Smokers need not apply!

bitemybanger

My friend was denied a job last week because she was a smoker, she told me how is was unfair and discriminitave but i said that if i was hiring people i would not hire a smoker because thier out smoking during work and smokers get ill more than a non smoker and they get moody when they dont have one.
Would you say no to a smoker??

The Bollox

I wouldn't ask, and I wouldn't really care. The only time it would come into question is if Smoker X was working for me and I found they were taking a few 10 minute breaks just to go for a smoke. I would take it up with Smoker X and tell them to only smoke on break times

token56

I would hire them but that doesn't mean you have to let them out on smoke breaks and if they dont like that they can just leave.

JBoyle4eva

I would hire them but I'd restrict them to smoking at breaktime.

Carsinian Thau

I think that would count as discrimination.
Provided the amount of time spent on smoking breaks did not exceed the amount of time allowed to non-smoking employees for their breaks, they should be entitled to get the job.

Overheal

bitemybanger wrote: »

My friend was denied a job last week because she was a smoker, she told me how is was unfair and discriminitave but i said that if i was hiring people i would not hire a smoker because thier out smoking during work and smokers get ill more than a non smoker and they get moody when they dont have one.
Would you say no to a smoker??

the poll is slightly loaded. I could definitely see myself choosing a non-smoker over a smoker if they were equally qualified. But if the smoker turns out to still be the more productive employee, then Im sorry. they have to be your pick.

I wouldnt consider it discrimination in that case. If you chose the weaker employee because they were a non-smoker? Thats a grey area.

RoosterIllusion

I remember in a 12 month period I took 11 sick days. One three day period was to see a psychiatrist away from home and another three days were to go to hospital to get a hyperactive thyroid checked out. So basically I had 6 days of flu/colds and 6 of appointments/checkups or whatever you want to call them.

My manager told me I was taking too many sick days and I was given an ultimatum about taking another sick day. I had doctors notes/certs for all of them. I take full responsibility for being sick and I can see how it would have been frustrating for my manager to have a worker away from the office

The two smokers in my office took a 10 minute break every hour and a half every day, five days a week for a year. I just did a few calculations and I think that it eventually works out to more than 25 days away from their workstation. Now I didn't hold this against them or anything, in fact one of them was a good friend (the other was a bitch :P). I would never hold a break against anyone and I realised, when I started the 9 to 5 routine, that they were welcomed and necessary. I did find that smokers generally take a vast amount of time off over other people. The people I worked with seemed average enough and were not chain smokers (I myself used to smoke 40 a day so I knew) so I figure that there are people out there that are worse than they were.

faceman

Its not discrimination. The Equality Authority have confirmed that. Taken from an article in the Indo when some company advertised roles with a big "smokers need not apply" slapped onto it.

Independent wrote:

The Equality Authority and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment confirmed they have no power to clamp down on such advertisements. The authority said smoking was not one of its discrimination areas, such as marital status.

The Advertising Authority of Ireland confirmed that the advertisement did not contravene its code.

Overheal wrote: »

the poll is slightly loaded. I could definitely see myself choosing a non-smoker over a smoker if they were equally qualified. But if the smoker turns out to still be the more productive employee, then Im sorry. they have to be your pick.

I wouldnt consider it discrimination in that case. If you chose the weaker employee because they were a non-smoker? Thats a grey area.

I agree with Overheal. I select based on the better candidate to do the job. When checking references, a careful yet cleverly worded question will determine a individuals sick days/absenteeism.

FlutterinBantam

Smell from smokers would sicken you.

Especially when they come back from a smoke break.

Would never hire a smoker,you know them really
A the stink
b the skin= lined and pitted
c the cough
d thin as bony arsed

Dudess

Yes I would hire a smoker, and prohibit their smoking breaks. A lot of my friends are smokers and they take sick days extremely rarely.

Carsinian Thau

faceman wrote: »

Its not discrimination. The Equality Authority have confirmed that. Taken from an article in the Indo when some company advertised roles with a big "smokers need not apply" slapped onto it.

Didn't know that. Would like to know how they arrived at that discision though.

Stheno

faceman wrote: »

Its not discrimination. The Equality Authority have confirmed that. Taken from an article in the Indo when some company advertised roles with a big "smokers need not apply" slapped onto it.

I agree with Overheal. I select based on the better candidate to do the job. When checking references, a careful yet cleverly worded question will determine a individuals sick days/absenteeism.

+1 it's not discrimination.

I smoke as do a fair few of the people who work on my teams, and oftentimes the weirdest problems in work get discussed/solved over a smoke, so I've no real issue with smokers.

It's lazy ****es who just don't do their job who get on my wick lol, regardless of whether or not they smoke, I've worked with people who will spend hours on their mobile on personal calls, drives me nuts.

faceman

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

Didn't know that. Would like to know how they arrived at that discision though.

Its simple enough actually. There are 9 grounds for discrimination:

Gender
Marital Status
Family Status
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Age
Disability
Race
Being a traveller

Unfortunately for smokers, smoking doesn't fit into any of the above!

Stheno

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

Didn't know that. Would like to know how they arrived at that discision though.

Think it was based on a guy a few years ago had a policy of never hiring smokers and someone took a case?

Not too sure but there was a lot of publicity at the time about this bloke refusing to hire smokers.

faceman

nouggatti wrote: »

Think it was based on a guy a few years ago had a policy of never hiring smokers and someone took a case?

Not too sure but there was a lot of publicity at the time about this bloke refusing to hire smokers.

Heres the original article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/no-timewasting-smokers-need-apply-employer-insists-96094.html

On a related note, the WHO (World Health Organisation) has a policy whereby they dont recruit smokers either.

Firetrap

No, I wouldn't employ a smoker if I had a choice of an equally qualified non-smoker. Equally, I wouldn't employ a heavy drinker or someone who takes drugs. :cool:

Bottle_of_Smoke

In my last job we only smoked on our lunch & coffee breaks. Thought this would have been normal.

I remember years ago working in a clothes shope the smokers took the odd 5 min break. Reckon the non smokers should be allowed go down the shop or something to compensate.

Dave147

I would rather not hire smokers to be honest. We had one lad who used ask me to cover him when I was out socialising so he could go for one.. ridiculous, this happened quite often - he's gone now. Also my dad hired him, in pubs smokers are a disaster to have working, they take so many breaks.

RoosterIllusion

Dave147 wrote: »

I would rather not hire smokers to be honest. We had one lad who used ask me to cover him when I was out socialising so he could go for one.. ridiculous, this happened quite often - he's gone now. Also my dad hired him, in pubs smokers are a disaster to have working, they take so many breaks.

Tony Seda.

Timans

I wouldn't say no but I'd insist there was no kissing involved.

RoosterIllusion

connundrum wrote: »

Lol. Do you have a newsletter?

email: jesus@thepentagon.com

Dave147

RoosterIllusion wrote: »

Tony Seda.

UUUUUUUUUUUU Remove.....! Can't remember what else he used say.

Tony Seda is the Godfather.

Bajingo

Like some others have already said I would hire a smoker if he/she was the most qualified...smoking is their choice and I wouldnt hold it against them however that doesnt mean they can go out and have when ever they like I would call doing that a sackable offence!

rubadub

Firetrap wrote: »

Equally, I wouldn't employ a heavy drinker or someone who takes drugs. :cool:

Yep, and the whole "its legal" BS doesn't wash. Sniffing glue is perfectly legal but would not be tolerated in a job (or pub even though it is still legal) even if the person was only sniffing glue or taking some other legal recreational drug in small threshold doses (like nicotine usually is), I would not expect employers to view this as a good thing.

dotsman

I think any company that refuses to hire smokers is in for big trouble. If they hold something as petty as smoking in such a high regard, then 2 things are clear. They have stupid recruitment policy, and they must be assholes to work for.

If a smoker is taking a load of time, then you deal with that specific smoker. The same way if someone was sitting on the throne reading a paper for half an hour every, you don't ban toilet breaks!

I'm a smoker, and typically go for 4 smokes a day during work. I rarely take my break (and I'm entitled to 2!), frequently work through lunch, and often stay late. Even while out smoking, I am typically doing one of three things.

1. Talking to a colleague about something work related and possibly discussing something that would otherwise have required a "meeting"
2. Thinking about a problem I am dealing with or planning what I need to discuss at the meeting I'm about to head off to or digest the info from the meeting I've just been to.
3. Relaxing and clearing my head for a few minutes, which I think (and most experts agree, makes me far more efficient when I go back to my desk!

I'm employed to get things done. If I get these done, then only the most retarded manager would quibble with the petty things like smoking or coming in late (unless you're really taking the piss).

Krieg

I was a project engineer for the summer and I took regular smoking breaks. But I took them as part of my lunch break, In fact I often skipped breakfast/lunch by having a cig. I found that this was much better since smoking increased my productivity and also killed the need for food.

Basically, the job was problem solving; I was presented with a problem, I go out for a cigarette while coming up with a solution (I dont care what anyone thinks, smoking a ciggy is much more productive on the mind than sitting on the throne), go back inside and try out my newly-found-flawless idea.

So, my theory is that companies should hire us smokers because some of us are lot more productive than the non-smoking scum

Eoin

Many of the anti-smoker people seem to think that non-smokers are always working when smokers would be out having a ciggie. My experience is that non-smokers will stay much longer in the canteen on tea and lunch breaks, read newspapers, browse t'internet etc. None of the people that I remember being particularly bad for taking annual leave were smokers.

I would hate to work somewhere, where the amount of time you're at your desk defines how hard you are working.

Dudess

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't hire a smoker if they are suitable for the job.

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

Yep, and the whole "its legal" BS doesn't wash. Sniffing glue is perfectly legal but would not be tolerated in a job (or pub even though it is still legal) even if the person was only sniffing glue or taking some other legal recreational drug in small threshold doses (like nicotine usually is), I would not expect employers to view this as a good thing.

The only reason glue sniffing is legal is because there hasn't been made illegal!

Anyway, as an ex-smoker (gets on soap box) why the hell should I always cover for smokers!

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

I'm employed to get things done. If I get these done, then only the most retarded manager would quibble with the petty things like smoking or coming in late (unless you're really taking the piss).

I agree with that completely.

eoin_s

eoin_s wrote: »

I would hate to work somewhere, where the amount of time you're at your desk defines how hard you are working .

+1 Just being there in reallity means nothing, it's what you while you're there that matters! but quite often the boss doesn't see that!

hussey

OP, how do you know this?
Did the employer actually say "it is because you smoke"?

or this this your friends excuse for not getting a job?

Orion

RoosterIllusion wrote: »

The two smokers in my office took a 10 minute break every hour and a half every day, five days a week for a year. I just did a few calculations and I think that it eventually works out to more than 25 days away from their workstation.

On the days you were in work how many coffee breaks did you take? You failed to add them to you calculations.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Smell from smokers would sicken you.

Especially when they come back from a smoke break.

Would never hire a smoker,you know them really
A the stink
b the skin= lined and pitted
c the cough
d thin as bony arsed

I smoke ... I've smoked for 28 years. My skin isn't lined and pitted at all - I'm generally considered to look 5-8 years younger than I am. And I'm not thin (I am not admitting to be a fatty ). So that's a & c blown out of the water. I accept A. But C could just as easily be a bad cold or TB.

IOW come back when you've something to say. :rolleyes:

spinandscribble

i'd hire a smoker as long as they only used their offical breaks for smoking. their addiction does not mean they deserve extra breaks. the same way a gambler couldn't expect 'bookie breaks'.

amacachi

Probably gonna get some **** for this, but if it's ok to not hire smokers because they may work 10-15 minutes a day less, why is it not ok to choose men over women who may get pregnant and take several months off work?

hussey

amacachi wrote: »

Probably gonna get some **** for this, but if it's ok to not hire smokers because they may work 10-15 minutes a day less, why is it not ok to choose men over women who may get pregnant and take several months off work?

You already know the answer to this ... don't feed the troll

spinandscribble

amacachi, by that reasoning women have no place in the workplace and should be just baby making machines. would you expect them to be asked at a interview "so... do you use protection?".

If a when work environment has a no smoking policy in force, it doesn't matter if any employee smokes or not, they must do their job during "office hours" smoke breaks are not part of the equation!

amacachi

Not what I'm suggesting at all. Just that if you had two equally qualified people, would you choose the man or the woman? If the woman is better qualified then I would choose the woman of course. Just like if a smoker was better I would choose the smoker. Don't see why smoking can be used as a tie-breaker when possible long-term costs and staff turnover can't.

spinandscribble

well i never would use a smoker as a tie breaker, unless he/she was demanding lots of smoke breaks.
women may or may not get preggy during their time in a workplace. you can never be sure they will or won't.

amacachi

Yeah, which the majority don't. Any smoker can go 3 hours without a smoke, they're just takin the piss if they want more than that. It's laziness, not the fact that they're smokers.

spinandscribble

yeah which is why i said i wouldn't care if they were a smoker. i'd assume the understood there was no such thing as special smoker breaks. tbh i wouldn't even ask if they were a smoker.

FX Meister

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

I think that would count as discrimination.
Provided the amount of time spent on smoking breaks did not exceed the amount of time allowed to non-smoking employees for their breaks, they should be entitled to get the job.

So if my boss gives me any guff about boozing on the job I'll just tell him it's discrimination and to take it up with Carcinogn Thai. Nice one/ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

amacachi

Apologies, I wasn't directly addressing just you at the start.

Hmmm, this is after hours so one of us better tell the other that they "fail".

Tar.Aldarion

Dudess wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't hire a smoker if they are suitable for the job.

They've already failed the stupidity filter.

spinandscribble

to be honest i will never understand why someone would choose to smoke. at least hash gives you a high. i just don't see the point except when you're 13 and you want to seem 'cool' and 'mature'. fair fecks to anyone that has a better reason then that btw, i mean it.

Dudess

FX Meister wrote: »

So if my boss gives me any guff about boozing on the job I'll just tell him it's discrimination and to take it up with Carcinogn Thai. Nice one/ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your boss would give you guff for boozing on the job because alcohol affects performance and alertness, something which smoking doesn't do so I don't understand your comparison.

indough

spinandscribble wrote: »

to be honest i will never understand why someone would choose to smoke. at least hash gives you a high. i just don't see the point except when you're 13 and you want to seem 'cool' and 'mature'. fair fecks to anyone that has a better reason then that btw, i mean it.

a lot of people smoke because they enjoy it, you do get high off cigarettes anyway its just not a head high...to be honest id rather smoke 20 cigarettes a day than smoke 6 or 7 joints and mope around the place like the walking dead all day

Greenmachine

faceman wrote: »

Its simple enough actually. There are 9 grounds for discrimination:

Gender
Marital Status
Family Status
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Age
Disability
Race
Being a traveller

Unfortunately for smokers, smoking doesn't fit into any of the above!

Interesting that health isn't up there.

Tar.Aldarion

Dudess wrote: »

Your boss would give you guff for boozing on the job because alcohol affects performance and alertness, something which smoking doesn't do so I don't understand your comparison.

It does affect the person, they get moody when they don't have them, they think about wanting a smoke. I've seena lot of people that get crazy moody if they can't go and have a smoke straight away.

Dudess

... not to the same extent that boozing on the job would affect them though - nowhere near it...