Jobs advertised for 'non-smokers only'

[Demona]

Some companies in the UK have started to advertise jobs for non-smokers only. The thinking behind this is that much time is lost through cigarette breaks for members of staff, and if taken outside the building mean that the members of staff are temporarily unavilable. Requests for smoking to be done outside of office hours completely are apparently flouted.

Minor points mentioned were that smokers smell bad and give an unfavourable impression to clients, as well as being more likely to suffer health problems.

The UK has laws against discriminating in employment on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, race, and, from 2006, age.

Do you think it is okay to refuse someone a job because they are a smoker?

[Scarlet]

hmm.... I'm an ex-smoker and you know how those can be... but even so its a tough one and I lean towards "no, its not ok". I can see both sides, but I still think it isn't on the up and up. I can see having a strict policy about breaks and enforcing it, but then that would have to be for all employees, not just smokers. As for smell etc, to be fair they would have to ask if you ate a lot of garlic or beans as they can leave various whiffs too.

[DayDreamer]

Most office buildings here are smoke-free anyway. It is a violation of the fire code to smoke in the building, and heavy fines can be levied if you violate.

I don't blame employers wanting non-smoking employees. Health care for smokers costs a LOT more - just in premiums. Insurance companies charge more.

[Scarlet]

That's not true in Britain where the jobs were posted though. Employers don't pay for health insurance.

[Michele]

Anyone can smell bad. That is just a personal matter of taste. I LOATHE the smell of smoke. YUCK! However, someone may also very much dislike my taste in perfume.

I think it is a form of discrimination. Let's face it, discrimination happens every day. I say hire the smokers and just don't provide smoking breaks. That really isn't that hard. I do understand the insurance concerns. There are many obvious risks and health factors associated with smoking. Of course the same could be said for overweight people. Next will they be hiring ONLY thin people? Yeah, it's discrimination.

[SouthernJen]

I say hire the smokers and just don't provide smoking breaks. That really isn't that hard.


Actually, by law employees are allowed breaks that are something like every fifteen minutes per four hours worked. Whenever I worked in offices, even though it was obvious I smoke I never announced I was going on break to have a cigarette. To me, it is none of a company's business what I did with my breaks. As long as what I did was legal and I didn't leave the company grounds then if I wanted to smoke a cigarette or spend the entire break in the bathroom, it was none of their concern.

I think it is discriminating to say that a company will only hire non-smokers. Sure they have that right, but I bet somebody will take that right and turn it into a major lawsuit. I agree with Michele- what are they going to do next, only hire people who are not overweight? Discrimination needs to end, period.

[Scarlet]

I agree, except most smokers I've worked with usually take a ciggie break more than once every four hours. So long as you aren't taking more than any other employee would be allowed then I agree, smoking is a valid way to spend your time away from your job.