Smokers. Second class citizens or not.

10-03-2006 06:24PM

Jesus I can just see the smell PC bile flowing from this tirade so I felt compelled to respond.

spritey wrote:

On the basis of it, it's not fair to discriminate against anybody, obviously.

But when the reason for the 'discrimination' as it is labelled is logical, business-minded, it becomes a different matter.

Based on generalisations an exagerations. Many of which seem to be sour grapes from the non-smokers.

spritey wrote:

Smokers take breaks that others do not. Get chest infections. Cough up junk (not particularly good image in a call centre for example). Make other people feel sick from the smell. Smokers can get ratty if they don't get their cig break.

If they do this is up to the organisation. They may not be entitled to it, or a blind eye may be turned. If they want to do it to their heath thats their problem. You can't sack a person for being sick. Also not all smokers have bad health as a result of smoking.

spritey wrote:

So many different reasons. Not to mention that an employer may not want their office to smell of smoke. Employers employ based on more than qualifications - personality being a huge factor too in addition to 'slacking off'.

:rolleyes: I may be wrong, but have you ever worked full time yet?

spritey wrote:

This may not be America, but I can see a scenario where people end up sueing their employer for creating an uncomfortable/unhygienic workplace. No employer wants to open themselves to that kind of thing.

Get a grip. Smoking isn't unhygienic for the nonsmokers and you can't sue someone of some employees smell.

spritey wrote:

At the end of the day, smokers have the choice to smoke or not just as non-smokers do. I'm not going to get self-righteous here, but when smoking becomes a problem for non-smokers then it is time to do something about it, IMO. Non-smokers made the choice not to smoke, and yet they still have to deal with it.

You really are being self righteous. And making some bad points while your at it. I'm an exsmoker for a few months btw.

spritey wrote:

I'm in the UK so the current debate here is still over smoking in public places (HURRAH FOR THE BAN!!!) and I con't honestly believe people are contesting it. So one night I went out with a bit of a cold, and the place I went was a pub absolutely suffocating with a smokey atmosphere.

So come home, have a shower, wash hair, put clothes in the wash etc.

The following morning I had developed severe bronchitis.

I didn't ask for that.

And in other news
2+2 =5.

pyramuid man · 10-03-2006 06:24PM

Well you all talk alot about accomadating for non smokers. Well what about accomadating for smokers. As previously posted, smoking is a choice and just cause I choose to do so does not mean that my rights should be infringed.

Feenikusu · 10-03-2006 06:24PM

@pyramuid man:
I wouldn't fire you, I wouldn't employ you. And that can't be illegal, because (at least here, I have no idea how this works in Ireland) usually every staff manager looks how the job applicant is dressed, if he is simpatico and things like that, and usually that's his own opinion.

@ronoc:
Thanks, but I know that I'm a pedant ^_~

Terry · 10-03-2006 06:27PM

just wondering how many of you non-smokers are working in offices right now?
is posting on boards part of your job description?
are you given special "board breaks"?
also, the dangers of second hand smoke have yet to be conclusively proven.

Tar.Aldarion · 10-03-2006 06:29PM

/me skips thread
If anybody has to breathe in your second hand smoke, then you are not getting hired by me and rightly. Anybody can do what they want to their own body, they have no right to affect anothers.

PiE · 10-03-2006 06:30PM

You spas have just encouraged me to smoke more; just in the hope that I'll exhale in your faces one day.

10-03-2006 06:32PM

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Sorry? What's the difference?!
most big companies have a dress code for staff even if they do not have face-to-face dealings with the public - this includes personal hygiene which iincludes how nicely or badly you smell....

Yeah sure. Ive yet to hear of anyone being cautioned or sacked for smelling of fags. All the jobs I have worked in it has never been an issue.
I have seriouslly never ever heard of this happening.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Again....the mess, the cost of ashtrays, the smell, the fag breaks, these are things that, added together, put employers off smokers as a whole group - even if you are a "good" smoker and use ashtrays/bins and stand upwind of your smoke, only smoke at lunch, change clothes & shower daily, or whatever - plenty of your co-smokers do not.....unfortunately employers tend to put you all in the same bracket....and as for stinking up the whole office - I don't think some of you smokers realise just how badly you smell by the end of the day!

Whats all this "you" business, I don't smoke!! Employers are more llikely interested in a persons ability to do the job, work well in the organisation and numerous other factors before that, if they even are interested if a person smokes or not. If they don't put all these factors ahead of smoking status they are making a poor choice for the company based on generalisations of smokers.

Ickle Magoo · 10-03-2006 06:34PM

pyramuid man wrote:

Well you all talk alot about accomadating for non smokers. Well what about accomadating for smokers. As previousle posted, smoking is a choice and just cause I choose to do so does not mean that my rights should be infringed.

The thing is, you are not having to accomodate anything (usually!) if the employee is a non-smoker - it is ONLY smokers & their habit you have to accomodate....that is the crux of the issue.....more & more employers are looking at CV's & smelling candidates & out of two equal candidates choosing the non-smoker - specifically so they don't need to make acceptions or accomodate anything.....take away the smokers & you have none of the complaints mentioned here....it's no longer an issue for anyone......

The bottom line is it is your problem to find employment, not a companies problem to have to employ you if they don't want to....

rubadub · 10-03-2006 06:35PM

ronoc wrote:

Non smokers never doss either! Its so unfair.

?? smoking is not dossing IMO, they are simply getting breaks that nobody else does. 5 hours a week, works out at about and extra 6-7 days holidays a year, not bad going. I see no difference in the amount of time smokers & non-smokers "doss", or post on boards like somebody else mentioned..

Would you employ a nitrous oxide addict? what if they had a smoking habit too so needed twice as many breaks.

rubadub · 10-03-2006 06:37PM

PiE wrote:

You spas have just encouraged me to smoke more; just in the hope that I'll exhale in your faces one day.

Hope they return the favour, with mace.

pyramuid man · 10-03-2006 06:39PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

/me skips thread
If anybody has to breathe in your second hand smoke, then you are not getting hired by me and rightly. Anybody can do what they want to their own body, they have no right to affect anothers.

We are not is a situation where non-smokers have to inhale second hand smoke. Smokers do not smoke in their faces. Smokers go outside to a designated smoking area if there is one and are therefore out of non-smokers ways unless they go there also.

At least in Ireland that is the case.

Nightwish · 10-03-2006 06:39PM

PiE wrote:

You spas have just encouraged me to smoke more; just in the hope that I'll exhale in your faces one day.

And I hope that someday you will open your eyes to the damage you are doing to your body, and not before its when a doctor shows you a scan of your lungs and tells you its terminal lung cancer.

Terry · 10-03-2006 06:40PM

what about someone with diabetes or renal problems? should they not be employed because they might take up extra time dealing with their needs? or so meone with arthritis. they might not be able to walk back to their work station as quickly as someone else, therefore wasting more company time.

Nightwish · 10-03-2006 06:42PM

julep wrote:

what about someone with diabetes or renal problems? should they not be employed because they might take up extra time dealing with their needs?

they're medical conditions not an addiction they chose to have.

Tar.Aldarion · 10-03-2006 06:44PM

pyramuid man wrote:

We are not is a situation where non-smokers have to inhale second hand smoke. Smokers do not smoke in their faces. Smokers go outside to a designated smoking area if there is one and are therefore out of non-smokers ways unless they go there also.

At least in Ireland that is the case.

You have never been at work and inhaled second hand smoke? Most of which we can't even detect.
It may be a rule but it is not adhered to in some places I'm afraid.
It's a good rule though and the less I get the better, it's much better than it used to be. Luckily nobody in my house smokes, nice coincidence.
I actually tried one the other day for the first time, out of curiousity and being really drunk. Just as I thought it would be, urgh.

rubadub · 10-03-2006 06:44PM

julep wrote:

what about someone with diabetes or renal problems? should they not be employed because they might take up extra time dealing with their needs? or so meone with arthritis. they might not be able to walk back to their work station as quickly as someone else, therefore wasting more company time.

If the renal problems are brought on by chronic daily drug use, or diabetes brought on by a self imposed extremely poor diet then I expect many employers would.

Aporia · 10-03-2006 06:45PM

I think this is great. Smokers should be treated like rejects and discriminated against. This might get rid of cigarettes for good. Smoking is becoming less and less socially acceptable which is great. The smoking ban was a sucess and a good move. Smokers make me sick. They not only smell but were stupid enough to start in the first place so should deal with the consequences. If you have an addiction get help, don't complain about the way your treated because it was your fault and you decided to take up smoking in the first place.

Ickle Magoo · 10-03-2006 06:45PM

ronoc wrote:

Yeah sure. Ive yet to hear of anyone being cautioned or sacked for smelling of fags. All the jobs I have worked in it has never been an issue. I have seriouslly never ever heard of this happening.

I know of people who have had warnings because of personal odour - one of those odours was cigarette smoke.....I know of one person who was sacked for failing to adhere to the personal hygiene charter of the company....

ronoc wrote:

Whats all this "you" business, I don't smoke!! Employers are more llikely interested in a persons ability to do the job, work well in the organisation and numerous other factors before that, if they even are interested if a person smokes or not. If they don't put all these factors ahead of smoking status they are making a poor choice for the company based on generalisations of smokers.

Sorry, I just assumed, are you an ex-smoker?! You seem to be unusually fervently pro-smoking for a non-smoker.....

I agree, that's why I said two equal or similar candidates...you may be surprised at how many companies do pick non-smokers over smokers when given the choice....this thread started as some companies would like a legal right to refuse the job to smokers, even if they are the slightly better candidate for all the reasons already mentioned......

julep, people don't choose to have diabetes - smoking is a choice...if you choose to do something that makes you less attractive to employers/other people/members of the opposite sex then you have to be prepared to live with the consequences....I don't think you can class smoking as a disability.....hundreds of people give up everyday....unfortunately you can't go cold turkey & sweat out diabetes!

10-03-2006 06:46PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You have never been at work and inhaled second hand smoke? Most of which we can't even detect.
It may be a rule but it is not adhered to in some places I'm afraid.
It's a good rule though and the less I get the better, it's much better than it used to be. Luckily nobody in my house smokes, nice coincidence.
I actually tried one the other day for the first time, out of curiousity and being really drunk. Just as I thought it would be, urgh.

Thick Smoky pub != Tiny amounts of smoke.

Despite what the passive smoking lobby would have you believe.

What are you trying to say about second hand smoke?

Mr. Presentable · 10-03-2006 06:46PM

Einst&#252 wrote: »

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.

Or take extra breaks for smoking!

Aporia · 10-03-2006 06:48PM

julep, people don't choose to have diabetes - smoking is a choice...if you choose to do something that makes you less attractive to employers/other people/members of the opposite sex then you have to be prepared to live with the consequences...

Yeah I agree with you there 100 percent that's what I said in my previous post and that's all there is to it really.

segadreamcast · 10-03-2006 06:49PM

pyramuid man wrote:

But why should there be consequences? And if there should, then maybe there should also be consequences for non smokers.

ROFLMAO, are you just mashing up random phrases together in the hope of making a point? "maybe there should also be consequences for non smokers" - what the hell are you implying by that? a reward scheme?

pyramuid man · 10-03-2006 06:49PM

Aporia wrote:

I think this is great. Smokers should be treated like rejects and discriminated against. This might get rid of cigarettes for good. Smoking is becoming less and less socially acceptable which is great. The smoking ban was a sucess and a good move. Smokers make me sick. They not only smell but were stupid enough to start in the first place so should deal with the consequences. If you have an addiction get help, don't complain about the way your treated because it was your fault and you decided to take up smoking in the first place.

But why should there be consequences? And if there should, then maybe there should also be consequences for non smokers.

segadreamcast · 10-03-2006 06:49PM

PiE wrote:

We don't care.

Hardcore man.

PiE · 10-03-2006 06:49PM

Nightwish wrote:

And I hope that someday you will open your eyes to the damage you are doing to your body, and not before its when a doctor shows you a scan of your lungs and tells you its terminal lung cancer.

Wow smoking is harmful? Thanks for informing me!

Piss off with your condescending attitude thanks. That's the main reason smokers won't ever listen to ASH or whoever; they make out like smokers are silly little kids who just need to be informed. Well, we know.

We don't care.

rubadub · 10-03-2006 06:49PM

ronoc wrote:

What are you trying to say about second hand smoke?

I don't give a damn about the cancer worry TBH. It makes me cough, stinks my clothes, irritates my eyes. I would not like people openly burning any type of plant material in the same room as me, be it garden leaves or tobacco, is that really so strange?

10-03-2006 06:52PM

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I know of people who have had warnings because of personal odour - one of those odours was cigarette smoke.....I know of one person who was sacked for failing to adhere to the personal hygiene charter of the company....

I'm sorry but I don't believe you.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Sorry, I just assumed, are you an ex-smoker?! You seem to be unusually fervently pro-smoking for a non-smoker.....

Ex smoker by a few months. But there is alot of bullsh1t surrounding smoking.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

this thread started as some companies would like a legal right to refuse the job to smokers

They would like a legal right?
There is nothing stopping them not hiring nonsmokers... Its perfectly legal.

10-03-2006 06:54PM

rubadub wrote:

I don't give a damn about the cancer worry TBH. It makes me cough, stinks my clothes, irritates my eyes. I would not like people openly burning any type of plant material in the same room as me, be it garden leaves or tobacco, is that really so strange?

You have never been at work and inhaled second hand smoke? Most of which we can't even detect.

Smoke in work???

Ickle Magoo · 10-03-2006 06:55PM

pyramuid man wrote:

But why should there be consequences? And if there should, then maybe there should also be consequences for non smokers.

Most negative actions have negative consequences....smoking is no exception.

There are consequences for non-smokers or people who stay away from smokers; they tend to smell much nicer, have cheaper dental bills, live longer, find employment more easily, etc, etc

Terry · 10-03-2006 06:55PM

Ickle Magoo wrote:

julep, people don't choose to have diabetes - smoking is a choice...if you choose to do something that makes you less attractive to employers/other people/members of the opposite sex then you have to be prepared to live with the consequences....I don't think you can class smoking as a disability.....hundreds of people give up everyday....unfortunately you can't go cold turkey & sweat out diabetes!

it still takes up company time. it doesn't matter whether it's by choice or not.

also, none of the non-smokers have answered my first question.
how many of you are actually in work right now? is posting on boards part of your job?
ok, friday evening is probably the wrong time to be asking that question, but it will still stand next monday morning.
don't start posting here and bitching about smoke breaks when you are supposed to be working yourself.
if you're a student and are bitching about smoke breaks, then you can go a fuck off, because most students are bums.
again, the dangers of second hand smoke have no basis in fact and there is no conclusive link between second hand smoke and cancer.
now, stop driving your cars and polluting the air with carbon monoxide. most of you have the choice to get the bus/train/luas.

Smokers. Second class citizens or not.

Comments