[elrod-tom]

This is a bit disturbing...and I don't smoke!!

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0501/27/A01-71823.htm

 

[bg4533]

I see no problem with not hiring someone if they are obviously a smoker (come to the interview smelling of smoke). Companies should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want. If someone who was a smoker when hired was fired I might have a bit of an issue with that.

If this thread strays a bit and a mod moves it to Outside please give me access while you are at it. I asked over a week ago.

 

[RYCeT]

Is outside open already?

edit: Back on topic, this is ridiculous. I'm not a smoker and I hate to be second hand smoker, but this is taking too far. I don't see any problem if people are smoking during their break, let alone off hours. What is the matter with this company?

 

[MartinJ]

Lets start firing fat people, as they are fat and give the wrong image that being fat is not bad for your health. Also start firing people who have too little sex, too much sex, eat sugar, drink coffee, eat doughnuts, invest too much in head phones, for having the wrong pet. This company is not doing enough, I think they should do more! What about those left handed people? Fire them! They can not be trusted.

 

[Kirosia]

I don't get it. If they do it in their spare time outside of work, what's the problem? As long as they come in ready to their job and smelling of sweet peppermint (breathe + body), why should it matter? Are they gonna start firin' people for drinking at home too . . .

(BTW, I don't drink or smoke, but I understand people's right and reasons)

 

[rickcr42]

I can understand not hiring a smoker in cerain circumstances.when i was a smoker (recently quit) and much younger i applied for a job where they made custom jewelry and when asked if i smoked i answered yes and was then informed i was not who they were looking for.
In my defense i claimed i wou;ld not smoke during work hours (i wanted the job bad and thought it a potential carrer at the time) but they informed me,true or not,that the nicotine in my skin could contaminate the precious metals and they could not have that.

But to fire someone for what they do during off hours is illegal and an invasion of privacy unless it is an illegal act.
What i choose to do in the privacy of my own home that does not directly infring on another and is totally legal is no other human beings business.
what next.Tell me what and how to drink / eat and when i can fool arounfd with my wife ?

Not going to stand.Can't.

But i do find it funny how some who are anti-smoking at the same time condone "twisting one up" or doing other recreational drugs or getting hammered daily then drive and claim the same rights smokers are losing.thes ARE illegal acts but since they are not on the PC hit list just fine and dandy.I have seen this both personally and from afar by following certain groups/news.

Like i said ,I no longer smoke but i will never tell another how to live their own life.

not my job.

Hopefully that was not too extreme an answer for the thread to remain open.If so i will be more than happy to edit.

rickmeister

 

[bong]

i don't agree with not hiring OR firing someone because of their choice to smoke or not. if i go to an interview and the interviewer asks me if i smoke, i would flat out tell him/her that it's my personal preference and they have no right to ask that question. anything regarding personal questions are not professional in any work situation.

even if a person chooses to smoke during his/her lunch break between work hours is his/her business... ANY employer cannot condemn a employee for how he/she chooses to use it.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bong i don't agree with not hiring OR firing someone because of their choice to smoke or not. if i go to an interview and the interviewer asks me if i smoke, i would flat out tell him/her that it's my personal preference and they have no right to ask that question. anything regarding personal questions are not professional in any work situation. even if a person chooses to smoke during his/her lunch break between work hours is his/her business... ANY employer cannot condemn a employee for how he/she chooses to use it.

Agreed. It's not an illegal substance.

 

[mikeg]

Unless I'm mistaken, this company's policy against employing smokers is based on the cost of their contribution to their employees' medical plan. They figure that employees who smoke will have more frequent and serious illnesses; e.g., heart disease, emphysema, and lung cancer. Although their policy seems disturbing, I can see their logic. I think, however, that employees should be given lots of time and support to get over the habit. But, once over the habit, perhaps it's not unreasonable for the company to impose their policy of no smoking. Yes, I know that this type of policy can be extended to all sorts of other areas; e.g., obesity. But, perhaps that's not such a bad idea.

 

[RYCeT]

Next on the list, a machine to detect trace of any junk food eaten by the worker

 

[Kirosia]

Hedonists beware!

 

[warubozu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT Is outside open already? edit: Back on topic, this is ridiculous. I'm not a smoker and I hate to be second hand smoker, but this is taking too far. I don't see any problem if people are smoking during their break, let alone off hours. What is the matter with this company?

I agree, I can understand if the employees were flagrantly violating company rules about smoking on company premises or during business hours. To fire them for smoking when they are off the clock somewhere else outside of company premises is going way overboard.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJ Lets start firing fat people, as they are fat and give the wrong image that being fat is not bad for your health. Also start firing people who have too little sex, too much sex, eat sugar, drink coffee, eat doughnuts, invest too much in head phones, for having the wrong pet.

Yeah really, I don't smoke but I have a problem with this as well. Corporations already have enough power as it is, to allow them to start determining conditions on how people live their lives puts us that much closer to Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

 

[mikeg]

I think that laws are about to be passed in some European countries against TV advertising of junk foods. That's how it began with smoking. So, the idea of penalizing workers who eat junk foods is not so perposterous. There is real fear in industrialized nations that we are in the midst of an abesity apidemic that will have bankrupting consequences on medical plans, medical systems, and national economies. And, junk food is thought to be a significant part of the problem, especially with regard to kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT Next on the list, a machine to detect trace of any junk food eaten by the worker

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

many fire departments i have applied for make you sign a document stating that you do not smoke prior to interviewing you for a position.

and that includes smoking while not on duty...