Smokers need not apply

wolverine

Hard Throbbing Member
Nov 11, 2002
6,384
9
38
E-Town
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/20/Smokers_050520.html

TORONTO - Some Canadian companies are following an American trend of refusing to hire smokers, even if they smoke in their off hours.

A group of Canadian online companies, headed by Momentus.ca, have made it clear on their websites that they only hire non-smokers. It's a policy aimed at lowering health-related costs for employers.

"It's well known that a smoker will get sick more frequently, will miss more time from work, even at work the smoker will likely be away from actual work longer than non-smokers ... and will actually cost the employer a fair amount of money," says Dr. Lew Pliamm of the Quit Clinic in Toronto.

Medical ethicists say smokers should not be treated like pariahs because it's an addiction.

"The fact that I may be at greater risk for cardiovascular disease or for other health problems because I'm a smoker isn't necessarily my fault and it shouldn't make me subject to discrimination," says ethicist Arthur Schafer of the University of Manitoba.

At least 29 U.S. states agree and have banned employer discrimination against smokers. But in Canada, employment protection for smokers is largely untested, except for one case involving mining company Cominco in British Columbia in 2000.

Companies in Canada are watching the American situation closely. At Weyco Medical Benefits in Michigan, workers aren't allowed to smoke at work or at home.

"We want a healthy workforce," says Howard Weyer, the company's president.

Weyco gave its employers two years' notice about its no-smoking policy and provided products and programs to help them quit. In the end, 20 workers did kick their habits and four were fired.

Smokers cost Canadian companies $8 billion/year

American companies are more likely to take the hard line because they pay their employees' health insurance premiums.

Canadian companies are taking note because smokers still cost an estimated $8 billion a year in lost productivity. Smokers are absent two days more a year on average than their non-smoking counterparts and they take extended lunches and breaks, adding up to another 14 days of lost productivity.

At the moment, employers in Canada can't fire their workers for smoking but they are allowed to advertise for non-smokers only.

The Quit Clinic's Pliamm says as more employers adopt non-smoking policies, smokers may be more apt to quit their habit.

"If they know that they won't be able to progress in life, to get to where they want to be because of their smoking, this gives them one added benefit in quitting."
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,933
1
0
Good ... another reason for them to quit (I smoked two packs a day for 15 years and have been a non-smoker just as long now!).
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
What's next?
If you eat at McDonald's once a month don't apply?
If you have speeding tickets, don't apply?
If you practice risky sexual behavior, don't apply?

I agree that smoking is a horrible addiction, but this only leads to a corporate dictatorship over personal choice.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
5,306
1,374
113
Upstairs
I agree that smoking is a horrible addiction, but this only leads to a corporate dictatorship over personal choice.[/QUOTE]

Since when is employment a democracy? Frankly, while I think it's wrong to discriminate on factors one has no control over, if a lifestyle choice might affect how well or how long you last at a job an employer should have the right to not hire you.
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
hifisex said:
if that or other poor eating habits make you unable to perform on the job then ya I can see the logic

If they have to drive a company vehicle then why wouldn't you want to look at a person's driving history?

Again, if behavior provides a conflict for the job I can see asking the questions.
We are not talking ability. To quote the article:
It's a policy aimed at lowering health-related costs for employers.
We are talking discrimination based on health cost not ability.
Pooning in no way effects my ability to do any job, but following the logic of lowering health-related costs it is a sound conclusion not to hire me.
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
Since when is employment a democracy? Frankly, while I think it's wrong to discriminate on factors one has no control over, if a lifestyle choice might affect how well or how long you last at a job an employer should have the right to not hire you.[/QUOTE]

The article is about health costs.

It's not a question about lasting. An employer has no idea if, on an individual basis, a smoker will last longer then a non-smoker.

And what's a lifestyle choice?

If I choose to visit my grandmother twice a week in the hospital is that a life style choice? Since hospitals are full of sick people and superbugs, it sounds like a possible health cost to me.

If I choose high impact sports for exercise instead of low impact, isn't that a possible health cost? Full contact hockey could really cost me health costs, therefore better not hire a hockey player.

You are partially right, an employer has every right to choose between candidates on almost any basis, but there is a limit to what an employer can dictate about personal choice.
 

Creole Lady Marmalade

No more reviews, please.
Dec 20, 2004
1,463
2
0
Think about all those smoking breaks. Not very productive if they have to light up every hour at 10-15 minutes a cigarette.
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,933
1
0
Commander Chode said:
there is a limit to what an employer can dictate about personal choice.
exactly ... that's why they should have the right to say that smoker's aren't going to get hired ... its not like you have a disease or disability and LOTS of people have quit and stayed quit, so quit.

and lots of employment contracts have clauses related to your ability to do your job ...

and lots of insurance companies will not cover people who smoke (or smoked!) and so the employer ends up either firing the smoker for not showing up for work and taxpayers have to support them or the employer gets sued and has to support them.

Better to say "we won't hire smokers" at the door ...
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
Creole Lady Marmalade said:
Think about all those smoking breaks. Not very productive if they have to light up every hour at 10-15 minutes a cigarette.
The article isn't about production or ability. It's about health costs.

I agree that smoking is a horrible addiction on many fronts; health, hygiene, waisted money, and waisted time.

The debate is how much can an employer's need to minimize health costs can impact personal choice.
 

wolverine

Hard Throbbing Member
Nov 11, 2002
6,384
9
38
E-Town
Creole Lady Marmalade said:
Think about all those smoking breaks. Not very productive if they have to light up every hour at 10-15 minutes a cigarette.
May as well not hire coffee drinkers either because of all the coffee breaks they take. And what about lunch - people should be working instead of eating.
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,933
1
0
wolverine said:
May as well not hire coffee drinkers either because of all the coffee breaks they take. And what about lunch - people should be working instead of eating.
coffee and lunch breaks are part of our Labour laws ... not that all employers allow them, but there they are ...
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
LonelyGhost said:
exactly ... that's why they should have the right to say that smoker's aren't going to get hired ... its not like you have a disease or disability and LOTS of people have quit and stayed quit, so quit.

and lots of employment contracts have clauses related to your ability to do your job ...

and lots of insurance companies will not cover people who smoke (or smoked!) and so the employer ends up either firing the smoker for not showing up for work and taxpayers have to support them or the employer gets sued and has to support them.

Better to say "we won't hire smokers" at the door ...
It's not about ability, but costs to the employer.

My argument is against any intrusion into my personal life by my employer.

Currently smokers are the popular choice to discriminate against. It's an easy target. It's unhealthy and very easy to spot, and every one can agree that quitting is the best thing to do.

My argument is based on the "what's next" argument. When will employers start asking for DNA samples to screen out genetic traits they don't like?

Watch Gattaca. Not exactly a high brow discussion on the topic but it's where this road leads.
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,933
1
0
Commander Chode said:
When will employers start asking for DNA samples to screen out genetic traits they don't like?

Watch Gattaca. Not exactly a high brow discussion on the topic but it's where this road leads.
yes, and insurance companies already discriminate against certain groups and would love to have genetic testing implemented!

hopefully this is the part of our Charter that DOES do some good and protect people from such intrusions.
 

maude

Paradise Island
Jun 6, 2002
702
0
0
Vancouver Island
It's all about maximizing profit, minimizing expenses & keeping shareholders :)

Yes, the question speaks to health costs. However, business motivation is profit and health expenses will most definitely impact the bottom line. Just consider lost time and productivity due to health related issues in any business ... Employers have the right to offer employment to the best qualified candidates who project the minimun cost to the company in regards to health care benefits .... life style choices are an individual responsibility, not the employers.

The questions of democracy related to employment ... as previously stated, employment is not a democracy ... it it earned. Employers have the right to establish employment criteria prior to posting an employment opportunity for competition. These criteria may speak to education, skills, physical fitness, geographic location, driver's license and history, portability, etc. Then there is possible testing, references and the interview in order to screen out the best possible candidates ....

It is not discrimination so long as the criteria do not contraindicate the Charter of Rights, Human Rights and Labour Code legislation. Last time I checked, physical fitness standards and lifestyle choices such as smoking & sex, eating at Mcdonald's and speeding tickets didn't apply.

Insurance companies give non-smokers a discount on premiums and have done so for years . . . it only makes sense that employers have the same right to identify & offer employment to those whom contribute to the bottom line while not presenting an unreasonable risk to health care cost . . .

Just my 2 cents.
 

Commander Chode

Old school Chode
Apr 24, 2004
465
1
0
Event Horizon
maude said:
business motivation is profit and health expenses will most definitely impact the bottom line.
And hence the problem with capitalism. Profits before everything. The ends justify the means.

I argue people before profits.

It is not discrimination so long as the criteria do not contraindicate the Charter of Rights, Human Rights and Labour Code legislation. Last time I checked, physical fitness standards and lifestyle choices such as smoking & sex, eating at Mcdonald's and speeding tickets didn't apply.
Discrimination is treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. It by itself has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights. I think you mean criminal discrimination.

Just because one can do it within the law doesn't make it right.

Insurance companies give non-smokers a discount on premiums and have done so for years . . . it only makes sense that employers have the same right to identify & offer employment to those whom contribute to the bottom line while not presenting an unreasonable risk to health care cost .
If an organization can be influenced by who they can hire based on an external force there is a large possibility of unreasonable requests being justified for profit.

Today the smokers. Tomorrow those with diabetes? Or those with genetic markers easily breakable bones?
 

maude

Paradise Island
Jun 6, 2002
702
0
0
Vancouver Island
No I was not speaking to criminal discrimination

I was only refering to discrimination within the scope of our legislation ... much like we only have two official languages due to legislation . . .

Discrimination is one thing . . . Professionalism, ethics and morales are another . . . Yes we can live within the scope of our laws, but business ethics, morals and professionalism distinguish the good, the bad and the ugly ...
 

wolverine

Hard Throbbing Member
Nov 11, 2002
6,384
9
38
E-Town
Which again leads back to my argument re: coffee breaks and lunch breaks. Why should a smoke break be any different from those?
 

Creole Lady Marmalade

No more reviews, please.
Dec 20, 2004
1,463
2
0
Commander Chode said:
The article isn't about production or ability. It's about health costs.

I agree that smoking is a horrible addiction on many fronts; health, hygiene, waisted money, and waisted time.

The debate is how much can an employer's need to minimize health costs can impact personal choice.
I'm well aware of what the article is about. I'm just looking at the addiction from a different view point.
 

rambler6

Member
Jan 29, 2003
166
0
16
Vancouver
How about drinkers, how many lost days a year from someone who drinks. Staying home or coming in late because of a hangover. How about woman with children at home, how many days lost because they stay at home when their kids are sick. The list could be endless if the insurance companies get their way.
 
Vancouver Escorts