Smokers, work and discrimination

[fullspizz]

slightly off topic:-

I work in a company where half the workforce smokes and the other half don't.
The half that smoke are off outside to the shelter for a fag every hour or so. Then they want to take their dinner when they want, whilst the non-smokers generally spend more time working.
Due to the half assed laws I cannot stop them from going for a fag, so the non-smokers complain that they are getting less breaks.

 

[SteveOBHave]

sorry to go off subject a little but people who smoke in the UK are atrocious. There is nothing worse than walking down the road and having to breathe in the crap exhaled by someone puffing away on their little death sticks. Smokers should have to walk around in bubbles like the bubble boy and breathe in their own recycled crap.

Saying that you aren't going to hire someone because they smoke is nothing like not hiring because of an accent or the colour of their skin. Them having a chav accent or having dark skin isn't going to directly impact on both other peoples health nor on the working environment. I'm sorry Voltar but that was a ridiculous statement.

 

[Raymond Lin]

slightly off topic:-

I work in a company where half the workforce smokes and the other half don't.
The half that smoke are off outside to the shelter for a fag every hour or so. Then they want to take their dinner when they want, whilst the non-smokers generally spend more time working.
Due to the half assed laws I cannot stop them from going for a fag, so the non-smokers complain that they are getting less breaks.

I've worked in practice that had a policy where the smokers can smoke when they want, except it will eat into their hour of lunch break. So if you go outside for 5 mins for a fag, your lunch will be 55mins long.

 

[4T5]

Mate i am Desperatly looking for work at the mo & i am a heavy smoker. If one of the employers I had seen recently rang me & said the same I would jump at the chance.
I'd say give him a ring & have a Casual chat with him & see what he says. He may tell you to go jump or he may use it as motivation to quit.

 

[stoofa]

slightly off topic:-

I work in a company where half the workforce smokes and the other half don't.
The half that smoke are off outside to the shelter for a fag every hour or so. Then they want to take their dinner when they want, whilst the non-smokers generally spend more time working.
Due to the half assed laws I cannot stop them from going for a fag, so the non-smokers complain that they are getting less breaks.

You can stop them having excessive breaks.
They are not entitled to any more breaks than your non-smokers.
If they are taking the **** then you need to make it clear how many breaks they are entitled to during a day.
There are laws on breaks and how often people have to have them, however there is no law saying smokers can just go off and have a smoke when they like.

 

[badbob]

I agree with the OP, old smoke smell in clothes makes me close to vomiting, I can't even tolerate sitting next to them for 5 minutes, let alone all day. If a smoker decides to smoke and wear the same clothes without washing them, be prepared for the consequences. I don't have a problem with "fresh" fag smoke.

If I smelt of urine, poo and BO it'll be the exact same thing..handed in my P45. It's not a "lifestyle choice"

 

[richard smith]

I too would just not hire him, smokers have more health problems and also take more time off during work hours to go have a 'quicky' - it's just less time that they are productive.

Load of crap. Where I work, you can guarantee it's the office services girls who are off sick at the slightest hint of a cold.

 

[Voltar]

Saying that you aren't going to hire someone because they smoke is nothing like not hiring because of an accent or the colour of their skin. Them having a chav accent or having dark skin isn't going to directly impact on both other peoples health nor on the working environment. I'm sorry Voltar but that was a ridiculous statement.

So that was not a valid example of discrimination then?
Nothing to do with the preachy 'health' arguments or 'the greater good' arguments.
OP was talking about discrimination, so I responded accordingly.
And I'm afraid that depending on profession, the accent and appearance of an employee directly affects the working relationship between clients.
Different for an IT company or whatever I suppose, but just because someone smokes is no reason to treat them differently? walk down the Euston Road, and you'll breathe in more crap than anywhere else.
But I would go as far as to say that most smokers one encounters are in fact obnoxious and don't regard other people when indulging their habits.

i'd rather sit next to someone who smelt of smoke than who had acrid BO. Dunno about you lot here?

 

[richard smith]

I agree with the OP, old smoke smell in clothes makes me close to vomiting, I can't even tolerate sitting next to them for 5 minutes, let alone all day. If a smoker decides to smoke and wear the same clothes without washing them, be prepared for the consequences. I don't have a problem with "fresh" fag smoke.

If I smelt of urine, poo and BO it'll be the exact same thing..handed in my P45. It's not a "lifestyle choice"

Old smoke smell in clothes? That would somewhat indicate that they don't use the washing machine enough. I'd guess that if you can smell stale old smoke on clothes it's probably masking the BO, urine and poo that'll likely be under it

 

[SteveOBHave]

Load of crap. Where I work, you can guarantee it's the office services girls who are off sick at the slightest hint of a cold.

I'm sorry, you're right, the Surgeon General is wrong and they put the health warnings on ciggy packets for fun... My bad...

 

[SteveOBHave]

So that was not a valid example of discrimination then?

Oh a very valid example just not in any way related to smoking and the apparent discrimination against them. To be fair if we were to use a similar analogy I don't like people who pull out guns and shoot other people - does that make me someone that discriminates against gun toting murderers?

i'd rather sit next to someone who smelt of smoke than who had acrid BO. Dunno about you lot here?

The point is, you have the choice, you don't need to sit next to either of them and if you don't hire a smoker then that gets rid of one of the undesirables right there doesn't it.

 

[yak.h'cir]

i'd rather sit next to someone who smelt of smoke than who had acrid BO. Dunno about you lot here?

That got me wondering, if someone just plain stinks and despite repeated requests does nothing about it can you sack them for that?

Or it's well know that people respond better to a sales person if they're good looking, so if someone became really obese would it be ok to sack them for this reason?

 

[leaskovski]

Remember, when you are employing someone, you are looking for a person who will fit into the team. If they stink (ie smoke, body odor, etc) then they are likely not to fit in, hence don't give them the job.

 

[Voltar]

I'm sorry, you're right, the Surgeon General is wrong and they put the health warnings on ciggy packets for fun... My bad...

get over it and yourself. we know what we are doing, and militant anti-smokers alienate us and preach at us. I've heard it all before, and to be honest I sympathise with non smokers in some circumstances.

Do you have a personal reason for being so militant? Just want to understand why some people are so militant about it all, nothing more. If it's just a smell issue or a 'you're polluting my air' kind of thing then I'm not sure how much I can sympathise with you or even understand it.

There are worse problems in society and the workplace that smokers.
Fag break thing is invalid tbh. Anyone with any sense who smokes in a company isn't going to run off for fags etc all the time, nor will they let it bother them as much as you'd think. No smoking policy= no smoking policy and it is the prerogative of the employer to state this.
What someone does outside of the office, is however their own business.

 

[Andrew_McP]

It's discrimination. No bones about it.
Sorry to sound preachy, but the attitude towards people who smoke in the UK is repulsive. I don't tell someone with b.o to FO now do I?

For an employer BO is just as much an issue in a public or office environment as smoking.

The trouble is I think it's only recently smokers have begun to realise just how much many (most?) non-smokers loathe the smell of the stuff. And as smoking is phased out in more areas of life, that means more of us notice the smell more when we are exposed to it. So as a health measure it's working... smoking is locked into a feedback loop now which means it will become more and more socially unacceptable.

Anyway, the OP is treading on dangerous ground. Employment law is very hard work (for understandable but sometimes counter-productive reasons) and the only way I can see around this situation is to keep your mouth firmly shut about smoking, just in case. Either get used to the smell for the sake of the business, or choose someone else. This stage of the employment process is the only bit you have full control over... unless you put your foot in it and get sued for discriminatory employment practices, obviously.

All in all it's no wonder so many small businesses go under. Personally I think an employer should be able to pretty much dictate exactly who they employ for whatever reason they feel like without fear of consequences. While that could lead to nastiness (whites only, no women likely to have children, etc.) businesses are not charities, and there are plenty of laws now to protect workers once they're employed. It's not like the bad old days when unions were all that stood between you and being treated like a slave.

It is a hideously complicated area though. And while we mess about with stuff like this, Asia's low wage, low protection economies march ahead. If we're to compete we have to find a sensible balance somewhere to encourage businesses and cut the red tape. I'd hate to be the one trying to do it though!

Andrew McP

 

[badbob]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed "smoke breaks" either wait until lunch breaks, or end of the day. Why should they skive out of 10 minutes when non smokers have to continue working, just because of a drug habit? I would also do the same for religious people too, if they want to pray, pray during lunch breaks.

I've also noticed smokers go over lunch break times, if they're still smoking..again skiving.

 

[Voltar]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed "smoke breaks" either wait until lunch breaks, or end of the day. Why should they skive out of 10 minutes when non smokers have to continue working, just because of a drug habit? I would also do the same for religious people too, if they want to pray, pray during lunch breaks.

That is fair enough, and again the prerogative of the employer. Skiving off during work hours for a fag is unacceptable, even if you think you're going crazy. You are employed to do a job. Not to do as you please.

 

[SteveOBHave]

get over it and yourself. we know what we are doing, and militant anti-smokers alienate us and preach at us. I've heard it all before, and to be honest I sympathise with non smokers in some circumstances.

Do you have a personal reason for being so militant? Just want to understand why some people are so militant about it all, nothing more. If it's just a smell issue or a 'you're polluting my air' kind of thing then I'm not sure how much I can sympathise with you or even understand it.

There are worse problems in society and the workplace that smokers.
Fag break thing is invalid tbh. Anyone with any sense who smokes in a company isn't going to run off for fags etc all the time, nor will they let it bother them as much as you'd think. No smoking policy= no smoking policy and it is the prerogative of the employer to state this.
What someone does outside of the office, is however their own business.

Heh no not really I was a smoker for many years and suffered quite a few health issues during that time. I now get a very intense dislike for even a whiff of cigarette smoke and now having been on both sides of the coin have a better understanding of the situation.

I love being able to go out to a pub now or to a night club and not come home stinking of ciggy smoke. My girls hair doesn't stink afterwards either. I don't feel like an ashtray in the morning and generally feel much better about myself. When you look at the evidence doesn't it strike you as odd that so many people demand their god given right to smoke themselves to death and get some serious satisfaction out of being able to do so. It's a counter intuitive argument and the only fair reasoning I can now give it is natural selection.

I do agree that everyone has the right to do as they wish but when it impacts on others i.e. smoking down the road, I think that there are issues to consider. You're right it's not high on the list of atrocities against humanity in fact it hardly rates but it's the subject that was bought up and I feel pretty strongly about it.

 

[Voltar]

I can begin to see where you're coming from now. Thought you were just being self-righteous.
In terms of Pluralism and theory of democracy, I'd hate to see smokers being alienated because of their choice. But equally in terms of this it is completely unreasonable to not expect people to complain about it and criticise it.
Not sure about the natural selection point (ie I don't understand it enough to comment further)
It is, unfortunately for some, in a democracy the right of freedom of choice which is being upheld. If we are preached at and forced not to do it is that not completely unjust? Advising against it is reasonable and indeed necessary imo. but pejorative depictions and actions against this is unjust.
its a cliche, so excuse me for citing it but:

Alcohol is more of a problem, and imagine if that got banned? A smoker or an alcoholic in the office?
Just a rhetorical question. But an interesting one if correctly considered.

 

[romperstomper]

slightly off topic:-

I work in a company where half the workforce smokes and the other half don't.
The half that smoke are off outside to the shelter for a fag every hour or so. Then they want to take their dinner when they want, whilst the non-smokers generally spend more time working.
Due to the half assed laws I cannot stop them from going for a fag, so the non-smokers complain that they are getting less breaks.

I worked for a company that use to do the same ,the smokers were aloud to go outside every 40 mins or so for a smoke whilst the non smokers were expected to carry on working ,unbelievable really !

I would never employ a smoker ,dose not look good with them standing outside smoking and they do stink !

Chuck them of the cliffs I say !