. If they say no job for smokers and you can’t quit, then you can anyways find another job which doesn’t demand so
August 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Is this legal?
First, let me say, I was a smoker for 40 years. (4 packs a day). I quit cigarettes and went to cigars, you know, those little 5 packers. When I got up to 25 cigars a day, I went back to cigarettes. Now I have been smoke free for 30 years. Oh no, I just gave my age away. Well, with that out of the way, let me give you my opinion.
If I ran a school bus company and my employees transported kids, I would not think it wrong to ask anyone I hired if they were practicing alcoholics. And if they would answer yes, then I would not hire them. And I would not say this was discrimination. Maybe the employer is covering his or her butt from a lawsuit. Some one in the work place might come along and say to the employer, “because you hired smokers, and I got lung cancer I am going to sue you.” I guess that’s just the way I look at it.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
In civilized parts of Canada, smoking in workplaces is illegal (because of the effects of second hand smoke). You should take the hint and quit smoking - although you will put more load on your health system by taking longer to die.
@Tom:
Native American religions involved a peace pipe, which wasn’t smoked outside of the ritual itself.
As to Christianity, I’m not sure where the pipe would come in. Tobacco wouldn’t have been smoked before the New World was discovered, so I guess you’re trying to draw a connection between incense and smoking.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
A question for the original poster:
how much do you smoke? how often? why?
I think is are good questions.
Well I don’t smoke frequently, I smoke at parties and sometimes to clear my mind from “thoughts”. Is that makes me a smoker?
Most of the replies above focus on:
Is legal, smoker are shit or
Respect my habits.
But not a solution, the answer for the original poster has been given: its legal not to hire smokers.
But as long as I’m living in this earth, haven’t seen a solution to getting the habit of smoking, or eating too much.
So any idea?
August 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Carlos.
How much do I smoke? Well, it’ll all depend on the mood I’m in.
It can vary from 10 - 30 a day… generally however, I’ve found that while at work (or at least at my previous position) I’d smoke less in a day when I was working, than a day when I wasn’t. How often? can vary from every half hour to every 4/5 hours.
Why ? ah the age old quesiton - I guess mainly the reason now is partly out of habit, and partly for something to do. It’s not something I can easily explain WHY, but I know I do…
*shrugs*
August 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
It sucks that it’s legal
August 8th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
@ Midnightsun
“This is ridiculous. Should employers be allowed to discriminate on the basis of Obesity?”
I have two words for you: Fashion Models.
In fact, consider that almost any professional athletic organization already does this. How many short fat NBA players have you ever see? Yes, employers should discriminate when hiring employees.
@Antonio:
Why does it suck that a person who owns and operates a business can run it as she sees fit?
August 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Well.. smoking kills and suicide is illegal… so.. just c if that can help u somewhere!!
August 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I think it’s fantastic.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
It’s legal, and it’s a good thing.
My company has a similar policy. It saves our insurance an average of between 30% and 70%.
That saves the company money, and that means we get more in our paychecks.
It comes down to the insurance companies. They’re raising rates faster for smokers than they are for non-smokers, and that eats into cost. Studies basically prove that smokers die at an alarmingly faster rate. Even those who don’t get cancer have secondary problems that kill them and cost money on the way out. Companies don’t want to pay that.. and so they don’t.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am
“It’s legal because you can’t choose your “sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities” but you CAN choose whether to smoke or not”
I think you’ll find that individuals can choose their religion! as I do not follow my parents religion being a passionate atheist.
And they can also choose self inflicted disabilities such as obesity and don’t give me all that jazz about how people can’t help it as you can’t possibly put on more weight than than the calorific content of what you eat. Obviously that should only affect employment opportunities in a few countries like the US where they don’t have a state health structure and health plans are provided as job benefits, so I figure it should be okay to say no fatties and no chimneys, heck its their company they should be able to employ who they please.
Incidentally I gave up smoking three years ago and for me its been a good thing but I wouldn’t want to force that on others like the anti-smoking Nazi’s around here.
“As an aside.. I recently had to visit a specialist medical practitioner with my daughter. She had a condition which was exacerbated by cigarette smoke. Neither my wife nor I smoke, but other family members do. The Professor we saw said that even if family members smoke outside, when they come in they continue to breathe out very nasty particulates over the rest of the family.”
Stop it, Stop it, how long did it take you to invent that twoddle! There are a lot worse viral pathogens in the air than the smell of smoke on a smokers breath.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“Personally, I think it’s my own right and own freedom to smoke if I wish.”
No, it isn’t. _Don’t even try to go that way_. There is no benefit from smoking. Not a single one. It’s exactly the opposite. Smoking doesn’t calm you down, and endangers everybody (that includes the smoker and the non-smokers).
My first wife died with lung cancer ans she was a passive smoker: her co-workers smoked, back when it was legal and ok/cool to smoke.
I also find amusing when smokers compare themselves with people with diabetes and parents of disabled kids.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
John. Yes it is anyones own right and own freedom to smoke if they wish. You CANNOT take that right away from someone. Your point may be valid, but if the person wants to, they have the right to smoke. It’s the same as if I want to, I have the right to shave my hair off..
August 11th, 2008 at 1:38 am
There is no such thing as a specific ‘right to smoke’. Any illusion of such a right comes from the idea that we can do as we please. We can-and should be able to-but only within the limit that we shouldn’t be able to do something if it causes harm (J.S. Mill’s harm principle). There are plenty of harms (both actual and slightly less tangible, such as the damage to social interaction between smokers and non-smokers who simply can’t stand the smell etc) in smoking.
I don’t recall any big fuss smokers made over bars and restaurants that specifically chose to prohibit smoking on their premises before the smoking ban - so why a fuss over an employer deciding of his own volition to ban smoking on his premises? It seems the smokers are afraid they’ll lose their wonderful cancersticks completely…
August 11th, 2008 at 1:53 am
nothing wrong with an employer deciding to ban smoking on his premises… the point here is… even if you only smoke outside of work, they wont employ you