question about ontario smoking law

[fuji]

Well, before you get too riled up just be aware of the legal ramifications of firing someone because they smell.....put it this way, if you fired me because of this you'd be hit with an ulawful dismissal suit so fast your as would hurt.

You might lose. On the other hand, it'd be cheaper for him to pay you your two weeks severance and not fight about it. All you get out of unlawful dismissal cases is your severance pay. Big deal. If he codes your dismissal as "without cause" saying there wasn't a good fit or some such, and pays you the severance you're due, you have no case.

I just can't believe someone can be so narrow minded, self righteous and arrogant? Fuck me how do people even tolerate you?

But you haven't said I'm wrong... I stand by the claim that in 2007 smoking means you either lack common sense or you lack willpower or some similar deficiancy that justfies the no hire policy. It'd be controversial, and probably a waste of money, but I think I could win that one in court. I need smart, willful people with common sense.

That argument that "they didn't know smoking was bad for you" is the same excuse obese people use when they say they didn't know eating at mcdonalds is bad for you.

I avoid hiring overly obese people too for a similar reason: I think anyone who lets themselves become that unhealthy has a bunch of the same character flaws that smokers do.

 

[pool]

This would be like me concluding that non smokers are more anal retentive in general than smokers, which we all know is just not true.

or, maybe more pertinent, holding a prejudice toward people who see escorts/MPAs frequently, because they obviously lack self discipline and therefor that lack of restraint must overlap into all aspects of their behavior.

I'm guessing overweight smokers with tattoos need not apply - ya learn a lot from TERB.

In all seriousness, as a smoker, I've thought about this and through observations of coworkers with regard to their level of reliability, conscientiousness, initiative, efficiency, ability to learn skills etc ... in correlation to whether they smoke or not, at this point I can only conclude that you have to judge people based on the individual.

This article on Freud is worth pondering : The case of Dr. Sigmund Freud

 

[Bigbossfan]

This would be like me concluding that non smokers are more anal retentive in general than smokers, which we all know is just not true.

or, maybe more pertinent, holding a prejudice toward people who see escorts/MPAs frequently, because they obviously lack self discipline and therefor that lack of restraint must overlap into all aspects of their behavior.

I'm guessing overweight smokers with tattoos need not apply - ya learn a lot from TERB.

In all seriousness, as a smoker, I've thought about this and through observations of coworkers with regard to their level of reliability, conscientiousness, initiative, efficiency, ability to learn skills etc ... in correlation to whether they smoke or not, at this point I can only conclude that you have to judge people based on the individual.

This article on Freud is worth pondering : The case of Dr. Sigmund Freud

Well said. Exactly the point I was trying to get across. But it's obvious there is no way Fuji will see that his logic is "up in smoke"

 

[daKoolGuy]

Let's cut the crap and get to the point. YES, SMOKING IS HARMFUL AND CAUSES CANCER. It pollutes up your surrounding. We are better off without the smokes.
I AM A SMOKER, but then I am working on quitting as I no longer find it cool or for that matter I do not get any kick out of it anymore.
What I find to be absolutely bullshit is the linking up of productivity with smoking. For crying out loud, productivity in an organization is not calculated based on your smoking breaks. Also, talking of smoker's breathe,a lot of smokers I know including myself make it a point to carry mints. Btw, I do not even like the stale coffee breathe after a guy comes back from his coffee break. By the way, should be talk of loss of productivity due to the coffee breaks? Just my thoughts, nothing personal here.

 

[fuji]

level of reliability, conscientiousness, initiative, efficiency, ability to learn skills etc ... in correlation to whether they smoke or not, at this point I can only conclude that you have to judge people based on the individual.

I only get a couple of hours face to face with someone to make a hire/no-hire decision. It's hard to judge people properly in such a short amount of time so I do what everybody else does in this case--I screen based on the things that I can detect in that time. Do they have a degree? Did they get fired from their last job? Do they move around a lot? Eliminating people for these reasons is unfair to many--lots of smart, dedicated people lack a degree, and many people get fired through no real fault for their own, and some people who move around a lot do so because they weren't being properly challenged.

Nevertheless, given a couple of hours to screen someone, using those factors increases of my odds of making a good hire, even if it's unfair to a few people.

I say whether or not someone smokes, whether or not they are grossly overweight, are just as good indications of their character as whether or not they have a degree is to their level of dedication. I might be unfair to a few people, but overall, I increase my odds of making good hires by eliminating smokers, grossly obese people, and so on.

 

[Bigbossfan]

Your statement is much better than implying you won't hire a smoker because they are dumb. That is/was the argument on my point anyway.

 

[tboy]

In response to your firing practises:

In other words, if you fire someone because you don't like the way they smell, you'd invent a reason? I thought you stood by your "rules" and you were right to feel this way? That, my friend, is H Y P O C R I T I C A L. You just showed your true colours.....(aka chickenshit).

As for the rulings regarding unlawful dismissal suits you're wrong again. 2 weeks severance is ONE possible ruling but then, you have to pay that to anyone you let go depending on how long you employed them. I have heard of rulings that force the company to re-hire the employee, pay out x number of months/years of salary and if they cannot find another job the ruling is that the firing company has to pay them until they do. (btw, I used to date an HR Rep and I learned a lot by her)

 

[fuji]

In other words, if you fire someone because you don't like the way they smell, you'd invent a reason? I thought you stood by your "rules" and you were right to feel this way? That, my friend, is H Y P O C R I T I C A L. You just showed your true colours.....(aka chickenshit).

Dude, you don't need any reason to fire someone in Ontario, it's employment at will. I have a fundamental right to decide how I want to spend my money and no law in the land requires me to spend it on your salary. The only question is how much you owe someone when you fire them. If you fire them "for cause" you owe them nothing but you have to have a good reason. If you fire them "without cause" you owe them some amount of severance depending on their length of time with the company but you don't need any particular reason.

I have heard of rulings that force the company to re-hire the employee, pay out x number of months/years of salary and if they cannot find another job the ruling is that the firing company has to pay them until they do

That's only if you discriminate against someone on one of the factors that it's illegal to discriminate on (race, religion, sex, etc). Stricter rules also apply to government agencies, and union shops typically have language in their collective agreements outlining when someone can be let go. In the non-union private sector so long as you aren't firing someone because they're a woman or because they're muslim or something like that all you owe them is severance. Last I checked the human rights act, etc., didn't make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of being a smoker, or being dumb, or being smelly. You're right if they'd been with the company for years it'd be a lot more than 2 weeks, but I'd find out you were a smoker long before that.