Funny questions
April 7, 2008 5:44 PM
Someone round here asked me whether it was OK to disciminate on the grounds of smoking, and it started me thinking...
On the smoking side of things, with recent laws regarding the marginalisation of smoking in the workplace, discrimination against smokers is (maybe) no longer an issue.
I suppose smokers may take more frequent breaks. Suffer more health problems. So maybe it is more economical to employ non smokers (though ironically smokers now probably get more fresh air than other groups!) in the long term.
People often presume that there is a lot more protective legislation than there actually is, out there.
However, the fashion industry has built its reputation and its success over many millenia (or so it seems) on discriminating against "ugly" people. A controversial point, but it is true. If Kate Moss had not been at least partly blessed with her looks, would the catwalk hyenas have taken her on?
So the questions continued... What about obese people? Can someone discriminate against them?
Well there may be health and safety reasons why a person could not do a job due to their weight. But we are on dicey ground here. I mean when you start discriminating against anyone for any reason there is a chance other factors may come in. For instance, if you were to weigh all candidates, what happens when a heavily pregnant person comes to an interview? Would that person not get the job on the grounds that they are heavier than a non pregnant person?
Dangerous, not to mention bad practice. And simply not in the spirit of what we are looking at when we looking at discrimination. Usually. Discrimination legislation is about protecting those who are being marginalised, not providing rules for how we can get away with marginalising people.
So those of you looking for a non-P.C. but legal ad. Look somewhere else!
Comments
One company I know of actually gives non smokers an extra two days holiday per year to make up for them not having cigarette breaks!
Iain - April 8, 2008 5:34 PM
I wonder what the results of a time and motion study would be on smokers compared to non smokers.
Many smokers are aware of colleagues thinking they are having a skive when they go for a cigarette so work harder and/or take shorter lunch breaks.
Many smoking areas are a great place for the exchange of business ideas.
Mark - April 9, 2008 9:25 AM
Do I have a problem working with heavy smokers? Well, to be honest yes I do. Why? This would be because of the effect on those who don't smoke and don't disappear from the workplace at regular and sometimes prolonged intervals. In my experience they do not work harder because of the absences they take.
Do I speak from experience, yes I sure do! I had the pleasure of once working with a Team that had as a boss who was a very heavy smoker. She would take up to 8 smoking breaks a day, at about 15 mins each and she would take with her, her "smoking buddies" from the Dept. The timing of the breaks had no relation to the workload on the Department and they would waltz off, whilst the rest of the Team would be left to cope, with work piling up and listening to phones ringing off the hook. Did it fuel resentment in those left behind? Oh yes! Did they care? Absolutely not! Not only did they have to cover for the absent members of the Team but those that smoked were given the opportunity to voice their opinions to the boss and have her "ear" during these breaks. They were able to join an elite club that was able to feed and be fed information that the others were excluded from. Did those people who smoked get preferential treatment from the boss because of their smoking association? Were additional allowances made to and for the "smoking buddies" and did they advance through their close association with the boss? Absolutely!! Is this the only workplace that I have seen this happen? No way!!
Question is, from my experience, would it make a difference, if, during an interview the Candidate said they were a heavy smoker? - honestly - yes it would - if I had a choice between two equally capable Candidates, I would choose the non smoker.
Ever seen the episode of Friends when Rachel felt she had to join the smoking club just to know what was going on - well god help me I even considered smoking just so I could join in (only for about a nano second though!!).
Eventually I raised it as an issue with her because it had become such an issue within the Department and the resentment of the "non smokers" had the potential to fracture the Team - however, I might as well have publicly fallen on my sword - bad move, lead balloon, nail in the coffin.....because no matter how reasonably I tried to make my discussion with her, the damage was done, I had dared to criticise her - her breaks became more frequent and the comments pointed against the "non smokers". She appeared to then take the "smokers" away from the Dept at the most inconvenient time and appeared to take delight in it too! - all it did was make matters worse and hasten my decision to leave but I made a point of telling the Personnel Dept why there was an issue.
However, on a positive note, I have subsequently learnt that the Company has now has a no smoking policy - she had to go "cold turkey" and has put on over 3 stone as a result - lovely!!
Question is, from my experience, would it make a difference, if, during an interview the Candidate said they were a heavy smoker? - honestly - yes it would - if I had a choice between two equally capable Candidates, I would choose the non smoker, knowing from first hand the impact heaving smoking can have on the morale of the Department.
Penelope - April 17, 2008 11:29 AM