Support NeoGAF

[Zzoram]

I feel many ways about this.

One, it mentioned hospitals. I can completely understand them wanting to avoid smokers. But I really don't think any sort of job should have the right to discriminate against that if you can perform the functional duties. It would be no different than fat people getting banned, old people, or anything which they dictate as "Poor".

Now to be fair, I'd be for this if they just had a straight up ban at work places for smoking.

Hospitals and long term care facilities should absolutely not hire any smokers. They bring their disgusting lingering smoke with them back into the place, and expose infants and the elderly, both with weak lungs, to the stuff. Second hand smoke is known to dramatically increase the risk of asthma in children.

 

[BitchTits]

I don't smoke, but I think this is stupid, what next?

 

[Zoe]

Yea but smoking is already banned from public places.

Depends on where you live. And even in places where you're required to stay 20 feet from the entrance of a building, it's rare to find people adhering to that.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This is really why we end up with shit politicians. People with little critical thinking skills hear "Ban smokers from jobs" and they are like "Fuck yeah I hate smoke BAN THEM". Never applying even a little intellectual thought to what the fuck that means. If some political party isn't telling them how to think they just meander in their own little world of carebears and fruit rollups wanting to ban anything that they don't like. Jesus christ.

 

[ultron87]

Hospitals and long term care facilities should absolutely not hire any smokers. They bring their disgusting lingering smoke with them back into the place, and expose infants and the elderly, both with weak lungs, to the stuff. Second hand smoke is known to dramatically increase the risk of asthma in children.

Except that this is in no way the definition of second hand smoke.

 

[Zzoram]

Yea but smoking is already banned from public places. You are not even breathing in second hand smoke in the workplace, it's just the smell. And really one breath of second hand smoke every once in a while is not going to give you cancer.

Why do you think there is a smell? Because we're breathing in smoke. You only smell something because you're breathing enough of it to trigger your sense of smell.

 

[Hylian7]

I'm as anti-smoking as can be, but I think this is stupid. If it's legal, there's no reason to not hire them.

However what really needs to be cut down on is those workers that take like 6 or 7 (or more) smoke breaks in an 8 hour work day.

My last job, people would take like six 15, 20 minute smoke breaks every day, plus their half hour lunch break. It's bs. Then again that was management's fault for letting it happen. Then again a few of the people that did that WERE the managers, so of course they weren't going to stop it.

Fucking this. I'm for banning that shit from the workplace. What they do at their own home is their business, but stop bringing that shit around everyone else and then whining and complaining about how you haven't had a smoke break in 20 minutes.

I used to work at a video game store, and the manager (a lazy sack of shit) went for smoke breaks for what felt like every 30 minutes! What was worse?! Every time he was closing the store, he would light up IN THE STORE after closing hours, and this was in a mall! The mall staff wouldn't tolerate that shit if they knew about it!

There was one day that I came in for work at about 4 or 5 that day, and that manager had been working by himself all day, so he couldn't take a smoke break, and was dying for one. I saw the owner when I came in the back and he told me to walk out there, then act like I forgot something and go back just to fuck with the manager.

 

[GodofWine]

Im all for it...I'd like my health care cost to not be affected by someone elses decision to greatly increase their chances of causing tumors to grow in their body.

There is NO reason to smoke, it should be illegal...at least with booze, you can find health related evidence to the positive in moderation...tobacco brings nothing but deteriation of the human , inside and out.

 

[Zzoram]

Except that this is in no way the definition of second hand smoke.

third hand smoke (lingering in clothes/furniture/cars) is a problem too, and more studies lately have been finding that although it's not as bad as second hand smoke, chronic exposure has similar effects

I don't think they should nicotine urine test, but I understand asking that applicants to new jobs not be smokers is reasonable, ESPECIALLY for health care settings. Smokers never seem to stand far enough away from entrances, especially not if the place gets cold winters, they basically stand just outside the door.

 

[Like the hat?]

How many smokers do you know that don't smoke during an 8 hour workday?

I couldn't say. But if they are not smoking during an 8 hour work day, banning smoking during their 8 hour work day wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Zzoram]

I couldn't say. But if they are not smoking during an 8 hour work day, banning smoking during their 8 hour work day wouldn't make any difference.

ya the reason i'm against nicotine urine tests is those people who only smoke when they drink on weekends, they don't usually reek of smoke and they don't smoke during a work day even during breaks

however, I know a lot of people who became heavy smokers because they started only smoking while drunk and then just couldn't stop



basically, i only support not hiring smokers for anything related to health care, sterile manufacturing, and children centric workplaces like day cares and schools.

 

[ultron87]

third hand smoke (lingering in clothes/furniture/cars) is a problem too, and more studies lately have been finding that although it's not as bad as second hand smoke, chronic exposure has similar effects

I don't think they should nicotine urine test, but I understand asking that applicants to new jobs not be smokers is reasonable, ESPECIALLY for health care settings. Smokers never seem to stand far enough away from entrances, especially not if the place gets cold winters, they basically stand just outside the door.

Yeah, looked up some articles on that:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke

It looks like it is really only potentially an issue with small children if you're smoking all the time in one room of a building over a period of time, since that will lead to a build up of the chemicals on the walls and in the carpet and whatnot.

I highly doubt that the trace amounts that are left on a person after their cigarette at lunch could have any measurable impact.

Even so I could see the argument for banning it from hospital workers, but for any other place of employment it is still ridiculous.

 

[JGS]

My last employer didn't allowing smoking anywhere on the premises they owned or leased including the parking lot, so all the smoker addicts had to get in their cars and drive to the street to get their shorter fix since they still had the same break time.

It was pathetic.

When the smokers company wide griped about it, the CEO said tough and your habit is disgusting and that settled it.

 

[Zzoram]

My last employer didn't allowing smoking anywhere on the premises they owned or leased including the parking lot, so all the smoker addicts had to get in their cars and drive to the street to get their shorter fix since they still had the same break time.

It was pathetic.

When the smokers company wide griped about it, the CEO said tough and your habit is disgusting and that settled it.

that's badass and reasonable to do and i support that

urine tests are too much

 

[Az]

Smoking sucks, no positive thing about it. But the hate towards smokers is slowly becoming really scary. I am more for putting qualified smokers to work than giving jobs to healthy morons. Especially in the medical environment.

But oh well...

 

[Mael]

Make everyone get a full physical before hiring.

Fat people - disqualified
Diabetes - disqualified
History of cancer - disqualified
High Blood pressure - disqualified
High Cholesterol - disqualified
History of mental illness such as depression - disqualified

Only perfectly healthy people with no history of health problems will be allowed to have jobs. Health care costs too much for all others.

Now getting a job is as easy as getting health care in the US?

 

[Zzoram]

Now getting a job is as easy as getting health care in the US?

health care is linked to employment in the US after all

 

[Raist]

Next up: coffee, lunch.

 

[poppabk]

Man it is depressing reading this thread. I quit a long time ago so this doesn't affect me, but I can't believe how many people are supportive of anyone who smokes getting fired because they don't like the actions of some of the smokers they know or have known.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Make everyone get a full physical before hiring.

Fat people - disqualified
Diabetes - disqualified
History of cancer - disqualified
High Blood pressure - disqualified
High Cholesterol - disqualified
History of mental illness such as depression - disqualified

Only perfectly healthy people with no history of health problems will be allowed to have jobs. Health care costs too much for all others.

Aryans only, amirite?

 

[andycapps]

Now getting a job is as easy as getting health care in the US?

It's funny how people are equating past family medical history as being the same thing as voluntarily developing a habit that is a known risk to your health. Discriminating on hiring practices because of someone smoking is something I'd be against, but restricting them not being able to smoke at work is something I could get behind.

 

[Zzoram]

Man it is depressing reading this thread. I quit a long time ago so this doesn't affect me, but I can't believe how many people are supportive of anyone who smokes getting fired because they don't like the actions of some of the smokers they know or have known.

nobody is saying fired, just not hired

 

[WanderingWind]

Some of you people are really coming across as quite stupid.

"Smokers smell!" So fucking what? They're not smoking at work. Invalid argument. Read the article before you jump to your default arguments that have zero relation to the topic.

"I almost vomited because I smelled smoke on somebody!" Bullshit. If this is true, you've got the constitution of a newborn and probably shouldn't be outside of your bubble.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Next up: coffee, lunch.

I probably waste 5 minutes reheating my coffee every morning. lol

 

[Mael]

It's funny how people are equating past family medical history as being the same thing as voluntarily developing a habit that is a known risk to your health. Discriminating on hiring practices because of someone smoking is something I'd be against, but restricting them not being able to smoke at work is something I could get behind.

You may not have been thinking that I was making the link (I'm not).
I just found the link between that post and what's been said about health care very funny for some reasons

 

[AndyD]

For. Smokers smell gross even if they are unaware of it.

This. I work in an office with a guy who smokes. And like clockwork at 10 am, after lunch and 3pm the whole place reeks as he comes back from his smoking breaks.

And in the OP article seems it is happening in hospitals where its far more likely that smoke smell affects others, including patients.

 

[The Technomancer]

They are not discriminating based on any factor that is outside of the potential employee's control. If a place refuses to hire me because of gender, or skin color, then that is unfair discrimination because those are factors that I have no control over. If a place refused to hire me because I played video games, well....I would think they were massive dicks, they were being unfair, and I wouldn't want to work for them. As I'm sure many people here think of the hospitals.
But if I wanted the job bad enough, I could stop. If you want to smoke, don't apply for a job at a place that doesn't hire smokers. And if you need the job...well...which do you need more? This specific job, or your cigs

(the "no nicotine patches" part of this is bullshit)

Also: to the person who said smoking helps you call down: its BS. There was a study a few months back, you only feel relaxed because your body is releasing from nicotine-tension. If you hadn't started smoking in the first place, you wouldn't feel the relaxation. It has no initial benefits until you're addicted.

 

[Beaulieu]

Employers should have the right to discriminate. I'm not sure that it will be able to continue this policy under the current law but that should absolutely be within their rights.

So you would be ok with an employer to refuse your application because you are gay ?

edit : or were you sarcastic ?

 

[andycapps]

You may not have been thinking that I was making the link (I'm not).
I just found the link between that post and what's been said about health care very funny for some reasons

I wasn't specifically talking about you, but just a general feeling I see in this thread that some are equating past personal or familial medical history with a voluntary choice to do something that everyone knows has serious health risks. Will be interesting if they start having health plans at employers to charge people that are overweight with more health premiums. I sure hope not, but I could see it going that way.

For our company, they are really pushing "Wellness" in giving out free wellness screenings to test cholesterol, blood pressure, etc and actually giving us points for that and for working out on a weekly basis. Each point is redeemable for $1. So I have a $50 Visa card on it's way to me and am elligible for about another $150 in rewards if I do everything. So they're definitely pushing it with incentives to get healthy, and it saves the company tons of money if people actually do get healthier. I could see it one day going a step further and them penalizing unhealthy people.

 

[afternoon delight]

Every smoker's reaction to this idea:

 

[Colonel Mustard]

No we just don't like the way you smell.

Not to sound like a jerk, but how about getting the fuck over it?

I work with a bunch of smokers and it's not all that bad. It's their right to do so anyway.

 

[UltimaPooh]

They are not discriminating based on any factor that is outside of the potential employee's control. If a place refuses to hire me because of gender, or skin color, then that is unfair discrimination because those are factors that I have no control over. If a place refused to hire me because I played video games, well....I would think they were massive dicks, they were being unfair, and I wouldn't want to work for them. As I'm sure many people here think of the hospitals.
But if I wanted the job bad enough, I could stop. If you want to smoke, don't apply for a job at a place that doesn't hire smokers. And if you need the job...well...which do you need more? This specific job, or your cigs

(the "no nicotine patches" part of this is bullshit)

Also: to the person who said smoking helps you call down: its BS. There was a study a few months back, you only feel relaxed because your body is releasing from nicotine-tension. If you hadn't started smoking in the first place, you wouldn't feel the relaxation. It has no initial benefits until you're addicted.

This is literally the dumbest thing ever.

Companies and corporations shouldn't dictate public policy or society what-so-ever. They need a worker who can do the job and get it done... anything outside of that is off limits. If the worker is capable of showing that he/she in the past has been a good worker and not a detriment to society (ie crimes.) then he/she should get the job.

 

[stuminus3]

I fucking hate non-smokers. I'd never hire one.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

I can understand a formal agreement not to smoke at work or during work hours, but urine tests?! That's absurd, they should be allowed to do whatever they want once they punch out for the day.

I agree. The companies powers shouldn't extend to what you do in your personal life. Sadly that's not always the case.

 

[Mael]

This is literally the dumbest thing ever.

Companies and corporations shouldn't dictate public policy or society what-so-ever. They need a worker who can do the job and get id done... anything outside of that is off limits. If the worker is capable of showing that he/she in the past has been a good worker and not a detriment to society (ie crimes.) then he/she should get the job.

That is unless someone more competent is willing to do the job. But otherwise, yeah spot on.
Heck discrimination based on unrelated work stuff is usually detrimental to the company's production anyway so...

 

[Scrow]

Smokers should be put in reeducation camps.

they already are. it's called society.

 

[JGS]

that's badass and reasonable to do and i support that

urine tests are too much

It depends on what it's for to me. If the healthcare rates are based on a healthy workforce, I would understand that.

I also understand the work productivity angle- especially for hospitals since it's a good 5-10 minutes just to get to a designated smoking area.

 

[JGS]

That is unless someone more competent is willing to do the job. But otherwise, yeah spot on.
Heck discrimination based on unrelated work stuff is usually detrimental to the company's production anyway so...

Many argue that smoking hinders the job performance though and the only ones I can think of that would be seriously hurting from the standard is in the creative fields. A smoking accountant can easily be replaced by a non-smoking one.

This, however, is stupid:

Many companies add their own wrinkle to the smoking ban. Some even prohibit nicotine patches. Some companies test urine for traces of nicotine, while others operate on the honor system.

My former employer who was tough on smoking actually paid people for the nicotene patches and gave them a 100 dollars for for using other methods. The non-smokers did not mind the incentive.

 

[CrayzeeCarl]

Every smoker's reaction to this idea:

Holy shit! Where are the LOL smillies?!?!!!

 

[Kai Dracon]

I can't help but see this ban partially as a reaction not just to some kind of PC propaganda but to the honestly real problem that smokers are often "the hidden hygiene problem". It's more acceptable in America to stereotype anyone who isn't rail thin as being a "fat unwashed slob" even when they're not, than it is to tell a smoker they make everyone around them gag to death.

However, it's a slippery slope I think and not a good idea - indeed, next you'll see "the fat ban" which will be another slippery slope to where people who don't match some arbitrary ideal of perfection are discriminated against, and then another ban, and another.

I agree upthread with folks who say it should be treated as a hygiene issue at work. If a person who is heavy set comes to work smelling bad, don't cite them for being fat, tell them to take a shower and wear clean clothes. If a smoker comes into work smelling like shit, or is a serious addict who takes 10 smoke breaks a day and ends up stinking the office up with the backwash when they come in, don't cite them for being a smoker - tell them to find a way to keep it clean.

Sadly, I only know one smoker personally who takes hygiene seriously. He actually does keep his clothes from smelling like crap, he doesn't take smoke breaks where it'll affect people when he returns, and he makes sure to keep his damn teeth brushed and mouth washed. He's fine; nobody has any reason to complain about him.

But the other 4 or so people from work that he hands out with when smoking, fit the worst possible stereotype and are indeed, legitimate slobs.

 

[Aesthet1c]

Not to sound like a jerk, but how about getting the fuck over it?

I work with a bunch of smokers and it's not all that bad. It's their right to do so anyway.

This is the asshole mentality that most smokers have. Is the smell vomit inducing? No, but you don't need to be a selfish dick about it. Some people don't like the way smoke smells.

If I sat next to you at work and shit myself all day, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate the smell.

My opinion is it's the companies decision to hire who they want. Especially in a hospital environment. It's a choice to smoke, so it's not like it's any kind of unfair discrimination. It's one thing to not hire you because of your race or gender, but smoking is entirely voluntary.

That being said, I have never worked with a smoker who hasn't taken at least twice as many breaks than any of the non smoking employees. I'm sure there are people that only smoke on the weekend, but you can't deny that they are the minority.

 

[poppabk]

Many argue that smoking hinders the job performance though and the only ones I can think of that would be seriously hurting from the standard is in the creative fields. A smoking accountant can easily be replaced by a non-smoking one.

So fire them for poor job performance or take into account the fact that they smoke when evaluating if you want to hire them. It is possible for a smoking accountant to be more productive than a non-smoking one and vice versa.

It's one thing to not hire you because of your race or gender, but smoking is entirely voluntary.

Sexual activity is also entirely voluntary, so I guess you think it would be completely fair for companies to fire or not hire people if they are sexually active.

 

[Mael]

So fire them for poor job performance or take into account the fact that they smoke when evaluating if you want to hire them. It is possible for a smoking accountant to be more productive than a non-smoking one and vice versa.

That's because it depends on the guy doing the work actually,
that's like refusing to provide a position to a stunning chick because she would turn too many heads when she enters the room.
Seriously I'm not sure that's even legal

 

[caramac]

and then alcohol, and then caffeine, and then......

 

[polyh3dron]

For. Smokers smell gross even if they are unaware of it.

this.

eating cheeseburgers and shit doesn't make you smell bad like smoking does.

 

[krypt0nian]

Anything to get more people to quit is a good thing. Kudos.

 

[JGS]

So fire them for poor job performance or take into account the fact that they smoke when evaluating if you want to hire them. It is possible for a smoking accountant to be more productive than a non-smoking one and vice versa.

That's definitely true, but why take the chance if you are allowed to discriminate? Why would you hire someone who may be statistically less significant than a non-smoker to begin with?

It costs thousands of dollars to hire a worker so it makes sense (If the company's opinion is correct) that you get more bang for your buck going with the non-smoker to begin with.

 

[ameratsu]

How is it any different than being discriminated based on what they find your background check, credit report, drug test, facebook, etc. ?

I disagree with using any of those methods except a background check. Having poor credit, using drugs when not working, or making questionable posts on facebook should have no relevance to the workplace. Qualifications and experience should ultimately determine workplace suitability; discriminating against a qualified person because of smoking, drug use, credit or partying is misguided.

A background check makes sense because if an employee has an established history of theft, fraud, or violent crime that has a direct effect on their suitability in the workplace.

 

[Zzoram]

I disagree with using any of those methods except a background check. Having poor credit, using drugs when not working, or making questionable posts on facebook should have no relevance to the workplace. Qualifications and experience should ultimately determine workplace suitability; discriminating against a qualified person because of smoking, drug use, credit or partying is misguided.

A background check makes sense because if an employee has an established history of theft, fraud, or violent crime that has a direct effect on their suitability in the workplace.

Those people are more likely to steal to pay for their fix, it's the reason work places do drug tests. Well, that and safety, I've known idiots who went to work high and operated forklifts.

 

[Jobiensis]

Smokers stink. It isn't about hygiene, the smoke permeates skin and clothes. When someone comes in after smoking you can smell them a good twenty feet away.

Nicotine tests are over the line.

Depends on where you live. And even in places where you're required to stay 20 feet from the entrance of a building, it's rare to find people adhering to that.

That is so fucking annoying. Try to get into a restaurant and have to walk through smoke and a huddled mass of smokers right at the entrance.

Smokers are fairly ignorant about how much they impose themselves on people around them.