Smokers. Second class citizens or not.

pyramuid man

Please state your opinions.
Was watching telly last night and they had this section on smoking in the workplace and I was infuriated by the opinions of people on smokers as if we are second class citizens. It was based on the fact that there is some employers in the UK that will not employ smokers. This is rediculous. Is it not enough that we stand out in the cold and wet when socialising to smoke but now to be in a possible position in the future being discriminated against in career prospects for smoking.
Would it not make as much sense to ban drinking alcohol in public houses or not giving people jobs because they like to go out for a drink at weekends.

Also the president of ASH was on the programme and I found his views to be extremist and totally not willing to consider people who smoke as people but more as objects. Diseased objects.

So what do you think?
Is it fair to discriminate against smokers for being smokers or not.

P.S. I am a smoker in case you did not know.

ASH are idiots.

They agreed with the smoking ban and campained for it.

Now they are complaining how smokers are outside dropping butts on the ground and that smoking areas are in breech of the law.

(Former Smoker here)

Peace

Smokers are a dying breed.

iregk

Well why can't/don't smokers just put their cig buts in the bin? how many times have we seem someone throw it on the ground and stand on it? How hard is it to put it in the top of a bin or something?

Zulu

ha ha (at the thread not Peaces joke - sorry Peace)

Töpher

I think its fair to ban it in indoor public places, to non-smokers it's disgusting (Christ, as a non smoker, remembering the stench that used to be on my clothes after a night out! I take it most smokers don't recognise this due to less sensitive smelling glands or whatnot? lol), and an unwanted health hazard.

However, to refuse to employ you on the grounds of it... thats wrong, provided you don't smoke in their buildings.

Endurance Man

Hell, if its going to motivate more smokers to stop, then yes.

Archeron

I found the vast majority of non-smokers are extremist and preachy. When I did smoke, I found people tended to complain a lot about it. When in the pubs, it was flthy and smelly, when outside the pub, you pose a nuisance.

I think people should still respect other peoples right to smoke. I'm glad its banned in public places as it makes the experience of going out a lot nicer, and a lot less smelly, but people are big and old enough to make up their own minds about what they want to do to their bodies. Many people seem to view smoking as being worse than heroin addiciton. I agree that children smoking is a horrible sight, but there are laws to try and combat that.

I made up my mind to stop smoking last October, and thankfully, i havent touched one since. However, if YOU want to smoke, then go right ahead. I made my decision as a personal thing, and if you want to smoke, then its not my place to try and stop you. As long as you're respecting the laws of the land, then go right ahead. People actually find it surprising that I dont mind if people smoke in my house or in my car, but I always swore i wouldnt become a preachy ex-smoker, coz when I did smoke, I just wanted to hit preachy people. Also, I find that smokers are more fun than non-smokers, (entirely a personal opinion before I get attacked by the non smoking brigade......)

Töpher

Peace wrote:

Smokers are a dying breed.

So are (us?) non-smokers.

Feenikusu

Last year I had to sit next to a smoker at school...that was horrible!
She went outside to smoke, but of course she smelled terribly during the lessons, that made me feel sick.
And I wouldn't want having to sit next to a smoker at work, because there it is not only for one year...so it's okay that they don't get employed. People who take drugs often don't get employed either, so why should smokers.

Dagnir Glaurung

100% of smokers die.

Brother To God

Peace wrote:

Smokers are a dying breed.

what you mean by that?as in dying of cancer?!
what ever happened to the "art" of smoking choosing different tobacacos and papers for the perfect smoke for the perfect situation,different aromas and flavours and strenghts?the poor smoker has been made to feel lowly like a dog,look at France where you can lit up in the kids section of McDonalds,i,m not saying this is a good thing,i actually like the smoking ban but the whole effect on our careers and future,this is insane!!

stovelid

Not per se as it is their choice to smoke.

However in any situation where non-smokers must endure the smoke, such as ifts, pubs, offices etc, the non-smoker's rights should be paramount.

pyramuid man wrote:

Is it fair to discriminate against smokers for being smokers or not.

thelordofcheese

Dagnir Glaurung wrote:

100% of smokers die.

100% of non-smokers die.

tabatha

i worked with some smokers and i hated the way that they were allowed to have smoke breaks every hour and they "needed" there smoke. just because i wasnt a smoker i wasnt allowed a break. i think this is where employers are coming from on this one. apart from the fact that they have to give them breaks smokers also suffer more illness due to chest infections and might have more sick days than someone who doesnt smoke.

Ickle Magoo

Sorry pyramuid man, you are not going to like what I am about to say....

I'd be delighted if all employers refused to employ smokers.....the stink off them is horrible & most smokers are absolutely oblivious to it...I don't think most smokers realise just how horrible their breath is (chewing gum or breath freshener does not make a blind bit of difference) and how horrible their clothes smell.....it makes me feel a bit sick to be honest, you get the same smell off an ashtray......and that is even if they do go outside! You can tell from 50 paces who is a cigarette smoker & who is not - with or without deoderant/perfume.....

If someone came into work staggering drunk because of their addiction to alcohol, they would be sent home & given a formal warning - I don't see why a smoker coming in & stinking of their habit should be treated any differently.....I think only historical attitudes mean that they are....

Now, that doesn't mean I am adverse to the smoking of other nicer smelling substances when no work is involved - just tobacco.....:)

iregk

I think the whole smoking thing is different in so far as if you want to do it go ahead. If you want to eat a mars bar rather than a yorkie go head its not harming me but you smoking beside me is. Thats why a lot of non smokers have a problem with it. You want to smoke cool, its yourself that your killing, just as long as you don't smoke beside me as I don't want to breath in your smoke.

But as a non smoker (im sure you could have guessed) I find some smokers attitude disgusting. I know that feeling is mutual and doesn't cover every smoker/non smoker but for example:

Smoking has been illegal on busses for 15 years now so why are people still smoking on busses? A while back someone lit up and I as politely would she put it out. She went ballistic and called me ever name I have ever heard, include some I hadn't and basically told me to mind my own business. What is wrong with those people?

biko

Smokers are people too, just not as long.

mayotom

iregk wrote:

Well why can't/don't smokers just put their cig buts in the bin? how many times have we seem someone throw it on the ground and stand on it? How hard is it to put it in the top of a bin or something?

very true.
I don't know of any smoking area that doesn't provide a bin, there's no need to throw it on the ground. people should be fined for littering, that goes for any type of littering.

pyramuid man

stovelid wrote:

Not per se as it is their choice to smoke.

However in any situation where non-smokers must endure the smoke, such as ifts, pubs, offices etc, the non-smoker's rights should be paramount.

But in Ireland that is not going to happen. Non smokers do not have to "endure" smoke in any irish workplace. Remember, that is against the law.

connundrum

If I had two potential employees both with the same qualities and education and experience, and I found out that one was a smoker then... well I'd take the non smoker. Why? How is it in my interest to employ someone to do a 39 hour week when at least 2 of those hours are going to be spent outside smoking?

I do have (some) sympathy for smokers as it is a habit and hard to break bla bla bla, but no one made you do it, and if there are sh1te consequences to you continuing smoking then tough. You could give up :rolleyes: But you don't have to, cos its your legal right to smoke. Whatever.

And as for the ban, best thing ever.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Sorry pyramuid man, you are not going to like what I am about to say....

I'd be delighted if all employers refused to employ smokers.....the stink off them is horrible & most smokers are absolutely oblivious to it...I don't think most smokers realise just how horrible their breath is (chewing gum or breath freshener does not make a blind bit of difference) and how horrible their clothes smell.....it makes me feel a bit sick to be honest, you get the same smell off an ashtray......and that is even if they do go outside! You can tell from 50 paces who is a cigarette smoker & who is not - with or without deoderant/perfume.....

ASH have got to you :eek:

If someone came into work staggering drunk because of their addiction to alcohol, they would be sent home & given a formal warning - I don't see why a smoker coming in & stinking of their habit should be treated any differently.....I think only historical attitudes mean that they are....

Try compare like with like.

A drunk would not be able to do their job. Somkers can.
Where does it end?
Maybe we should fire all the people with BO? Or all the ugly people? All the assholes? Or all the people that don't like you? Its work, you have to deal with things you don't like.

I'm really honestly thinking about starting smking again to annoy all the self righteous people.
Maybe blow some smoke in their faces too

mayotom

tabatha wrote:

i worked with some smokers and i hated the way that they were allowed to have smoke breaks every hour and they "needed" there smoke. just because i wasnt a smoker i wasnt allowed a break. i think this is where employers are coming from on this one. apart from the fact that they have to give them breaks smokers also suffer more illness due to chest infections and might have more sick days than someone who doesnt smoke.

I agree. its bloody annoying to see the smoking members heading off for their fag, while the non smokers keep working. employers loose a huge amount of time because of this.
I used to be Store manager with a supermarket, most of the staff smoked when I started. I watched this for a while and calculated that staff were wasting 20% of their working day between finding people to cover for them and looking for smoking buddies and actually been out smoking. of course the guy I was replacing was the biggest culprit.
I banned smoking, except on designated breaks, productivity went through the roof.

it was in their contracts that smoking was only alowed during designated breaks

pyramuid man

People who smoke are no different than non smokers, except maybe a little less contrary. As for the person who says that smokers spend two hours a week of working time smoking. I have worked in many offices and different places of work and I have never known anyone who takes two hours of smoking breaks a week. If they did they would be taking the piss and that is grounds for a warning in most cases I am sure,

connundrum

ronoc wrote:

A drunk would not be able to do their job. Somkers can.
Where does it end?
Maybe we should fire all the people with BO? Or all the ugly people?

Granted, a drunk would be fairly incapacitated, not a good example. But smokers do cost a company money, why would you hire a smoker who will cost you more money than someone who doesn't smoke. It makes no sense. However if you are a smoker and don't smoke at all during work hours then you are great and I have no problem at all

pyramuid man wrote:

I have worked in many offices and different places of work and I have never known anyone who takes two hours of smoking breaks a week. If they did they would be taking the piss and that is grounds for a warning in most cases I am sure,

5 minutes per smoke @ 5 smokes per day = just over 2 hours. I'm sorry but I have worked with numerous people who think 5 fags per working day is minimum. But then again, 2 hours was just a figure I threw out.

pyramuid man

mayotom wrote:

I agree. its bloody annoying to see the smoking members heading off for their fag, while the non smokers keep working. employers loose a huge amount of time because of this.
I used to be Store manager with a supermarket, most of the staff smoked when I started. I watched this for a while and calculated that staff were wasting 20% of their working day between finding people to cover for them and looking for smoking buddies and actually been out smoking. of course the guy I was replacing was the biggest culprit.
I banned smoking, except on designated breaks, productivity went through the roof.

it was in their contracts that smoking was only alowed during designated breaks

As I have said, People who use excessive time smoking deserve to be disciplined. But not every smoker is like that. Also your solution was quite good.

mayotom

mayotom wrote:

I agree. its bloody annoying to see the smoking members heading off for their fag, while the non smokers keep working. employers loose a huge amount of time because of this.
I used to be Store manager with a supermarket, most of the staff smoked when I started. I watched this for a while and calculated that staff were wasting 20% of their working day between finding people to cover for them and looking for smoking buddies and actually been out smoking. of course the guy I was replacing was the biggest culprit.
I banned smoking, except on designated breaks, productivity went through the roof.

it was in their contracts that smoking was only alowed during designated breaks

If you allowed staff to waste 20% of their day smoking then the problem lies else where.

Beastieboy

Firstly, I don't smoke because smoking is among the most pointless and stupid things a person can do. Second, I definitely wouldn't say smokers are second class citizens.
If a person wants to smoke thats up to them but clearly smokers cannot not be allowed to negatively affect the health of non-smokers. I find it incredibly ignorant that some smokers argue that the smoking ban is unfair. Your point about drinking is idiotic, me drinking beside someone isn't going to damage their health only my own.
Employing a smoker vs. a non-smoker: the last place i worked smokers fcuked off whenever they wanted to have a smoke (btw thats positive discrimination for smokers), it's understandable that employers would want people that don't need to take extra breaks.
Smokers aren't second class citizens, but by smoking you clearly have to give up some of your rights to protect the rights of others. It is a smokers choice whether they want to smoke not a non-smoker, etc.

Jimi-Spandex

Feenikusu wrote:

People who take drugs often don't get employed either, so why should smokers.

People who take drugs may not be able to function in the manner required by their job. This is not a problem with smokers. This is why there is a difference between being a heroin addict and being a smoker. I can function.

You don't like the smell? Tough ****.

We should also fire people for not showering or brushing their teeth before coming to work. Or for having coffee breath. Or onion breath. Or wearing squeaky shoes.

tabatha wrote:

apart from the fact that they have to give them breaks smokers also suffer more illness due to chest infections and might have more sick days than someone who doesnt smoke.

If you apply this logic then surely you can justify employing a man in his 20s over a woman in her 20s because she might get pregnant and be out of work for 6-9 months while you pay her 2/3 of her salary, whereas he won't. But I'm sure you would disagree with that kind of discrimination, rightly so, but not this type. How do you explain that?

Feenikusu

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Why? Smoking and drugs are addictive, both makes you ill and is fatal, you do both because you "need" to. The only difference I see is that drugs have stronger effects, while smokers mainly smell.

[edit] @ Jimi Spandex: Right, I wouldn't employ anyone who is smelling bad or is unhygienic or whatever. That's all very annoying if it's permanently, of course it's okay if you have onion breath one day, still annoying, but you don't have to live with that every day.

Megatron

OK , if you arent' going to employ someone who smokes , then don't bother employing anyone who drinks either.

Personal preference shouldn't come into it.
Ok as was stated in another post if the smoking "breaks" effect the buisness then yeah , it needs to be delt with.

I honestly hate the preachy Non-smokers ... as soon as you light up bang ... Did you know ..*cough*. and also .*cough , cough**..


F00k OFF

I'm having a smoke becuase i want to , i've gone away from everyone , and yet you see me light up make a poxy bee line towards me to let me know i'm doing myself harm ... I can read the pack ... just let me have my ciggy in peace.

i now take the Dennis leary approch to them , it's much more satisfiing tbh

mayotom

ronoc wrote:

If you allowed staff to waste 20% of their day smoking then the problem lies else where.

That was one of the first things I changed when I took over.

Ickle Magoo

Lol! No, ASH haven't gotten to me - as I say I have the odd smoke, but I don't smoke stinky fags & I only smoke every so often - not X a day! As for the analogy with alcohol....well, they are both addictions - if someone is running outside to have a fag every couple of hours then that does affect their ability to do the job....not to mention that everyone else has to put up with that awful stench eminating from them & the cost to employers for providing ashtrays or having to clear up the mounds of cigarette butts.....

Of course in work we all have to put up with a degree of things or people you don't like, but smoking is a choice.....as mentioned above, employers are looking more & more to the extra expenses that smokers cost them & are choosing to employ non-smokers....you made the decision to smoke, you have to live with the consequences...whether those consequences be that you smell, your breath stinks, you are not the first choice for most employers, etc, etc.....it's your problem, not mine

Ugly people do not chose to be ugly, assholes can be sacked for being assholes & I have had to speak to an employee regarding body hygiene (or lack of) as other staff members complained about having to work in close proximity to such an offensive smell....are smokers really that different?!

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

If you apply this logic then surely you can justify employing a man in his 20s over a woman in her 20s because she might get pregnant and be out of work for 6-9 months while you pay her 2/3 of her salary, whereas he won't. But I'm sure you would disagree with that kind of discrimination, rightly so, but not this type. How do you explain that?

Last time I checked having children was a fairly natural thing to do that most people in the population will choose to do at some time in their life.....smoking is a minority activity & is not natural - you inhale how many hundreds of chemicals...slightly different to creating life, I feel....:)

connundrum

connundrum wrote:

Granted, a drunk would be fairly incapacitated, not a good example. But smokers do cost a company money, why would you hire a smoker who will cost you more money than someone who doesn't smoke. It makes no sense. However if you are a smoker and don't smoke at all during work hours then you are great and I have no problem at all

If the smoker has time to have a cigarette whats the problem? Its the same as grabbing a coffee or going to the watercooler. Which is pretty much acceptable dossing.

Mossy Monk

second class citizens? why?

should people who drink be classed differently? how about those that chew gum? maybe those bad people who pollute the air with their cars should be burned

ex smoker

Ickle Magoo

ronoc wrote:

If the smoker has time to have a cigarette whats the problem? Its the same as grabbing a coffee or going to the watercooler. Which is pretty much acceptable dossing.

Trouble is most smokers I've worked with want their fag & their cuppa! :rolleyes::)

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote:

assholes can be sacked for being assholes

Hahahaha you must be joking

Ickle Magoo wrote:

& I have had to speak to an employee regarding body hygiene (or lack of) as other staff members complained about having to work in close proximity to such an offensive smell....are smokers really that different?!

A smoker would probably tell you where to go if you tried that. And I doubt you will suceed in an unfair disissal case if you sack a smoker.

azezil

While I do think excluding someone from work on the basis that they smoke is a bit on the harsh side, I can see the logic in it:

* smokers take more breaks
* more prone to serious illness
* smell bad :P

Feenikusu

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Of course there are, but still, for me smoking is a drug.
And according to wikipedia, that's right.
According to the english version of wikipedia (where I'm not sure if I understood everything...), nicotine can be counted as a hard drug, but it's not illegal, so it isn't. And I don't know if every cigarette has nicotine it it...

Raiser

Personally I'd prefer if you would all incubate your cancer cells somewhere more considerate and less conspicuous - like in a crypt or something.

- See I don't mind if you kill yourselves but I do not wish to be an onlooker.

pyramuid man

Feenikusu wrote:

Why? Smoking and drugs are addictive, both makes you ill and is fatal, you do both because you "need" to. The only difference I see is that drugs have stronger effects, while smokers mainly smell.

[edit] @ Jimi Spandex: Right, I wouldn't employ anyone who is smelling bad or is unhygienic or whatever. That's all very annoying if it's permanently, of course it's okay if you have onion breath one day, still annoying, but you don't have to live with that every day.

Oh I would love to work for you and get fired for smelling of smoke then. What you are saying is totally discriminative. Personal opinions should not cloud any business decision made regarding anything. It is illegal.

Feenikusu

Feenikusu wrote:

Of course there are, but still, for me smoking is a drug.
And according to wikipedia, that's right.
According to the english version of wikipedia (where I'm not sure if I understood everything...), nicotine can be counted as a hard drug, but it's not illegal, so it isn't. And I don't know if every cigarette has nicotine it it...

Pedantic - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules:

thelordofcheese

Ickle Magoo wrote:

If someone came into work staggering drunk because of their addiction to alcohol, they would be sent home & given a formal warning - I don't see why a smoker coming in & stinking of their habit should be treated any differently.....I think only historical attitudes mean that they are....

well, for a start comming into work staggering drunk would probably mean you are unfit to work, and a possible danger to those around you [depending on the type of work you do], while smoking is by comparison only an offensive odour.


edit: beaten to this about a page ago.. probably should pay more attention

iregk

Megatron wrote:

I honestly hate the preachy Non-smokers ... as soon as you light up bang ... Did you know ..*cough*. and also .*cough , cough**..

F00k OFF

I'm having a smoke becuase i want to , i've gone away from everyone , and yet you see me light up make a poxy bee line towards me to let me know i'm doing myself harm ... I can read the pack ... just let me have my ciggy in peace.

i now take the Dennis leary approch to them , it's much more satisfiing tbh

Well in fairness I don't think anyone in here has a problem with that. If someone wan'ts to smoke in a group of smokers or on their own thats fair enough as long as you but the butt in the tray when finished and not on the ground.

If you insist on lighting up on a bus or somewhere else without taking a blind bit of consideration for non smokers then yes people will have a problem with that and rightly so!

Ickle Magoo

ronoc wrote:

Hahahaha you must be joking

No joke - if you are an idiot then your boss can & probably will fire you!

ronoc wrote:

A smoker would probably tell you where to go if you tried that. And I doubt you will suceed in an unfair disissal case if you sack a smoker.

If I approached a smoker to ask them to improve their personal hygiene & they told me where to go - they would be sacked on the spot for telling me where to go.....and they would have no come back at a tribuneral Employers reserve the right to a company image & most companies don't consider people congregated around the front door sucking on cigarettes which they then flick onto the ground, then coming into the office stinking of smoke until by the end of the day the whole office smells of stale smoke a particularly good image....sorry

The OP asked for opinions, I gave mine....it was asked why some employers choose not to employ smokers, if you want to pretend that there are no good reasons beind the employers decision - then good on you, love the blinkers!

Lordofcheese, the analogy was between two addictions - smokers used to be abundant so of course it was a case of majority rule in the workplace, now it is becoming less & less acceptable - either professionally or socially to be a smoker.....

Nightwish

I know this is a contentious issue, but I agree with ASH tbh.

~Leanne~

Any employement ive been in never had "smoke breaks". What company lets you out every hour for a smoke? I dont know any!
We had our 10 o clock tea break - our lunch and that was it.
Im a smoker and i learnt to deal with it.
I dont think its very fair on other employees anyway.