Smoker does not get the job

[Hippy]

Recent report highlighted firm refusing an agency job candidate because she was a smoker. Boss said they are less healthy. Now I recently had to recruit a co-worker and chose a non-smoker for the same reason. It is legal to do so, but is it fair?

The story is here

[Trojanfarce]

Personally, as a non smoker, I think it's bang out of order. Employers should be employing people based upon their perceived ability to do the job that was advertised, not based upon their likelihood of becoming ill.

I think it is nothing short of descrimination. As the spokesperson for the pro-smoking lobby said "what next? refusing to employ someone because they're overweight?"

where exactly will this end?

[gary baldy]

Never mind less healthy - they are skivers! Smokers are always nipping off for a quick 'fag break' above and beyond the proper breaks and it is never questioned. i could never just nip off in the middle of a shift to fulfill one of my many disgusting habits (i'll leave it up to your vivid imaginations what they could be!) but seems ok for smokers to do it.
Who cares if its fair - smokers are selfish by their very nature anyway and if i had the chance i wouldnt employ one.
I'm overweight but i dont nip out in the middle of work for a quick pie and i dont pass on my overweightness to people around me!

[Trojanfarce]

Gary - so in the future, if you went for a job that you were turned down for on the basis that you were overweight and therefore likely to be more of a health risk (heart attacks, ashthma, diabetes, etc), you'd be OK with that would you?

[gary baldy]

Frankly yes!
It would perhaps encourage me to lose weight - something i have no incentive to do at the moment and something i really should do.
If smokers are treated in this way then perhaps it will motivate them to give up -doing us all a favour (except perhaps HM Treasury)

[Supernick]

If I had 2 candidates of equal staure and one was a smoker, I'd hire the other. Lets face it, it's not a desirable quality, and whilst I would still hire the smoker if he was the best candidate it would put me off in an equal race.

[flip-flop]

Women are more prone to have days off sick than men (which is one of the reasons why permanent health insurance is more expensive for women than men - the actuarial statistics confirm this), and therefore, if a man and a women of equal abilities went for the same job, and the man was chosen because he was less likely to be ill, is this discrimination against the woman fair?

No, despite the evidence, of course it isn't.

I can see absolutely no difference between the two.

[JudgeJ]

The main difference you have overlooked is that a woman cannot help being a woman, but the choice of whether to smoke or not is under the individual's control. Yes, I know it is an addiction, but smokers can - and do - give up.

We must avoid branding every act of selection (or de-selection) as "discrimination". Parliament has decided what constitutes discrimination and what does not. Generally, discrimination is not permitted based solely upon physical attributes (i.e. race, gender, disability, etc). It may be a sweeping generalisation to suggest that all smokers are “sickie” prone. But if an employer’s experiences deter him from engaging a smoker he should be entitled to decline applications from those addicted. Picking your nose is a perfectly legal habit, but not one which would endear you to a prospective employer if you made it known.

[ludwig]

It's unacceptable discrimination, and I was surprised that it's legal. The woman in question wasn't asking to have a fag break - they simply found out she smoked in her own time.

[jrtv]

We have had a Temp for about 5 weeks and although she was very good at her job she really stunk of smoke, it was a shame because no one went near her and after she went home at night out came the air freshner's.

We will ask for a non smoker next time

[Loosehead]

Just a thought but surely if the firm was so against hiring a smoker, they would have asked prospective employees, probably on the application form or at least at interview. So I'm wondering if this person lied during there application.

[ianess]

I listened to the "boss" and by his reckoning he was just stating the simple truth that all smokers stink of nicotine and he wasn't prepared to put up with that type of body odour in his workplace. Good for him.
What's wrong with that?
C'mon....lets get an argument started!!
Merry Christmas to all.

[Drusilla]

Whether you can classify this as discrimination is an interesting point. We have extended the discrimination laws that cover race and sex to include religion (I think??), gender and sexual preference, but whether we would include 'addictions or hobbies' in this classification is debatable. (Do smokers view it as addiction or their hobby??)
Insurance companies already make life difficult for smokers, the obese and people with hereditary conditions, so I'm not surprised this has become a viable issue in the field of employment.
On a lighthearted note, I would personally like to refuse employment to any man who makes model planes, boats, or trains. I find them really spooky, but that's just my own particular prejudice. :-)

[flashpig]

I'd refuse employment to:

those who collect porcelain dolls.

have teddy bears in their twenties and beyond.

talk about feng shui, alternative therapies, "political correctness gone mad".

middle aged women who come in stinking of perfume.

ugly people.

non-smokers (so I wouldn't ever get lonely having a fag at lunch).

But of course, it is utterly intollerant. I'm surprised and pleased that ASH were so reasonable about this.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

its just a load of crap,saying she smelt of smoke,i have worked in places where people of both sex dident clean their teeth or persons,which resulted in bad breath,smelly armpits etc.not having a good personal hygene is just as bad as smoke.i think it is tottaly wrong to discriminate in this way and it should be taken to law.

[Lonnie]

I would have thought, as Loosehead has pointed out, something of this nature should have been in the contract or job application, if it was, then the firm was in their rights, if it wasn't, then its discrimination.

[coyn]

I understand that this question will make some people angry, and I know my response to it certainly will, but I agree with this decision completely,

Why should the majority who don't smoke have to tolerate the vile habit of the minority that do?

[spudqueen]

I'm a smoker, and yes, whilst I have worked in jobs where I was able to skive off for a fag I have also worked in places where I wasn't able to and was quite able to go all morning without a smoke (until dinner time) then again all afternoon until home time without smoking. I would certainly dispute the claim that smokers are less healthy than non-smokers. My sister-in-law (a non-smoker) was FOREVER taking days off sick whereas I hardly have any days off sick. I can understand someone saying they don't want someone to smoke on work premises or smoke in works time but I do think it's a bit much to get rid of someone who smokes in her own time.

[bernardo]

I think it was unfair. As I understand it, the employer hired the worker and then sacked her on her first day. This means that either she deceived them about being a smoker during the interview process, or they didn't ask her. So one or other of them was being inefficient. If the smoking only happens outside working hours, it's none of the employer's business. BTW I am very anti-smoking but also libertarian.

[Paul22118]

A guy who smoked joined a small firm where I worked once years ago. He realised that he was actually alone in his habit but siad to the assembled group 'Does anyone mind if I smoke here.?' A colleague said 'No we are all liberals here and as long as you put up with my habit, I see no problem.' 'What is your habit then mate?' said the newcomer.

'Well you smoke and will blow foul smelling smoke all over me. I am happy to put up with that as long as you ar happy to accept that I like a couple of pints at lunchtime and in the afternoon I'll have a need to p*ss all over you. Deal?'

We never saw him again.

[flashpig]

Wow, oyu must be really old that a few years ago someone could smoke in their workplace.

Comparison doesn't work though. The smoker can smoke in the street, the drinker can't **** in the street.

Well, he could, but that is for a 24-hour licenses question, not a smoking one.