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

A Smoker? You're Fired!

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    work
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭work


    Have a smoke free employment policy. People are asked if they smoke at interview and will not be employed. We are in healthcare and the smell and example of smoking is horrific


  • Options
    #93
    EdgeCase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    I don't think smokers realise how bad the smell. They walk in and you'd literally think someone had been smoking in the room.


  • Options
    #94
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    work wrote: »
    Have a smoke free employment policy. People are asked if they smoke at interview and will not be employed. We are in healthcare and the smell and example of smoking is horrific

    Is **** ok?


  • Options
    #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    I'm not sure its legal to discriminate on someone's legal outside work activity. I hope someone takes them all the way on that.
    I'm almost certain it's legal - not aware of any provision in Equality legislation that protects smokers, ie those who smoke during working hours. Obviously, if it doesn't interfere with your working day, that's another matter entirely.

    No employer has the right to regulate what an employee does in their spare time, so long as it doesn't affect their work, I would have thought.


  • Options
    #96
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    2nd and 3rd hand smoke is not healthy. Smoking should be prohibited in every public place. It's disgustingly selfish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Turtyturd
    Registered Users Posts: 28,395 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    Flyingsnowball wrote: »
    I hope they hold it in and don’t smoke when they want one. Just sit at their desk angry, making mistakes and costing the company billions.

    That’ll teach em.

    Non smokers really need a get out clause like this for being sh!t at their jobs.


  • Options
    #98
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I'm almost certain it's legal - not aware of any provision in Equality legislation that protects smokers, ie those who smoke during working hours. Obviously, if it doesn't interfere with your working day, that's another matter entirely.

    No employer has the right to regulate what an employee does in their spare time, so long as it doesn't affect their work, I would have thought.

    That would be my thought, too. Hence my **** comment. Basically 'none of your business'.


  • Options
    #99
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Zendaya Whispering Jugular wrote: »
    2nd and 3rd hand smoke is not healthy. Smoking should be prohibited in every public place. It's disgustingly selfish.

    Lol, Whats third hand smoke? Is that smoke from a smoker inhaled by someone else whose breath you then inhale? How would that even happen?


  • Options
    #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It won't be long until job appointments are finalised only when a certain fitness level, as opposed to the standard medical exam, is achieved, and contracts will be subject to renewal based on having a similar level of fitness for your age at each renewal time.

    And in After Hours you'll be labelled "leftwing" if you oppose it.


  • Options
    #101
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It won't be long until job appointments are finalised only when a certain fitness level, as opposed to the standard medical exam, is achieved, and contracts will be subject to renewal based on having a similar level of fitness for your age at each renewal time.

    And in After Hours you'll be labelled "leftwing" if you oppose it.

    Personally I reckon the pitchforks will be out long before it comes to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    wiggle16
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,022 Mod ✭✭✭✭wiggle16


    Zendaya Whispering Jugular wrote: »
    2nd and 3rd hand smoke is not healthy. Smoking should be prohibited in every public place. It's disgustingly selfish.

    Oh yes, then you won't have to worry about cigarette smoke polluting the fresh, natural car exhausts and fossil fuel emissions you breathe in every single day of your life.


  • Options
    #103
    Funkfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭Funkfield


    Diceicle wrote: »
    Do you just ask them in interviews if they smoke?

    "Are you addicted to anything you can't legally do at your desk?"


  • Options
    #104
    DeanAustin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭DeanAustin


    Del2005 wrote: »
    A friend of mine was pinged by their boss for taking smoke breaks. His response was I'd have to leave the desk for the same amount of time for ergonomic breaks. Boss had to shut up

    The stink off smokers is terrible though and especially when they walk straight in after their smoke. So a company of non smokers would be my preference, once they can make people with BO issues sort themselves out by washing

    Any boss who “pings” for stuff like this rather than having it out face to face is a coward anyway.


  • Options
    #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Been trying to do some searches to see if it's legal to discriminate against recruiting a smoker, even if they do not smoke cigarettes during the working day.

    Most of the papers I've seen so far relate to the mid-2000's, around the time of the smoking ban, so it would be interesting to see if there has been any updates.

    Can't link to the Irish article here as it's behind a pay-wall, but from The Irish Employment Law Journal, 2006, 3(4), pp124-126
    The European Commission recently declared that anti-discrimination legislation does not apply to a refusal to hire  smokers. This was in response as to whether an advertisement by an Irish employer advising that “ smokers need not apply” was discriminatory. The Director of the Equality Tribunal has acknowledged that there is a question as to whether  smokers could establish that their nicotine addiction is a disability within the parameters of the 1998-2004 Acts.

    But, in Personnel Today, also from 2006, this article considers whether there is a case for an unfair dismissal claim by a young woman who was dismissed 45 minutes into a new job because she admitted to being a smoker when the employer had a policy of only employing non-smokers. It points out that she was unable to rely on any legal protection afforded to people with disabilities.

    https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/smokers-not-protected-by-disability-law/


  • Options
    #106
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    A prospective employer could have all potential hires submit to a medical before employment. It would be easy to identify smokers that way.


  • Options
    #107
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    I would like to think that if you have to ask the smell of smoke off a person can't be all that bad.


  • Options
    #108
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,465 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Funkfield wrote: »
    "Are you addicted to anything you can't legally do at your desk?"

    Answer: Can you please explain to me the relevance of that question to my possible employment?

    And even if the answer was yes. What conclusion would you draw from it? One could have a sex addiction...

    This is going circles. Tbh even if a potential employer could legally discriminate against smokers, its not that I'd like to work for such a sanctimonious place anyway.


  • Options
    #109
    wiggle16
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,022 Mod ✭✭✭✭wiggle16


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    Answer: Can you please explain to me the relevance of that question to my possible employment?

    And even if the answer was yes. What conclusion would you draw from it? One could have a sex addiction...

    This is going circles. Tbh even if a potential employer could legally discriminate against smokers, its not that I'd like to work for such a sanctimonious place anyway.

    This exactly. If an employer wants to narrow the pool of potential employees and available talent just because they don't like one or more of a person's habits which are irrelevant to their actual work, that's their loss.


  • Options
    #110
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    wiggle16 wrote: »
    This exactly. If an employer wants to narrow the pool of potential employees and available talent just because they don't like one or more of a person's habits which are irrelevant to their actual work, that's their loss.

    but it is relivent to their work. if they are taking breaks like that then they will get less done in the day and will also lower the moral of other workers that do a full days work. combine that with the distraction of them leaving and the disgusting smell when they come back.


  • Options
    #111
    doolox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭doolox


    The company may be attempting to engage in Social Engineering in order to reduce costs by having only non smokers on the payroll.

    Many working campuses are now completely smoke free and do not even have outside designated smoking areas you have in some factories and offices in Ireland.

    Other companies prohibit employees from smoking outside their buildings while wearing recogniseable badges or uniforms which could identify them as working for a particular company because of the perception of spoiling the corporate image. Other rules apply to the streets outside entrances and lobbies which make work-time smoking difficult, if not impossible.

    The physical size of some workplaces make smoking too difficult because of the walking distances involved in getting to a smoking area in a reasonable time.

    When you have some workplaces arguing the toss for bathroom breaks and leaving the work station for calls of nature then it not a far stretch that certain classes of employees might have to ask their supervisors for permission to go on a smoke break. Many employments have so intensified and increased the performance levels required that every minute has to be accounted for and leaving a designated work station outside a rigid set of break-times is not allowed.

    In time you could find that other risks to good health such as overeating, drinking and other legal but marginal health risk activities will be monitored and sanctioned against unless people kick back.

    First they came for the smokers and nobody objected, then the drinkers and nobody objected and then the non walkers and runners and nobody objected and then the overeaters and overweight and nobody objected. Now there is nobody left but the super healthy in work and nobody left to object to turning even these into slaves for the corporate masters.

    Henry Ford engaged in this type of hiring activity in the late 20's by prohibiting his workers from any activities which, in his opinion, impeded their health and efficiency in the workplace. Drinking was frowned upon and monogamous heterosexual family life and abstinance was heavily encouraged. Ford invaded the privacy of his workers to an alarming degree, often interfering and dictating moral and political codes of conduct among his employees.

    We could be heading back to that type of workplace relations unless people fight back.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    wiggle16
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,022 Mod ✭✭✭✭wiggle16


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    but it is relivent to their work. if they are taking breaks like that then they will get less done in the day and will also lower the moral of other workers that do a full days work. combine that with the distraction of them leaving and the disgusting smell when they come back.

    Not all smokers take multiple breaks other staff don't take. A lot of people only smoke on their breaks. I worked in retail for 10 years in a customer facing job - I could not pop out for a smoke, I only smoked on my breaks, there was no such thing as a fag break. This idea that smokers have no work ethic is ridiculously exaggerated.

    If staff are p*ssing off multiple times a day to do something other than their work and their work suffers because of that, the employer is going to deal with that as appropriate. It doesn't matter what they are doing while they are absent from their desks/station


  • Options
    #113
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    wiggle16 wrote: »
    Not all smokers take multiple breaks other staff don't take. A lot of people only smoke on their breaks. I worked in retail for 10 years in a customer facing job - I could not pop out for a smoke, I only smoked on my breaks, there was no such thing as a fag break. This idea that smokers have no work ethic is ridiculously exaggerated.

    If staff are p*ssing off multiple times a day to do something other than their work and their work suffers because of that, the employer is going to deal with that as appropriate. It doesn't matter what they are doing while they are absent from their desks/station

    im not sugesting all smokers take breaks. there are some that cannot . but a lot do.


  • Options
    #114
    Tomw86
    Registered Users Posts: 932 ✭✭✭Tomw86


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    but it is relivent to their work. if they are taking breaks like that then they will get less done in the day and will also lower the moral of other workers that do a full days work. combine that with the distraction of them leaving and the disgusting smell when they come back.

    Don't hire people who take tea or coffee breaks either then I presume?!

    Both can take multiple breaks a day and not everyone likes to have the smell of coffee around!


  • Options
    #115
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Tomw86 wrote: »
    Don't hire people who take tea or coffee breaks either then I presume?!

    Both can take multiple breaks a day and not everyone likes to have the smell of coffee around!

    do people take coffee breaks like that. most people only make tea or coffee during their alocated breaks and lunch


  • Options
    #116
    Tomw86
    Registered Users Posts: 932 ✭✭✭Tomw86


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    do people take coffee breaks like that. most people only make tea or coffee during their alocated breaks and lunch

    Yes, I've often witnessed it in several different companies - a coffee/tea around 11, maybe another 3.

    It used to be a lot more common, but probably less so now with people trying to cut down on caffeine intake, similar to smokers with nicotine.


  • Options
    #117
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Tomw86 wrote: »
    Yes, I've often witnessed it in several different companies - a coffee/tea around 11, maybe another 3.

    It used to be a lot more common, but probably less so now with people trying to cut down on caffeine intake, similar to smokers with nicotine.

    fair enough . if it happens then its equelly wrong


  • Options
    #118
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    In my job we get 2 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch officially.

    I have the leigheway of doing my own breaks so I broke them down over the course of the day for smokes. Maybe a 10minute breakfast. 20 minute lunch. The rest of the time I spread throughout the day for smokes.

    When I was off the smokes breaks were spent a lot more productively and I was probably even less stressed.


  • Options
    #119
    Jim Gazebo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭Jim Gazebo


    Always think it's stupid seeing people get so upset over someone taking 15 mins more than someone else etc. Concentrate on your own work and being the best you can be. You have no idea why work they are getting through. It's a few minutes oh my god!

    People get angry over absolutely nothing.


  • Options
    #120
    Jim Gazebo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭Jim Gazebo


    Tomw86 wrote: »
    Yes, I've often witnessed it in several different companies - a coffee/tea around 11, maybe another 3.

    It used to be a lot more common, but probably less so now with people trying to cut down on caffeine intake, similar to smokers with nicotine.

    What is wrong with someone wanting a coffee or a tea like seriously?? Calm down.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    I'm sure the people taking the extra 15 mins will be happy to have those 15 mins deducted from their wages though right?
    Jim Gazebo wrote: »
    Always think it's stupid seeing people get so upset over someone taking 15 mins more than someone else etc. Concentrate on your own work and being the best you can be. You have no idea why work they are getting through. It's a few minutes oh my god!

    People get angry over absolutely nothing.


Advertisement