Since 1983 Companies Firing Smokers

[Plurralbles]

I am in a class where I needed an idea for a persuasive speech and decided that arguing that an employer has no right to tell an employee what they can and cannot do on their own property, such as smoking. It's affected my life in small doses throughout the years due to my state not having any laws protecting against it. I thought I could get a decent argument up against it but it just sounds so pleasant for the business to have no smokers, I'm beginning to think I shoudl just change my argument to that they have the right to or to go to a completely different topic and discuss education reform.

Anyway, this is what I've ocme up with:

Pros of Employers being allowed to fire and refuse hire of a person on the basis of Tobacco use:

It lowers health care costs in insurance

There is an increase in productivity in the workday

Their employees have less sick days and recover from injury and sickness quicker

The working environment is cleaner(This is assuming that a smoker smokes on the property or brings residue in with them by smoking before work hours)

Less People are smoking because they either quit or have one less job.


Cons:

21 states have drawn up, "Smokers Rights" laws that prohibit the firing of workers ore refusal for hire based on tobacco use only. Unless it relates directly to the job, not sure what that could entail: WOrking at an asthma clinic thing?

It is a form of discrimination, just not of a protected class of people

It's a largely unprecedented amount of control on employees' lives by their employer, where other ways employers try to control employees' personal lives are met with anger and resentment of management and declaring that the management is morally corrupt.

Smoking is not illegal and as far as I know most employers don't do anything about what an employee does on their off-hours as long as it's not illegal.




What I dislike most though is that a CEO is quoted in an article and said, "If you're stupid enough to smoke, you're too stupid to work here." I find that disgusting, more disgusting than a puff of marlboro.

I'm really about to abandon this idea because although I take a few cigars and pipes a year and believe this is an unjustform ofdiscrimination, I can't argue that it helps employers' bottom line, something pretty dang important to me. I'm too torn on this topic to write one way or the other.

 

[Weaver]

To me it depends on the frequency of smoking. If someone steps out for a few puffs a day that's fine. We all need breaks, and this person is going to spend theirs smoking. If the guy is leaving the office every 15 minutes to light up, you have a serious problem with that employee. His work output is seriously diminished by his smoking, and his ability to concentrate is now limited to 15 minute spans before his addiction kicks in. Why would anyone want this guy working for them?

 

[TeeBs]

If smoking products came out today they would be banned.

I don't really find it against your rights, I mean smoking is a choice you made. If I get fired for choice I made that effected my job performance in any negative way I would completely understand why even if its very slight.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Pros: It's your lungs. Every member of management I have known has been a smoker at one time or another.

Con: I'd take a look at the very recent anti-smoking thread which stated "All smokers should be shot" and "All smokers should be treated as rapists".

There's akin to apartheid on smokers, where illegal drug users are treated better.

But this should help

 

[Plurralbles]

I worry that there is one awkward fact: That some states have or are working on making a felon conviction can not necessarily bar someone from being hired. A felony. A very serious crime. Pretty hefty stuff and yet a few puffs makes you less likely to get hired in some states because of a discrepancy between how the two are dealt with. I just find it weird. I guess you coudl say that of course it makes sense: it would be like hiring a past smoker who has since quit, which many companies do. The person is refused but then quits and reapplies and has a chance.

You both mention how it can affect job performance. Makes sense. A person too addicted to it to function like a normal person or even just needing one more sick day a year than average really can affect performance. Some companies have barred employees from entering the buildings if they've smoked in teh last two hours. There goes those 15 minute breaks. So if an employee can handle a full work day without any nicotine and does a good job and has very few sick days, if at all, a year, then what right does the business have of barring them from employment? Someone who enjoys a smoke very casually, like a cigar on holidays that are pretty innocent to me, although it would come up on the drug test the employers routinely give and could end up with termination of employment for very, very little that affects the employer in no way whatsoever.

I think people really just hate cigarettes so much they've forgotten that not everyone is an addict.

 

[waterwithoutfish]

I hate, hate, hate, hate cigarettes - I can't stand the smell and my mom's entire immediate family died of smoking-related cancer. So, I would totally get behind this. But...

I'm fat. That's something that a lot of people might find "gross," or claim that since I can't take care of myself, I must be "too stupid" to work at their place of employment. So, I'm wary of a precedent that someone could be refused employment based on "unhealthy behaviors."

(Plus, the claims that fat and poor health are inexorably linked are actually pretty dubious. If anyone's interested I can shoot them some links.)

 

[Kermi]

I'm a smoker an I only smoke during my unpaid lunch break - I don't smoke on company time. I don't see why a company can't simply require that people not take smoke breaks, or even just break up their lunch hour over the day if they need to smoke.

 

[Dags90]

And? It's not at all a unique situation, and to say that smokers are treated worse than recreational drug users is somewhat silly on this point. Companies have been drug testing people for ages, knowing full well that you can test positive for marijuana and other drugs ages after its use and effects have worn off. They [companies] want to know if you smoke pot, they don't care when you smoke pot, they just want to know if you smoke pot. I'll also point out that smoking marijuana isn't illegal, it's the possession and distribution of it that's illegal.

We're also talking about the same companies who are free to fire people for presenting a "bad public image", regardless of whether the conduct was illegal. I've heard Subway has fired at least one employee for appearing in gay porn.

I find your narrow view of the real issue to be somewhat disheartening and comes off as self centered. You do realize there's no federal protection for GBLT people in the U.S.? You'll find much broader support if you aren't so narrowly focused. This is a much bigger and much more interesting issue than you're making it seem.

 

[Broken Orange]

I don't like cigarette smoke, I find it quite obnoxious. That said, Shouldn't discriminate people base on what they do on their spare time.

 

[Danish rage]

The CEO should have his balls sewn to his tie. That said, iv´e met plenty people that gives smokers a bad name. Namely those that become so addictet everything else is planned around smoking breaks.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

As long as it isn't obnoxiously frequent (more than once every hour and a half or so) it shouldn't be affecting your employee's productivity.

MANY studies have shown that taking short (like the 5-10 mins it takes to smoke a cigarette) breaks actually increase productivity. First, it gives the employee a chance to clear their head and get their thoughts collected. Also, when trying to solve a problem, a short break from the desk and being in an environment it is easier to quietly think in can greatly help in formulating a solution.

Forcing your employees to put in 4 straight hours before lunch and 4 straight hours after is the absolute WORST thing you can do for their productivity. Studies have shown that employees in this situation lack focus for the last several hours of the day and see a sharp drop in their productivity.

As for their "right" to tell smokers they can't smoke, that's bullshit. It is a perfectly legal substance that does not significantly alter or impede their cognitive functions. If you own your company's property (as opposed to leasing a floor of a building), you can try to institute a smoking ban on your property, but that will just alienate people (Unless there is a safety reason, such as flammable materials, like at a gas station).

People QQ about smoking, but the fact is that a very solid proportion of the population smokes. It is also not limited to certain demographic groups. People of all races, all social levels, all employment levels, etc smoke. Stigmatizing it will cut you off from some very talented people.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

If you, as an employer, force your employees to work straight up until lunch, and straight until quitting time after, you're a dumbass.

MANY studies have shown that such a model causes a sharp decrease in productivity in the afternoon as the employee's focus diminishes and their mind gets worn out. They are slower, more prone to making mistakes, and may end up having to repeat tasks to correct their errors. Allowing 5-10 min breaks (plenty of time for a smoke) every hour and half to two hours gives employees a chance to clear their head, get their thoughts in order, and in the end be more productive than if you don't. When trying to problem-solve, stepping away from the problem and letting your brain rest for a couple of minutes allows you to come back and address the problem with fresh perspective, requiring less time to get done.

Smoking is a legal activity. It does not significantly affect, impede, or impair cognitive abilities. It is akin to not hiring someone because they drink caffeine.

If the employee is able to perform their job and complete tasks correctly and on time, what is the problem?

There are many habits out there that disgust me, or drive me up the wall. But I'm an adult, so I know how to move on with my life. I take what steps I need to minimize their impact on me. Then I go about my own damn business.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

*Edit*

Deleted because my original post just appeared late, and wasn't lost like I thought it was.

 

[chinomareno]

In my limited experience most smokers walk off in the middle of a shift for a 10min smoke. What they do to themselves isn't my issue but smokers generally continue their habit at another persons expense and are unapologetic. That said the CEO should only be concerned with performance.

 

[Nouw]

To me it depends on the frequency of smoking. If someone steps out for a few puffs a day that's fine. We all need breaks, and this person is going to spend theirs smoking. If the guy is leaving the office every 15 minutes to light up, you have a serious problem with that employee. His work output is seriously diminished by his smoking, and his ability to concentrate is now limited to 15 minute spans before his addiction kicks in. Why would anyone want this guy working for them?

/thread.
As long as it doesn't affect others and his work it's fine. If it did, that'd be unprofessional and a problem.