Smoke 'em, get fired
Shawn Hirn
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html
A company who is among the first employers to test its employees to see
if they smoke. Any nicotine addicts are fired. This policy bound to be
an increasing trend in light of the fact that smokers take more work
breaks and sick days then their non-smoking co-workers, so they get less
work done.
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, but not if you want to keep your job there.
You smokers can't even complain. After all, its a private business and
we all know how you respect the right of private businesses to operate
as their management sees fit.
Dave
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-00552B.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Here's an interesting story ...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html
>
> A company who is among the first employers to test its employees to see
> if they smoke. Any nicotine addicts are fired.
I don't support this at all, but I do believe that smoking should be banned
in all public areas, both indoors AND outdoors. It does no good to ban
smoking indoors in public buildings such as restaurants, etc. That just
means that non-smokers have to walk through a thick wall of toxic fumes when
entering and exiting the building. -Dave
SpammersDie
> we all know how you respect the right of private businesses to operate
> as their management sees fit.
And in the case of most employers, it's a private business that also happens
to be your health insurer (or at least, the premium payer.) Which is of
course why nobody should be surprised at this. It's not hard to understand
why smoking would be grounds for denying you health insurance - but because
of the way people insist on employers also being health insurers, it denies
you a job as well.
Expect this trend to continue. Maybe someday, people will realize the folly
of buying health insurance from the same company they sell labor to instead
of buying and owning it separately like they do every other type of
insurance.
h
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:479a0fba$0$47157$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Well...I would NEVER, EVER hire a smoker for my business. We make custom
clothing and there is no way I would ever allow a smoker anywhere near
fabric. I won't even hire non-smokers who live with smokers. The smell of
even second-hand smoke is pervasive and clings to fabric. Yuck. When we
state "all garments are made in a smoke-free studio in the USA", we mean it.
Coffee's For Closers
<479a0fba$0$47157$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
no...@nohow.not says...
> "Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:srhi-00552B.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > Here's an interesting story ...
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html
> >
> > A company who is among the first employers to test its employees to see
> > if they smoke. Any nicotine addicts are fired.
> I don't support this at all,
Sorry, but smoking is NOT on the short list of
"Don't Discriminate" factors for employers. Even if the smoking
is done while off-duty. So, most likely, any workers who object
to such a policy have zero legal recourse, except to find
someplace else to work.
In "at-will" employment jurisdictions, there is already the
freedom for a business to fire an employee "for any reason,
or no reason." As long as there isn't any clear evidence that
the motivation was on the short list of "don't discriminate"
factors.
The boss cannot say, "You're fired because of your skin colour."
But s/he CAN legally say, "I woke up in a bad mood, and decided
to fire the first employee that I saw in the office today.
That's you."
It has been that way for a long time.
Personally, I would prefer to hire a non-smoker, if all other
qualities were equal. I would want my employees to focus on
work, NOT on jonesing for their next cancer stick. And I don't
appreciate the stench emanating from their clothes/hair/body.
Including if they deal with customers. And I don't want them
flicking their butts everywhere, as many smokers habitually do,
as part of their ritual. And I don't want deal with their higher
levels of sick-days, and insurance claims.
> but I do believe that smoking should be banned
> in all public areas, both indoors AND outdoors. It does no good to ban
> smoking indoors in public buildings such as restaurants, etc. That just
> means that non-smokers have to walk through a thick wall of toxic fumes when
> entering and exiting the building.
Part of the justification for such laws, like banning smoking in
pubs and restaurants, is about the folks who work inside for
hours every day. Their conditions are better, when the smokers
are banished to standing outside the door, pathetically huddling
in cold and rain.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Vic Smith
Well la de da da. I wouldn't buy any clothing making such a claim.
Couldn't afford it anyway with smokes costing what they do.
--Vic
Seerialmom
What about those who have quit "smoking" and are using nicotine
patches or gum? They aren't taking more breaks or sick days? And
what happened to the old "addiction is a disease" concept. But it is
a fallacy that smokers get less work done, there have been many
studies that show smokers "reward" themselves throughout the day after
performing tasks. Believe me, I'm not saying smoking is a good thing,
I just think it's mean spirited to take someone's livelyhood away
based on a test.
Terry Lomax
Great idea. That goes against the general trend. I would definitely
apply for such a company if one existed in the region where I live.
Illinois recently enacted an "anti-smoking" law, with smokers supposed
to stay a certain distance from building entrances. I like the rule
in the town (Boulder CO?) that doesn't even allow smoking outdoors.
In most companies, smokers are given preferential treatment. Managers
are much more likely to smoke, so managers favor their fellow
smokers. While the real (non-smoking) workers work, smokers are out
on their long smoke breaks, networking, gossipping, climbing up the
corporate ladder. At work, it's not what you do, it's who you know.
Because smokers spend most of their time socializing, they know all
the gossip and can use it to advance their careers.
At least one company in Germany only hires smokers and would fire
anyone who quits smoking.
I wouldn't purchase any product from a company that allows smoking.
Even if smoking isn't allowed indoors, the stench of the smoker will
infect any item in the store. I can smell a smoker 100 feet away,
even if he (or more likely she, as in the USA, women smoke more than
men do) was there 10+ minutes ago. Smokers STINK!
Where I work, I've often had to go through a barricade of secondhand
smoke at the entrance. I told the general manager but he didn't do
anything. He admitted I shouldn't have to inhale the secondhand
smoke, but he's overly sympathetic to smokers, having been a smoker
himself in the past.
iwent...@gmail.com
criminals because they choose to do something that is not good for
them and everyone thinks they can interfere because they don't agree
with that choice. The person below me argued "It's not hard to
understand why smoking would be grounds for denying you health
aren't they unhealthy too? lets deny them a job too I mean there
making unhealthy choices and hell what about the people that drink
alcohol there bound to get liver cancer lets deny them a job because
were not paying their premiums. Also they say smokers aren't hard
workers they take to many breaks and sick days and get less work done.
Think about the overweight people how did they get overweight in the
first place? The problem with our society today is we think we can
control what other people do if they are not doing it the way we want
thats why so many other countries hate us.
Peter Bruells
> At least one company in Germany only hires smokers and would fire
> anyone who quits smoking.
Yeah, there's a lot of whining right now becaus the various bans on
smoking in restaurants and bars came into force at the beginning of
the year and there're serious considerations to ban smoking in the
workplace at all. Right now non-smokers just have the right to a
non-smoker's kitchen and that their room (cubicles aren't that common
over here) is smoke-free.
Anyway, the loud-mouthed employer would probably pay through the nose
if he fired for that reason (or if he fired someone because he smokes
on his own time). German courts and employees aren't very taken with
employer's trying to dictate their employees personal life.
h
<iwent...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b5ff4e-f8a2-473b...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
The problem with our society today is we think we can
> control what other people do if they are not doing it the way we want
> thats why so many other countries hate us.
I couldn't care less what personal habits (overeating, drinking, etc.) an
employee has, but I simply can't have an employee who stinks up the garment
they are making. If smoking didn't ruin fabric I wouldn't have a problem
with it. If a personal habit interferes with an employee's ability to do the
job, then the employer has a right to fire/not hire that employee. Owning a
company means you get to control how the job gets done. That's true in every
country in the world.