AIBU in thinking employers should be able to refuse to employ smokers?

[TiggyD]

1. You should judge aplicants on their decisions. Yes. They chose to smoke which means they're likely to die earlier, smell, be ill etc. They have made a really bad decision: To smoke.

1. If they say they regret their decision but can't give up they're addicts. I would tend to avoid giving known drug addicts or alcoholics a job, and the same goes for tobacco addicts.

"Do you want a puff on me pipe me lad?"

Straw man argument. Even more meaningless management bullshit. Why try the latest phrase my colleagues are using? By reading my posts you are 'downloading my thoughts.' So download this OP. You're talking bollocks!

Must be quite a tricky thing to do as well. Fool you, I mean.

Is this you, by the way?:

What about wingsuit flyers?

They could die younger too... and smell? (I would imagine it gets sweaty in those suits)

And if some old dude asks you if you want a puff on their pipe the only thing you'll be smoking is bone.

Employers don't have to give fag breaks. I worked 12 hour shifts on site. No smoking on site and no leaving site till end of shift.

Oi Tiggy what about e cigs?

'hyperpathetic' is glorious.

OP, I am an employer and if you were an aplicant (sic) I would judge you as hyperpathetic , but might give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't 'make the really bad decision' to be ignorant and ill-informed, you probably have an addiction to stupidity.

Hahahahahaha bootsycollins

Mary It's a well known phrase for an invalid argument. It means somebody made up an argument a poster didn't make so people can attack it. In this case I said' you should be able to judge people on their choice to smoke' and you turned it into 'don't employ old people'. Kind of like Goodwin's law.

I think you may have spectacularly missed the point here.

Firstly, employers can refuse to give smokers a job, they can employ who they like.

Secondly, employers don't employ people based on the decision's they make, that's absurd. Bearing in mind that most smokers start in their teens, how many employers would turn down an otherwise perfect candidate because they made a poor decision when they were 14 . If that were the case I'm sure many of us would be unemployable.

Lastly, smoking does not have the same side effects as drinking alcohol or drug use. Another absurd comparison. Do you honestly think smoking 10 cigarettes would have the same effect on someone's ability to do their job as someone who's drank 10 pints or had 10 lines of coke?

"you probably have an addiction to stupidity" Then can I have a couple of extra breaks during the day to stand in a doorway for the porpoise of stupidity?

Porpoise of stupidity! That is perfect.

There must have been a first time Worra. A time before you were addicted when somebody asked you "Do you want a puff on me pipe me lad?", and you made a choice and said "yes".

Yes. Often when someone is a child/young teenager who thinks they know everything and is full sure that they won't become addicted.

And to be fair, not everyone who has a puff on a cigarette does get addicted.

Same as not everyone who has a glass or wine or a pint of beer does.

But this whole thread is pointless and goady anyway...since employers can refuse smokers and in all my life I've never worked anywhere (or known anyone else to work anywhere) that smokers are given extra breaks.

If employers can not hire someone who smokes, does that mean they can also not hire someone who can't spell?!

"But this whole thread is pointless...since employers can refuse smokers"

Yes.

And my spillchocker doesn't work in internet explorer.

Do I detect a New Yoik accent or an actual cousin of the dolphin here?.

Spillchocker?!?

Are you drunk, op?

Smoking porpoises have rights too!

Op maybe you shouldn't be employed for being so narrow minded! As a non smoker I say that!!

It's spillCHOKER and you shouldn't be googling that kind of filth.