"We don't hire smokers"

[FAST]

Seems fair

Don't know if this has changed but,...as I understand,...civil servants are allowed "smoke" breaks, over and above what the none smokers get.

The rational was because they had an "addiction" they had the right to less work for the same money,...AND,...were NOT forced to get "help".

FAST

 

[OddSox]

you must judge on what you can see because the alternatives are not to judge at all or judge on something you can't see.

But I guess if I were to hire a truck driver I wouldn't give a fuck that he is trying to slowly kill himself in his truck. It's not like I would have to watch him taking 20 breaks a day and smell like shit in my office.

The law in Ontario stipulates that your truck is a 'workplace' if you're driving for a company - you're technically not allowed to smoke. I do recall some news about tickets being handed out on the 401 a few years back...

Not sure about owner-operators...

 

[whitewaterguy]

The employer is smart...for all of the reasons mentioned above....he is weeding out individuals with one the most chronic addictions.

Gov't of Alberta Mental Health Services, on a scale larger than 50 employees does not permit it's addictions counsellors to smoke what so ever...employees can be terminated if caught. Similarly, these employees cant be seen in their communities frequenting bars. Its not at all a bad thing

 

[yung_dood]

I do not smoke, nor do I really care for it. But as long as it does not interfere with your work, who cares.

PS. some incalls would do a lot better if they did smell like pure cig smoke.

 

[Stoo]

"Smoker" is not a protected category in the human rights code.

Nope. I haven't hired a smoker in years. After covering the cost of drugs to treat (unsuccessfully) two lung cancer-filled employees, I vowed to never hire another one. In a less dramatic way, they're also a pain in the ass since they "need" a break for 10 minutes, every hour (so damn near an hour a day) to go outside and fill my yard up with butts. Non-smoking employees used to reasonably asked why the smokers get all of the extra time off, and I don't actually have an answer for them...

Fortunately, you can smell them the minute they walk into the office so I never have to even ask the question.

I have about 35 people in my office, and I think I am down to one smoker. She's on the cusp of retiring and then that will be it!

 

[Stoo]

I do not smoke, nor do I really care for it. But as long as it does not interfere with your work, who cares.

The problem is, that smoking will always effect their work. If they aren't taking a break, they're twitching and cranky. And they stink. I remember years ago (when there were a number of them worked for me) there were four women who would sit in a car with the windows down a crack, if it was cold or raining... And smoke their brains out. You couldn't even see through the windows. When they came back inside, the office smelled like an ashtray...

I understand that the addiction isn't easy to break, but really, what sort of an idiot smokes these days???

 

[simon482]

I understand that the addiction isn't easy to break, but really, what sort of an idiot smokes these days???

so many bad habits and things to do out there why is smoking the one that gets picked on ? you should get on your high horse about fast food or something else that doesn't generate as much tax income as smoking.

 

[Stoo]

Because I have to smell the stuff. And I won't die of heart disease because someone else eats too many Big Macs.

I am fully sympathetic mind you. A smoking friend once explained to me that it's really impossible to understand just how strong an addiction it is.

I just question why anyone would smoke, knowing what we know about it. Most of the people I know who smoke (all three of them, or so) swear that they smoke because they like it. Period. I wish they would just admit that they smoke because they're addicted.

I currently know of three people between the ages of 48 and 52 suffering from cancers that are all associated with smoking. They all quit the day that they were diagnosed, so obviously they had "it" in them to quit. It's too bad that they waited so long...

 

[Keebler Elf]

If the guy was smart, he'd have a better argument than "I have the right to choose who I hire."

With that line of thinking, I can choose not to hire women, black people, fat people, the disabled, etc., etc., etc. Sure it's a Human Rights violation, but hey, that's the argument he's making.

While I think it's a shrewd business decision, I think the truth of the matter is that he just doesn't like smokers.

 

[CapitalGuy]

If the guy was smart, he'd have a better argument than "I have the right to choose who I hire."

With that line of thinking, I can choose not to hire women, black people, fat people, the disabled, etc., etc., etc. Sure it's a Human Rights violation, but hey, that's the argument he's making.

While I think it's a shrewd business decision, I think the truth of the matter is that he just doesn't like smokers.

He says that if a court were to rule in favour of smokers, he would drop his policy. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he didn't say, and extrapolate actions and opinions that are expressed nowhere by the guy in question.

 

[simon482]

Because I have to smell the stuff. And I won't die of heart disease because someone else eats too many Big Macs.

I am fully sympathetic mind you. A smoking friend once explained to me that it's really impossible to understand just how strong an addiction it is.

I just question why anyone would smoke, knowing what we know about it. Most of the people I know who smoke (all three of them, or so) swear that they smoke because they like it. Period. I wish they would just admit that they smoke because they're addicted.

I currently know of three people between the ages of 48 and 52 suffering from cancers that are all associated with smoking. They all quit the day that they were diagnosed, so obviously they had "it" in them to quit. It's too bad that they waited so long...

i still smoke cuz i enjoy it, i say that honestly since i know what addiction is in a serious way. when i don't have them i don't panic about it. now 3 years ago i quit a serious drug problem, 2 years ago i quit a serious drinking problem, last year i started a diet and working out, next year i tackle smoking. mostly cuz it is a pain in the ass since no where lets you do it anymore and i don't smoke in my house. tired of freezing my ass off in the winter.

if smoking is banned you lose a lot of tax income however you want to argue it you do. the last time this topic came up it was like 7.5 billion collected, 3.5 billion spent on smoker related illness. 4 billion is a lot of revenue to lose. however you want to slice it, odds are free health care would either go away or your income tax will go up to cover it.

what to do about all these people that want pot legal, that is another form of smoking. why bother fighting to make it legal.

 

[kerrixoxo]

Similar to what everyone else is saying that smokers do require smoke breaks. Under employment legislation, and depending on the employment situation, generally employees are allowed to take either two fifteen minute brakes before and after lunch and a paid lunch (I believe 30 minutes) or an hour unpaid lunch (at least in Ontario).

I do not smoke but what I do recall when employees were given the choice for the 15 minute break, they would do so but the break is not actually 15 minutes. It takes time to get to that break section and get back to work. Time that could be spent creatively or resourcefully strategizing. I am not a fan of workplace gossip and I tend to find that during these breaks, this is where this is more likely to happen (there, lunch room, coffee breaks). I find that workplace gossip reduces the morale among employees and divides the cohesiveness of a teams ability to work together. I can see he must be using this to allow for employees to freely choose how they spend their time which is indicated in the article and also on the website. He is in the business of ideas. In addition to this, he is just managing his resources better which include his time spent in hiring employees and making sure his employees spend their time efficiently and effectively.

At the end of the day, it is his business and he is free to operate it how he sees fit.

 

[simon482]

At the end of the day, it is his business and he is free to operate it how he sees fit.

would you be saying the same thing if he had said "i won't hire (insert race here) because they take to many breaks and are lazy" or would you be screaming discrimination ?

 

[Fred Zed]

.

I understand that the addiction isn't easy to break, but really, what sort of an idiot smokes these days???

It's very hard to quit smoking. The addiction is very strong. I have quit myself just over a year ago but it was hard work and I don't plan to ever smoke again.
As for the employers who will not hire smokers, in different places that I have worked over the years I have known many many really talented workers who were smokers and who contributed immensely to the company's bottom line.
I am not in favour of employment discrimination on any grounds.

 

[kerrixoxo]

would you be saying the same thing if he had said "i won't hire (insert race here) because they take to many breaks and are lazy" or would you be screaming discrimination ?

Well given that he is in the business of ideas, I would say this is a new idea. He is following the suit of his business. Also, there is no violation of any legislation. So he is free to do as he pleases.

 

[simon482]

Well given that he is in the business of ideas, I would say this is a new idea. He is following the suit of his business. Also, there is no violation of any legislation. So he is free to do as he pleases.

it's discrimination and that is not a new idea. you also didn't answer. if he said i am not hiring black people (just for argument sake) because i don't like how they work" would you be sticking up for him the way you are sticking up for him now ? also there is legislation about discrimination.

 

[kerrixoxo]

it's discrimination and that is not a new idea. you also didn't answer. if he said i am not hiring black people (just for argument sake) because i don't like how they work" would you be sticking up for him the way you are sticking up for him now ? also there is legislation about discrimination.

Given the absurdity of your analogy, I would not even entertain the idea in my reply to you because you are using someone's natural trait that they are born with and that they are unable to change. Smoking, you can change. Voluntarily. People can also see doctors for their addictions. You cannot see a doctor to change your racial background. So the fact that you are expecting one to even entertain the idea of someone's race is on the same plane as someone's decision to start smoking and continue to smoke is, like I said, absurd.

If you read the article, you would see why Ontario's highest court did not find smoking a disability under section 15 of the Charter. This section states, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Frankly, I agree with the judges in the particular case cited in the article: they do not want to trivialize the term disability. I can appreciate their logic behind their reasoning. I can also see that if this addiction were to be accommodated on the ground of disability then this opens the door for accommodating other kinds of addictions. Yes addictions are a sad state. However, there are many other debilitating reasons to engage section 15.

So, I've entertained your absurd analogy... just for argument's sake. :wink:

 

[simon482]

Given the absurdity of your analogy, I would not even entertain the idea in my reply to you because you are using someone's natural trait that they are born with and that they are unable to change. Smoking, you can change. Voluntarily. People can also see doctors for their addictions. You cannot see a doctor to change your racial background. So the fact that you are expecting one to even entertain the idea of someone's race is on the same plane as someone's decision to start smoking and continue to smoke is, like I said, absurd.

If you read the article, you would see why Ontario's highest court did not find smoking a disability under section 15 of the Charter. This section states, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Frankly, I agree with the judges in the particular case cited in the article: they do not want to trivialize the term disability. I can appreciate their logic behind their reasoning. I can also see that if this addiction were to be accommodated on the ground of disability then this opens the door for accommodating other kinds of addictions. Yes addictions are a sad state. However, there are many other debilitating reasons to engage section 15.

So, I've entertained your absurd analogy... just for argument's sake. :wink:

over eating is a disability and that is a choice, it is discrimination how ever you want to call it, he is not hiring someone because of who they are. so i guess you are okay with it being okay to fire people cuz they are gay, that still happens. it's not that absurd if you think about it, things like not hiring someone because of how they look or act is where it starts, now where do you stop it ?

 

[kerrixoxo]

over eating is a disability and that is a choice, it is discrimination how ever you want to call it, he is not hiring someone because of who they are. so i guess you are okay with it being okay to fire people cuz they are gay, that still happens. it's not that absurd if you think about it, things like not hiring someone because of how they look or act is where it starts, now where do you stop it ?

I did not call it discrimination. I just called it a new idea. In relation to overeating, that is also listed on the DSM-iv. However, people are hired and fired on their weight all the time: flight attendant, models, etc. That is their industry. Maybe if you can create an industry that relies on nicotine dependent people then perhaps you can find them all jobs suited to their addiction. Then again, if you have an addiction and you are unable to maintain decent employment, it would be best to seek professional help for nicotine dependency. Nicotine dependency is also listed on the DSM but the criteria for nicotine dependency is quite rigid and probably for good reason. Like I said earlier, it's his business, his choice Until someone can challenge the ratio decidendi in previous legally binding court decisions then I would say that there is reasons they do not open up charter challenges for smokers.

 

[simon482]

I did not call it discrimination. I just called it a new idea. In relation to overeating, that is also listed on the DSM-iv. However, people are hired and fired on their weight all the time: flight attendant, models, etc. That is their industry. Maybe if you can create an industry that relies on nicotine dependent people then perhaps you can find them all jobs suited to their addiction. Then again, if you have an addiction and you are unable to maintain decent employment, it would be best to seek professional help for nicotine dependency. Nicotine dependency is also listed on the DSM but the criteria for nicotine dependency is quite rigid and probably for good reason. Like I said earlier, it's his business, his choice Until someone can challenge the ratio decidendi in previous legally binding court decisions then I would say that there is reasons they do not open up charter challenges for smokers.

i typed up a really good response then deleted it since this has gotten boring. i get that you dislike smokers, that's fine, some of us are ignorant people. over eating and being gay are choices just like smoking and people get fired for both of those, since you have no sympathy for them and you must think they deserve it as well, i guess our conversation is over.