work and smoking

work

Are you allowed (is it legal) to be asked if you are a smoker at an interview?
Can someone not offer you a job based on that you are a smoker?
Thanks

danthefan

It's unlawful to discriminate based on the following:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community.

Smoking isn't listed...

Stheno

Yes it's perfectly ok to be asked that

work

What if someone says they do not smoke an dthen you later find out they do.
How would you deal with it?

Stheno

work wrote: »

What if someone says they do not smoke an dthen you later find out they do.
How would you deal with it?

There was one company a few years ago who actually tested like life insurance companies do, and didn't employ them.

If it is in their contract that they must be a non smoker then they are in breach of contract, so you could dismiss them on those grounds?

Mrs OBumble

work wrote: »

What if someone says they do not smoke an dthen you later find out they do.
How would you deal with it?

I'd fire them, for having lied at interview.

Squeeonline

I don't smoke but I'd probably refuse to answer that question as it has no relevance on my ability to do the job.

chris85

Squeeonline wrote: »

I don't smoke but I'd probably refuse to answer that question as it has no relevance on my ability to do the job.

Ok but many studies show smokers work less hours due to smoke breaks and health issues with smoking directly and a tendancy to be less healthy in general if they are a smoker. So understandable if a company would have to make a call to pick between a few people when the smoker is statistically likely to be less productive and take more sick days.

Eoin

Squeeonline wrote: »

I don't smoke but I'd probably refuse to answer that question as it has no relevance on my ability to do the job.

And probably not get the job. Fair enough if you wouldn't want to work for someone who asks questions like that; but if you're not a smoker it doesn't seem like something to take a stand against in an interview.

chris85 wrote: »

Ok but many studies show smokers work less hours due to smoke breaks and health issues with smoking directly and a tendancy to be less healthy in general if they are a smoker. So understandable if a company would have to make a call to pick between a few people when the smoker is statistically likely to be less productive and take more sick days.

Perhaps smokers might be at their desk less, but I'm not sure it really translates into doing less work.

hfallada

If you take two 15 min smoking breaks a day. That is 2,5 hours a week and nearly 100 hours in a year. It's about 2.5 weeks wages being paid to someone because they choose to smoke. Where as a non smoker won't have taken those breaks.

davo10

Squeeonline wrote: »

I don't smoke but I'd probably refuse to answer that question as it has no relevance on my ability to do the job.

Back to the job centre then. It is very relevant, ill health, time off, smoking breaks, smell that people around you have to put up with etc.

Riamfada

I used to smoke a in work Id take 10 or so 5 minute smoke breaks a day. That all added up to about an hour or so where I wasn't working. Now that I don't smoke I have to work more for the same money because I don't get any breaks let alone all the little ones throughout the day. !

I can understand the reasons behind not wanting to employee a smoker and thats as an ex-smoker and an employee.

JillyQ

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'd fire them, for having lied at interview.

Mrs OBumble you and i think alike i'd do exactly the same thing. They have lied and broken any trust that an employer would have in them.

Eoin

hfallada wrote: »

If you take two 15 min smoking breaks a day. That is 2,5 hours a week and nearly 100 hours in a year. It's about 2.5 weeks wages being paid to someone because they choose to smoke. Where as a non smoker won't have taken those breaks.

Well yes, assuming that a smoker doesn't just smoke during the same breaks that everyone gets, and that a non-smoker is always diligently working away the entire time they're at their desk. I've never personally witnessed any correlation between a smoker/non-smoker and their output.

Not that I'd disagree with what I'm sure are plentiful and detailed studies, but there are so many variables involved with recruitment, that this factor would be well down my list.

Gazzmonkey

hfallada wrote: »

If you take two 15 min smoking breaks a day. That is 2,5 hours a week and nearly 100 hours in a year. It's about 2.5 weeks wages being paid to someone because they choose to smoke. Where as a non smoker won't have taken those breaks.

To counter this, I take very quick smoke breaks and take a shorter lunch break to offset the time spent having my 3 work smokes per day.

My employers can't say or do a thing. :cool:

Sam Kade

There is an old folks home near me, droves of women take smoke breaks as they approach the doorway they have fag in hand ready to light up as soon as they exit the building.

Mrs OBumble

chris85 wrote: »

Ok but many studies show smokers work less hours due to smoke breaks

No argument about the health issues.

But smokers sometimes have the best-developed social networks in the company, due to mixing with all sorts out in the smoking room. There have been projects where I even considered taking it up, just to have an opportunity to get close to a particularly challenging colleage / customer. (I didn't, but did once actively look for another team member who already smoked to do the leg-work for me.)

So there might be jobs where it's an advantage.



... but I'd still fire you if you lied to me (either way) during your interview!

Tarzana

Squeeonline wrote: »

I don't smoke but I'd probably refuse to answer that question as it has no relevance on my ability to do the job.

If a person takes extra breaks to smoke, it does affect their ability to do their job. Breaks the workflow and so forth.

jamesbondings

Tarzana wrote: »

If a person takes extra breaks to smoke, it does affect their ability to do their job. Breaks the workflow and so forth.

I find smokers do the same if not more work than non smokers due to the fact that they are aware of the extra breaks they take. I worked in an office for 6 years and the smokers were the most productive.... Management were constantly trying to get non smokers productivity up to the smokers levels but they couldn't.... I think it comes down to motivation. I'll work extra hard every hour to justify taking 5 mins at the end of that hour for a smoke.

Sam Kade

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No argument about the health issues.

But smokers sometimes have the best-developed social networks in the company, due to mixing with all sorts out in the smoking room. There have been projects where I even considered taking it up, just to have an opportunity to get close to a particularly challenging colleage / customer. (I didn't, but did once actively look for another team member who already smoked to do the leg-work for me.)

So there might be jobs where it's an advantage.



... but I'd still fire you if you lied to me (either way) during your interview!

This reminds me when the smoking ban first came in and the smokers foolishly believing that they were having a great craic out the back with each other. Amazing what smokers believe to make them superior just to justify their nasty little habit.

Eoin

Tarzana wrote: »

If a person takes extra breaks to smoke, it does affect their ability to do their job. Breaks the workflow and so forth.

It might. People have different work styles, smoker or not. Not everyone works at a steady pace from 9-5.

This is basic management stuff. If someone is not doing enough work because they're smoking too often, then it's most likely that other people are on facebook, angry birds or whatever too. Not because others are out smoking, but because the management is weak and they're not grown up enough to manage their own time properly.

Sam Kade wrote: »

Amazing what smokers believe to make them superior just to justify their nasty little habit.

Let's save the superiority for elsewhere please.

Sam Kade

jamesbondings wrote: »

I find smokers do the same if not more work than non smokers due to the fact that they are aware of the extra breaks they take. I worked in an office for 6 years and the smokers were the most productive.... Management were constantly trying to get non smokers productivity up to the smokers levels but they couldn't.... I think it comes down to motivation. I'll work extra hard every hour to justify taking 5 mins at the end of that hour for a smoke.

Come off it, you really want is to believe that?

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

Perhaps smokers might be at their desk less, but I'm not sure it really translates into doing less work.

Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I tend to get a work rhythm going and if I was a smoker, it would get broken. And yes, I do take breaks, so there's a bit of workflow-breakage of course, but if I was a smoker there'd be a lot more.

Tarzana

jamesbondings wrote: »

I find smokers do the same if not more work than non smokers due to the fact that they are aware of the extra breaks they take. I worked in an office for 6 years and the smokers were the most productive.

Dubious Tarzana is dubious. You seem a little biased. :P

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

If someone is not doing enough work because they're smoking too often, then it's most likely that other people are on facebook, angry birds or whatever too.

You can be sure some smokers piss away time doing those things in addition to taking fag breaks too.

If smokers take time out of their lunch break to make up for fag breaks, grand. I've just worked with many who don't make up the time.

Eoin

Tarzana wrote: »

Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I tend to get a work rhythm going and if I was a smoker, it would get broken. And yes, I do take breaks, so there's a bit of workflow-breakage of course, but if I was a smoker there'd be a lot more.

What is stopping you right now from playing on your phone instead of working?

Tarzana wrote: »

You can be sure some smokers piss away time doing those things in addition to taking fag breaks too.

If smokers take time out of their lunch break to make up for fag breaks, grand. I've just worked with many who don't make up the time.

This is sort of my point - that's just people taking the piss, and for all you know there are non-smokers doing the exact same thing (just not as visibly), and smokers getting their work done.

Again, if there are actual issues with work not being done, it's down to weak management and you can be sure there's a lot of other time wasting being done.

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

What is stopping you right now from playing on your phone instead of working?

I am not working today, I have just finished a postgrad (exam today), have been working part-time, starting full time very soon. When I AM working, I don't have time to browse, I actually couldn't even if I felt like it.

Eoin wrote: »

This is sort of my point - that's just people taking the piss, and for all you know there are non-smokers doing the exact same thing (just not as visibly), and smokers getting their work done.

Again, if there are actual issues with work not being done, it's down to weak management and you can be sure there's a lot of other time wasting being done.

Thing is, smoking breaks appear to be an acceptable form of time-wasting in a lot of workplaces, which invariably gets people's backs up. Everyone knows you're not supposed to be pissing about on Facebook or football 365 or whatever. People do it but it's not acceptable.

Eoin

Tarzana wrote: »

I am not working today, I have just finished a postgrad (exam today), have been working part-time, starting full time very soon. When I AM working, I don't have time to browse, I actually couldn't even if I felt like it.

You misunderstood me, I wasn't being that specific

You said if you smoked, you'd take more breaks, I meant what's stopping you from taking breaks to do something else that's not smoking. The fact you know you've work to do?

Tarzana wrote: »

Thing is, smoking breaks appear to be an acceptable form of time-wasting in a lot of workplaces, which invariably gets people's backs up. Everyone knows you're not supposed to be pissing about on Facebook or football 365 or whatever. People do it but it's not acceptable.

If you're working somewhere where the only metric is how long you're at your desk, then there's a problem. It's the same as assuming that someone who works an hour extra every day is doing more work than the person who's out of there on the dot of 5.

murphym7

So how many non-smokers on here right now, posting on boards during working time?:pac:
I have never seen a correlation of smokers work less/produce less. I have always worked in an adult environment though where hours worked do not equal a great worker. It’s the quality/accuracy/quantity of output that is measured on, thankfully.

murphym7

Sam Kade wrote: »

There is an old folks home near me, droves of women take smoke breaks as they approach the doorway they have fag in hand ready to light up as soon as they exit the building.

What?

minotour

All this smokers work less bull **** is wildly speculative. Yes, if you are employed as a lever puller then when you are smoking you are not pulling levers. If on the other hand your job requires you to employ the old brain machine then why assume that smoking equals less work?

I do some of my best thinking when smoking, take 3 mins to step outside the problem, think objectively and usually its followed by an epiphany. Any non smokers may experience similar results while taking a dump albeit less frequently.

But back to the OP, if the job is for a childcare worker then it could be relevant, as an example......otherwise Im not so sure.

Tarzana

Eoin wrote: »

If you're working somewhere where the only metric is how long you're at your desk, then there's a problem.

Of course. But if you're not at your desk but outside smoking, you're far less likely to be working. Except for all that high-powered networking that does be going on.

And you brought up the browsing thing. It's a bad example because it's certainly not restricted to non-smokers. It's a general thing. So any smoker that does that does it in addition to fag breaks.

Of course there are productive smokers. But there are also productive browsers. I once worked with a ridiculously efficient woman who was ALLOWED by our boss to spend around an hour a day browsing (outside of official breaks). She was that good. But people that good are rare. Most smokers won't be that good. Some, but a small minority.

davo10

This thread is gone off the OPs original question of whether it is ok to ask if an applicant smokes, categorically yes it is.

From my own experience, I have two businesses, my main one is in the provision of healthcare and I do ask if my employees smoke. I do not employ them if they do. How can I advise people of the dangers of smoking while my staff stink of cigarettes? Also I do not want them getting agitated because they cannot nip out for a smoking break nor taking time off with associated health issues. If they have a problem with that at interview, no problem, there's the door.

The other business, I don't care if they smoke as long as they do the job and don't smoke in the work place where it will effect others, but again if they objected to the question being asked at interview, there's the door.

DM addict

I don't smoke, but would be a little thrown by someone asking whether or not I did at an interview.

I work around kids, so I've had interviews where it's been pointed out that smoking is not permitted anywhere on the premises. I usually follow this up with "that's ok, I don't smoke". It's relevant for health reasons when you're around kids, so I see why they'd bring it up.

But if I was applying for an office job and someone asked me if I did, I'd probably want to know why they were asking - not that I wouldn't tell them, I just wouldn't assume it was a relevant question.

davo10

DM addict wrote: »

But if I was applying for an office job and someone asked me if I did, I'd probably want to know why they were asking - not that I wouldn't tell them, I just wouldn't assume it was a relevant question.

As the applicant, what you believe is relevant or not to the employer is of little concern, what is relevant is your answer/attitude to the question.

In your job, would going outside for a smoke and leaving the kids unattended not be an issue?

DM addict

davo10 wrote: »

As the applicant, what you believe is relevant or not to the employer is of little concern, what is relevant is your answer/attitude to the question.

In your job, would going outside for a smoke and leaving the kids unattended not be an issue?

In my job, it would be an issue. My point was, if I was applying for an office job, I'd be curious as to why they asked.

lukesmom

murphym7 wrote: »

What?

There is an old folks home near them, droves of women take smoke breaks as they approach the doorway they have fag in hand ready to light up as soon as they exit the building.

work

Thanks for the answers guys. Smoking is obviously a divisive issue. The job is at the public face of the heathcare industry and I did not want a smoker as it is disingenous helping people give up smoking if you smoke. Also I was concerned about them being smelly, taking lots of breaks and their increased morbidity and mortality (self induced).
Thanks again

Teyla Emmagan

"Do you take personal calls in work?" would be more of an issue for me. I have worked with (mosty female) colleagues who could spend an hour on the phone a day, that's far more distruputive and less productive than someone popping out for the odd fag.

Sunhill

This can happen:
Interviewer; Do you smoke?
Inteviewee: Yes, but never during working hours. So, I won't be wasting company time.
Interviewer: But we may be affected by your health issues down the road. Sorry, we can't accommodate you.

This will never happen:
Interviewer; Do you drink alcohol?
Inteviewee: Yes, but never during working hours. So, I won't be wasting company time.
Interviewer: But we may be affected by your health issues down the road. Sorry, we can't accommodate you.

Actually, this will never happen:
Interviewer; Do you drink alcohol?

(Over 40 years since I gave up alcohol, over 15 since I gave up tobacco)