Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Smokers need not apply!

  • 31-08-2008 8:56pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,475 ✭✭✭


    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??

    Would you hire a smoker 103 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    no
    100% 103 votes


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,372 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,264 ✭✭✭JBoyle4eva


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,054 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 395 ✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,661 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,054 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,661 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    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! ;)


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,661 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 395 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Timans


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 395 ✭✭RoosterIllusion


    connundrum wrote: »
    Lol. Do you have a newsletter?

    email: jesus@thepentagon.com


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭Dave147


    Tony Seda.

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

    Tony Seda is the Godfather.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 889 ✭✭✭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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭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).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,378 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


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


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,240 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    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.
    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 :p). 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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭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'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,240 ✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭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?".


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,215 ✭✭✭FX Meister


    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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭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".


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,113 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,113 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement