Smoking and employment

My last job had a ton of smokers and they would constantly take breaks and go outside and smoke. I remember one day my boss had the nerve to say something to me about using the bathroom "a lot" but yet he let people slide when it came to taking smoke breaks once an hour. Guess he thought it was ok because he was a smoker. I've since quit that job but it still pisses me off.

Another pet peeve of mine is the smell, I can't stand the smell of stale cigarette smoke. The smell that lingers on peoples clothes and hair is enough to give me a migraine

 

Unless it demonstrably impacts their ability to do a job then definitely not. I know a lot of firms in the us already test employees for drugs which is messed up, get out of people's private lives

 

Statically women has sick days every month which "can" effect their performance.
Women are free to choose what they do with their bodies. Getting pregrnant is voluntary habit so why risk it. Also during pergnancy/birth they leave the work for prolonged time/s which is paid leave, plus it will bring hiring a replacement cost... so better not hire a woman.

I hate this anti-smoking bullshit. If you have something against smokers, grow some balls and say it, don't hide behind mock excuses.

 

It's sad to see such harsh, rude, judgmental language.

Maybe you don't like a person's habits, but don't berate them, and put on some holier than thou attitude. People aren't perfect' get used to it. That accomplishes little or nothing by means of helping them, and simply pushes them farther away.

I'm disappointed to see the above post on a forum where one might work to help people from the perspective of compassion, as opposed to bellowing about how much they disgust them.

I see a lot of shaming, but little compassion, or positive, helpful suggestions for change.

 

That is not aimed to anyone, instead it was aimed to general governments.

One thing I don't get, if every government on earth thinks smoking is evil, bad and keep banning where to smoke/how to smoke... why they don't shut down cigarette companies? Make farming tabacco illegal, only allowed for medical needs.

Instead people keep campaign against it, harrassing people who smoke even saying they don't make friends who smokes. Probably instead of blaming a victim you should try to solve the problem at its root?

So after this smoking hysteria quenched whose will be next victim of social crucifiction? Obese/fat people seems like likely candidates.

Point taken nonetheless and from your point you are right.

 

I don't really think it should affect someone's decision for hiring. Statistics are just overarching trends. A smoker may not necessarily always take more sick days or less productivity than a nonsmoker. There are also a variety of other conditions, such as health conditions, which are entirely out of peoples' control, that may cause them to take more sick days -- should they be denied employment? Also, I just noticed White Knight's example of Women... pretty good argument. In such cases, I think people should be analyzed as individuals -- a smoker should not be turned down for employment just because they smoke. However, if it affects their performance they can find someone else... Also, it is only somewhat a voluntary habit, as it is an addition so you cannot simply stop.

That said, I tend to struggle with my stance on whether companies should be able to choose who to employ or not. In some ways I feel companies should be able to employ whoever they want, and not employ whoever they want for whatever reason really. It's really not the government's place.... but I do see the need for some regulations.

 

Not hiring someone because they smoke is pretty stupid. The only thing employers should be focusing on is the skill set of the person they are looking to hire, and whether or not they are suitable for the job. Everything else should be secondary.

PS - women take more sick days than men, but it'd be beyond insane to suggest that companies should be able to refuse a woman a job on those grounds only.

 

I think there are valid points on both sides of the debate.

On one hand, businesses are trying to make money and should be allowed to employ whoever they want, providing they don't discriminate against people in breach of basic laws of equality. I think it's reasonable for companies to prohibit employees from smoking during business hours (perhaps excluding scheduled breaks, in designated smoking areas). It has been mentioned before how smoking can lead to decreased productivity (amongst other things) so there's evidence to back up such rules.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree with this at all. You simply cannot equate the decision to become a smoker to wanting to have children. Your point about women having sick days every month isn't comparable either; females don't choose to have periods.

However, I don't agree that people should be denied employment based on smoker status. It IS an addiction for many people and potential employees should be assessed on their competency and work skills rather than writing them of as being less productive than the average non-smoker.

 

I was just trying to provide excuses why someone should not hire group of people.

While it is really really stupid, for some people (like some people I know in real life... macho manly man who think the place of a woman is kitchen) it might even sound clever. :icon_wink

 

I smoke and I don't think it should play a role in your employment UNLESS it interferes with your ability to do your job OR you're disrespectful to the non-smokers by smoking in an area which exposes them to your habit. Unfortunately, there are some rude smokers out there who force employers to implement the no smoking rule. I understand both sides.

 

There was a healthcare company several years ago, in Michigan I think. That said they were going to ban smoking because health insurance for smokers cost more. They offered to pay for smoking cessation classes, and gave 2 years prior notice, but after their set date the terminated any remaining smokers, and would not hire new ones.

My company hires smokers, but if you sign a pledge that you will not use tobacco they will contribute money to your health savings account.

 

I'm confused about this loss of productivity. When you are an employee, you get paid 15-minute breaks and a lunch. You can smoke then. If you are hourly, then any additional breaks cut into the paid time that you clock. If you are salaried, then you're taking breaks for all kinds of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with smoking.

I'm just saying this because I've been boss to a smoker before and we never had any problems with her. N=1 isn't proof of anything, of course, but it was trivially easy to set up a management system wherein she could smoke when she wanted to without the company paying for her habit in lost time/wages.

 

There are smokers where I work and they take sometimes 2 extra 15 minute breaks, that can get annoying for none smokers.

When my manager smokes she is out there for maybe 5 minutes so that doesn't bother me but there is one girl who will be out there for 30 minutes some times