Oh you Smoke? Employers getting strict on hiring Smokers.

[driveway]

I loathe the idea of an employer being able to insist on a fluid-sample. If there is a problem with my work, criticise the work, judge me on the work, dismiss me because my work is lousy.

But if my work isn't suffering, what's it to you that I like to chase the dragon on weekends?

[Makarov]

Dismissing (or choosing not to hire) a person on the basis of a nicotine addiction would very likely be a human rights violation in Canada unless the employer had a justifiable reason for it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

and can test for drugs and alcohol if they wish (trucking companies effectively requiring it).

In fact, no, employers cannot test for drugs and alcohol on a whim.

[Kipper is King]

I've worked at places where it's been perfectly acceptable for smokers to stop working for several times a day and go out for a "smoke break." If non-smokers were to take the same frequency and duration of breaks, they would be reprimanded. That has always bugged me a bit.

[RougeUnderoos]

The "taking a bunch of smoke breaks" gripe seems a little odd to me.

If it means you end up covering for them, or it puts you out, that's one thing.

But if someone can do their job taking a 10 minute "smoke break" every hour, or twice an hour, or three times an hour, what do I care?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The "taking a bunch of smoke breaks" gripe seems a little odd to me.

If it means you end up covering for them, or it puts you out, that's one thing.

But if someone can do their job taking a 10 minute "smoke break" every hour, or twice an hour, or three times an hour, what do I care?

I guess it depends on the job. Where it used to piss me off was when I had crappier jobs, jobs where there's a bunch of people doing the same job, and half the employees taking 6-7, 10 minute smoke breaks over the course of day had nothing to do with them being able to do their job better. It just meant they did an hour less work than the non-smokers in an eight hour shift.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by guzzy

so they should. If you two people with the same qualifications and one smokes.....i would choose the non-smoker.

I look at the amount of time "SOME" smokers spend going for smokes it blows my mind. I come in at 8:00 and leave at 4:30 as do they but i am not running downstairs once an hours minimum.

My last job, my co-worker took smoke breaks all the time and never got in trouble for it. Nary a word was ever said.

Then one day I ended up in the washroom a little longer than one would normally take (gut issue). My supervisor was waiting for me when I came out of the stall and gave me *pun intended* sh!!!t for 'taking too long in the bathroom.'

I just looked at her and said "the one time I have a stomach issue and you're going to corner me in the bathroom to bitch me out about it? Yeah, when you say something to X about the multiple smoke breaks he takes throughout the day, you know, all that time that he's smoking and I'm carrying the load (lol) in the department, you can come in here and say something to me about taking a couple of extra minutes for a bodily function/process. Until then, I will take a sh!!!t when I want to take one. And it's just astoundingly gross that you're lurking outside the stall I'm using, essentially stalking my bowel movements. I think that says a lot more about you than it says about anyone else. And if you want to take this one right up the ladder, feel free. I suspect I'll have a job long after you'll have been given the boot."

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Minnie

My last job, my co-worker took smoke breaks all the time and never got in trouble for it. Nary a word was ever said.

Then one day I ended up in the washroom a little longer than one would normally take (gut issue). My supervisor was waiting for me when I came out of the stall and gave me *pun intended* sh!!!t for 'taking too long in the bathroom.'

I just looked at her and said "the one time I have a stomach issue and you're going to corner me in the bathroom to bitch me out about it? Yeah, when you say something to X about the multiple smoke breaks he takes throughout the day, you know, all that time that he's smoking and I'm carrying the load (lol) in the department, you can come in here and say something to me about taking a couple of extra minutes for a bodily function/process. Until then, I will take a sh!!!t when I want to take one. And it's just astoundingly gross that you're lurking outside the stall I'm using, essentially stalking my bowel movements. I think that says a lot more about you than it says about anyone else. And if you want to take this one right up the ladder, feel free. I suspect I'll have a job long after you'll have been given the boot."

What was her response or facial expression?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I guess it depends on the job. Where it used to piss me off was when I had crappier jobs, jobs where there's a bunch of people doing the same job, and half the employees taking 6-7, 10 minute smoke breaks over the course of day had nothing to do with them being able to do their job better. It just meant they did an hour less work than the non-smokers in an eight hour shift.

Fair enough. That would have pissed me off too.

I think I'm a little older than you. When I was young, I worked one of those telephone switchboards you see in old movies, and me and the rest of the gals were allowed to smoke "at the boards", as we called it.

It wasn't all cigarettes and sunshine though. If we wanted to go to the bathroom, we had to give the boss a kiss.

[Sylvanfan]

Who's next on the list of sinners to punish? My guess is the chronic coffee drinker.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The "taking a bunch of smoke breaks" gripe seems a little odd to me.

If it means you end up covering for them, or it puts you out, that's one thing.

But if someone can do their job taking a 10 minute "smoke break" every hour, or twice an hour, or three times an hour, what do I care?

I have a development/technology pool of about 12 guys, and the most productive couple of guys are big smokers. Looking back over the last few years, and former team members, the most productive of the people that have turned over have also been smokers. I'm not saying that smoking makes them more productive, but it certainly hasn't made them less. The best guys have actually turned smoke breaks into quick development scrums.

I say this as a staunch non-smoker. Some guys take 5 breaks a day for a smoke, some take 5 a day to get a glass of water or a soda from the fridge. What seems to make them productive or non-productive isn't the amount of breaks they take during the day, but their attitude towards doing a good job.

[puckluck2]

Anything that pisses of smokers is a-ok in my books.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Who's next on the list of sinners to punish? My guess is the chronic coffee drinker.

That is only acceptable if you are working as programmer with...Java!

[Dion]

When smokers went for their usual break I'd wait till they got back and then tell them i'm going for a fresh air break. Of course they'd go WTF are you talking about. My reply was fresh air from that stench that is in your clothes. They never knew just how bad thier clothes reeked of cigarette smoke.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ethical? Maybe not, but certainly very much welcomed from the rest of us. Plus, you get an extra hour of productivity instead of those cancer cases having multiple 10 minute breaks to smoke a day. More productivity + likely lower health care costs = No brainer.

You may welcome this now, but when your offspring are considered unemployable due to possessing the gene for narrow minded thinking, you'll probably not realize their situation was inevitable.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

When smokers went for their usual break I'd wait till they got back and then tell them i'm going for a fresh air break. Of course they'd go WTF are you talking about. My reply was fresh air from that stench that is in your clothes. They never knew just how bad thier clothes reeked of cigarette smoke.

So you were quite popular at work?

Would you consider the time you spent monitoring your co-workers's comings-and-goings as "productive time"?

[AFireInside]

I make it a point to try and not pay attention or monitor what my coworkers are doing and how many breaks they take.

I have my work, they have theirs, and it's never ending so why bother worrying about it.

It's going to depend on the job though. If it's labor intensive and you have to carry others while they smoke, that can get annoying. Still though if they don't smoke you're likely still doing the same work if they are there or not, so does it really matter?

I guess something customer service related could be annoying if it gets busy.

As for the original topic, I think it's a little silly, people need to stop being so over dramatic about smokers and the related annoyances.

For the record I don't smoke and never have.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So you were quite popular at work?

Absolutely! Everyone loves the boss!

Would you consider the time you spent monitoring your co-workers's comings-and-goings as "productive time"?

If you're working with a group of people, it's not hard to notice when someone is constantly going for a smoke break. The fact that my job required everyones participation to get the job done, I did what I did because I was sick of the smokers not recognising that us non smokers were still working away while they were outside puffing away on their coffin nails. I was trying to get them to recognise what it's like to be working away and to then realise one or more of your co workers isn't around to help you. It didn't take long for them to see that the job wasn't getting done on time. The end result is they only lit up during designated break times.

[pylon]

As an ex-smoker, I have no issue with smokers being discriminated against. In fact, that same discrimination it is one of the reasons I quit, because my partners were complaining about all the unnecessary breaks and how I was polluting their airspace with my stink.

We have customers that specifically request to deal with non smokers, because they are so use to running into losers that reek like ashtrays on car lots. We have had numerous complaints from people about their experience with smelly poo breathed smokers. Now, I personally, will not allow poo-breathed, poo-smelling smokers I work with in my office if they have had a smoke within the previous 20 minutes. In retrospect, I feel awful I exposed so many people to such a fecally similar, filthy, revolting, disgusting experience over the years.

If it hurts business, which this practice does in most cases, why shouldn't the owner of a company allow it too be banned. Smokers take anywhere from 10-15, 5 minute breaks a day the normal worker doesn't. Smokers are generally less healthy, and at significantly higher risk to no-show due to illness. Personally, I think they should have 2 pay scales, smoker scale, and non-smoker scale, and the smokers get 10-15% less, as on the whole, all things considered, a smoker is about 10-15% less valuable as an employee. I have been on both sides of the fence, and I am perfectly willing to admit, I am a far better employee, and human as a non-smoker. Smoking is the loserest of loser habits.

Smoking is an outdated relic of the past, and the sooner they just outright ban it, the better.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You may welcome this now, but when your offspring are considered unemployable due to possessing the gene for narrow minded thinking, you'll probably not realize their situation was inevitable.

Even as I acknowledge its not going to happen? Of course it'd be nice to not have to deal with smokers. It'd also be nice if the hot secretary with the huge tits on the 9th floor didn't have to wear a shirt, but you can't always get everything you want obviously. Corporations look for every excuse to save money on employees? Colour me shocked. Next thing you're going to tell me they want to lower minimum wage.