Smoke Discrimation?

[Mirkgirl]

Okay I just read the new financial times and what to see on the frontpage. WHO (Worlds Helth Association) wont employ a smoker any more. For now the ones that happen to have their jobs will be kindly allowed to keep em, as WHO is after all a big organisation and its bad for the publicity to have so many workers kicked out for smoking (actually how many? Id be interested in a statistic). But in the smaller, or in those that care less for the bad publicity, a lot of people have already lost their jobs because they didnt want to take a smoking test.

I dont know what you think but its just as much of a discrimination as hiring just men, just white, just 30 year olds or just attractive women. While it does affect the healthcare costs it doesnt really affect the work capacity of the person. Or if it does, overweight is proved to be exactly as dangerous, if not more. Also no sport even within the normal weight is a risk. So do we really want to be only hired if we are in the fitness studio every saturday with an instructor instructed to keep an eye on us and give probes for tobacco and alcohol every monday? Cause this is where this path is leading and Im really not happy with it.

Okay Im sorry for this incoherent rant but thats really gotten to me. What right does my company have to my personal life? Not to smoke in the office, of course, the others shouldnt be breathing my smoke. But what I do at home is my own business. Oh I forgot that our sexlives are to be monitored too. Maybe also the tv we watch and how much we watch. Give us a list of books to read during the weekend. BBQ too fat, salat party next time. Where would it stop?

[Glorfindel]

Hm.. I'm really against smoking, and I can't stand it when people in my environment light up a cigarette. I don't want them to pollute the air I'm breathing. So that's why I'm pro-interdiction of smoking in public places. Which include, of course, working places.

On the other hand I don't really care if people smoke at their own place, in their own time. If they want to accelerate cancerdevelopment at home, I don't mind. So that's why I find this promulgation a bridge too far. As long as the employee does not disturb the others in his nearing or does not suffer from any serious health problems because of smoking, they should have the same chances of being accepted for a job as non-smokers. Though.. there is a big but!

In a good social security system (which happens to exist where I live), people can get medical treatment, regarding they have a lot of money. So in contrast with some other contries (I won't mention names, but the most important sees itself as Leader of the world - that would give you an idea) everyone can and will be taken care of. Not only the rich people who can afford it - everyone. This includes persons who do not deserve it: people who drink way to much and destroy their liver; people who eat too much & too unhealthy and become sick; people who smoke and become ill because of these fags.
In a situation like this, where people causes their own sickness, they don't deserve to be cured by the money of other taxpayers. They can do what they want, others will pay. Why would they care? So they go on.

On the moment you get ill, you cost your employer a lot of money (in a standard situation - assuming he doesn't sack you at once). Very often, the employer pays money (which very often comes mainly from your own salary, that's true) to the insurance company. Of course he doesn't want to pay for you because of your own fault! And this isn't the only money he looses: what about the sudden missing of a certain function in the company?

There's a non-sickness part too. Most of the smokers can't miss his/her cigarette very long. Or better, very short. It's more the exception than the rule. They go out of the buldings (in the best scenario) or to the toilets (in the worst scenario) to have their little break. Just count it all up: what will be the result do you think, when you've all the wasted time, all the waisted money? That will be an enormous amount!
In some cases (the best to my opinion!) the employer abolishes any break to smoke, with punishments if caught doing it (like turning in a part of your salary). A lot of the smokers will start to be irritated, because they need to kick the habit. Their efficiency will drop dramatically, with -again- a huge of money being lost.

Conclusion: I can understand employers who refuse to accept a smoker. It's a little bit too far for me, because as long as you don't cost them anything (because of sickness or efficiency) you should be able to work there. But from the monent you do suffer from one of the consequences of smoking, I can support them. It's your own fault you became sick, so all the consequenses are yours to bear.
I want to stress this, so I repeat it a last time, your employer has no right to interfere with your private life, as long as it doe not affect your results at work!

Just my humble opinion :)

[Randiriel of Wilderland]

Mirky...While I am not a smoker...nor do I drink :entdraught ...I must agree with you...that..while an employer has the right to say that I cannot smoke or drink while on duty..(whatever the job) No one else has the right to tell us what we can or can't do at home.. pfbbt
I tend to react rather strongly when someone tries to interfer with my home life...and I think most people feel the same way...:(

[Elfdaughter]

I agree. Like Randi and Glorfy, I don't smoke (and only drink very, very occasionally) - I think that really is taking things too far.

[Stormcrow]

Well, I am only fifteen and have never smoked or drinked in any form or kind. I don't plan to either. I am absolutely disgusted both of them. I have promised myself I will never smoke or drink...ever. And I plan on keeping that promise. :)

[Cassandria]

Well, I agree Mirky that it would be wrong to fire an existing employee for smoking after such a policy change. But I don't feel it would be wrong for this type of organization to screen out smokers in the hiring process. They do have an image to keep up. And I disagree about it affecting their quality of work. I have had co-workers who take far too many breaks to appease their cravings, causing less work for them and more for the rest of us. :-/

Although it has nothing to do with the work place, the biggest thing that plays on my mind is the impact that their health has on everyone around them. I have lost several family members and I am currently caring for my Mother who has end stage lung disease. It is not a pretty sight to watch someone wither, become frail and slowly die from lack of oxygen. It was her choice to smoke all her life...but that choice is now impacting the lives of my sisters and I, not only in the time and effort it takes to care for her, but more profoundly, the pain in our hearts to see her suffer. I used to smoke and know how difficult it is to quit. But that is minuscule compared to the pain she has suffered in the last 5 years.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Certainly to go to such meassures as to not hire smokers or to fire smokers is totally over the line! I don't smoke and actually I hate it but come on! There must be other ways to improve employees health, environment and efficiency!

In Norway people are not allowed to smoke at work or in public places and some say that sucks too but I don't agree. If smokers were more conciderate of others this law wouldn't be necessary...sadly they're not. I guess an employer would say the same goes for work and this is their way of dealing with it but still I don't think it holds up. There must be other ways of creating awareness. And for a start demanding that people leave their ziggies in their homes will certainly both prove that it's possible to live without it AND improve health of smokers...some will prob quit too when they realize that they come home without smelling like an ashtray...and also rediscover the sensation of actually smelling and tasting correctly what they eat.

This is just so fundamental, and will only lead to rage. Small steps are way better...and them who don't wanna give up the habit should deside that for themselves.

[Cassandria]

This is just so fundamental, and will only lead to rage. Yes unfortunately some smokers are that hooked, or maybe a bit selfish in the way they view it. The American military has been quite sucessful in eliminating smokers among new recruits.

Small steps are way better...and them who don't wanna give up the habit should deside that for themselves.Yes, but as I said, when they 'decide for themselves', they need to keep in mind that they are also deciding the fate of their loved ones who someday will have to make sacrifices to take care of them. :-/ I'm sorry, but I'm a little bitter that I have been thrown into that fate without choice of my own. I love my Mom, so I will do it...but it is a painful fate.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Ofcourse sweetie...and I believe everyone understands that. It's just not possible to deside this FOR people. Even if they are aware of the danger they will push it aside and not consider it properly until something happens. And some not even then.

What has happened here is that while it's been made less easy to smoke, more expensive and the awareness has been raised, most people who smoke and have kids or others in the household that are non-smokers, go outside to do it on their porches or such instead of pestering the house with it...and don't smoke f.ex. in the car. Also it's not permitted to advertize for tobacco or other nicotine-products in magazines, newspapers or other press...not on TV or in theatres either.

[crazymonkey 4 frodo]

I think that in the case of it being a health issue. For people who smoke and WILL develope some sort of cancer...for them not to work for WHO is actually a good idea. It's like they shouldn't have druggies working for Health organizations either...and they wouldn't hire them. But wherever else...who cares. I personally don't like it when people light up, or drink and all that...but if you're not around me and polluting my air...then I really don't care. Go ahead....they can kill themselves slowly...and yeah, this sounds harsh I know...and I'm sorry, in advance....but still. I've lived around them long enough to be sick and tired of hear that people who smoke are all dying of cancer...I really have to sympathy for them anymore. I know it's hard to quit....but...I'm sorry...my sympathy has left me for this topic.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I can understand how a company like WOH would consider it a bad thing to have smokers on their staff but to go to such meassures is just way too much. I should think they'd rather have a real positive impact on peoples lives than the oposite. And also when such a powerful organisation takes this position it gives signals to other companies that it's allright to do so. Tho I think it's not. It's fundamentalism...and I don't like that in any shape or form.