Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News0 min ago
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
No best answer has yet been selected by Hippy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.