"We don't hire smokers"
- Thread starter CapitalGuy
- Start date
Truer words were never spoken.
And most of them are filthy pigs, inconsiderately throwing their fucking butts wherever they want.
Weak minded people to even start smoking.
I'm a smoker...I don't take smoke breaks and I am considerate about my smoking. I know there are others out there that are less scrupulous with their activities.
My general principle about businesses is that the owner should be able to do what he/she wants within the limits of the law. If you feel that smokers are bad for your business, don't hire them. I have no problem with that. The smokers can find other jobs or start their own business...hell start a business that competes with the original guy.
I just wish that some of you wouldn't generalize so much about smokers. Whether we are addicted, or just enjoy the activity, what gives you the right to judge us? Do you also generalize about other groups? Do you pass the judgement that all homosexual men are dangerous because they have unprotected homosexual sex and are likely to be passing around aids?! Do you pass judgement on overweight people and assume that they are all just fat overeating pigs? Do you pass judgment on single mothers and claim that they are all just irresponsible whores? What about illegal aliens...are they all dirty foreigners that are trying to take away jobs from hard working citizens...the list can go on and on. What about those involved in the sex trade as users or providers....all must be bad people?
I get that smoking can affect others around me...that's why I try to be considerate about it. I realize that it may affect my health down the road (I might also get hit by a car tomorrow and die instantly) but I'm not asking for anyone else to pay for my healthcare (I'm sorry if you are stuck with government health care as your only option). I won't force you to stand by me while I smoke or ask you to pay for my health care if I need it some day. Just please don't pass judgment on me as if you know jack shit about me because I smoke. Nothing good has really ever come from throwing people into "groups" and passing judgement on them. Look at people as individuals.
My general principle about businesses is that the owner should be able to do what he/she wants within the limits of the law. If you feel that smokers are bad for your business, don't hire them. I have no problem with that. The smokers can find other jobs or start their own business...hell start a business that competes with the original guy.
I just wish that some of you wouldn't generalize so much about smokers. Whether we are addicted, or just enjoy the activity, what gives you the right to judge us? Do you also generalize about other groups? Do you pass the judgement that all homosexual men are dangerous because they have unprotected homosexual sex and are likely to be passing around aids?! Do you pass judgement on overweight people and assume that they are all just fat overeating pigs? Do you pass judgment on single mothers and claim that they are all just irresponsible whores? What about illegal aliens...are they all dirty foreigners that are trying to take away jobs from hard working citizens...the list can go on and on. What about those involved in the sex trade as users or providers....all must be bad people?
I get that smoking can affect others around me...that's why I try to be considerate about it. I realize that it may affect my health down the road (I might also get hit by a car tomorrow and die instantly) but I'm not asking for anyone else to pay for my healthcare (I'm sorry if you are stuck with government health care as your only option). I won't force you to stand by me while I smoke or ask you to pay for my health care if I need it some day. Just please don't pass judgment on me as if you know jack shit about me because I smoke. Nothing good has really ever come from throwing people into "groups" and passing judgement on them. Look at people as individuals.
Interesting. I could just as easily say women are a larger burden on companies because they could potentially miss many months on account of maternity leave, requiring the company to find a temporary replacement and train that individual for the few months they will be there. I doubt my argument would have much validity when I get sued for discrimination
.Yet, apparently an analogous argument is being used against smokers.
The Charter.
Yes.
All? No. Certainly wouldn't hire someone if I knew they were having unprotected sex like you say, but most homosexual men I know say they don't.
Yes.
Irresponsible, yes. Whores, no.
No, but I wouldn't hire one.
Life's not fair and I don't have time to hear all the deep details of who you really really are. I know you have a character flaw, I moved on to the next candidate who doesn't.
It is a fair comparison. Certainly if they were not protected by law, in certain circumstances I would not hire women who were likely to become pregnant in the immediate future. In fact I do know two business owners who do just that, both are women.Interesting. I could just as easily say women are a larger burden on companies because they could potentially miss many months on account of maternity leave, requiring the company to find a temporary replacement and train that individual for the few months they will be there. I doubt my argument would have much validity when I get sued for discrimination
Yet, apparently an analogous argument is being used against smokers.
KK
We no longer have smokers in our workplace.My previous position about 25 per cent of them were.I loved having them there......I simply kept away from them.They were best excuse for doing pretty much whatever i wanted there until i decided to leave.My supervisor could not justify in any way trying to discipline me when he had a yard full of chain smokers(2 other supervisors included).God bless them for their habit
You used to be able to smoke at your desk or on the job. In the 1970's I worked at an airport and smoked behind the ticketing counter while checking people in. I never needed a break to smoke.
Thanks for sharing the article.
Just curious about a hypothetical scenario:
Let's say a successful company has someone in its top management group who consistently brings in most of the company's profit in the past three decades; but he is a smoker who failed repeatedly in quitting the habit after multiple attempts.
This company is on the verge of initiating a non-smoking policy.
What should be the proper solution?
Just curious about a hypothetical scenario:
Let's say a successful company has someone in its top management group who consistently brings in most of the company's profit in the past three decades; but he is a smoker who failed repeatedly in quitting the habit after multiple attempts.
This company is on the verge of initiating a non-smoking policy.
What should be the proper solution?
I'd disagree. Smoking says too many dab things about a person. Why acquire risk if you don't need to?
KK
I have no problem with that policy.I see so many people at work taking unlimited unquestioned breaks for a smoke while people who don't smoke get asked why are you chatting with someone and not doing your job. I just say,smokers get as many breaks as they want so I am doing the same. Pretty much ends the questions about me chatting and not doing my job.
