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.

I'm thinking of maybe hiring people to clean with me, and smoking could be a problem.

I smoke. I never smoke on or in front of the clients' homes. I also spritz with febreeze after smoking. But I know that I still smell and that could be a problem for some clients. And I would be mortified if an employee smoked in the client's driveway or smoked in their car, which makes everything reek.

I wouldn't refuse to an employ a smoker.

I would however only allow them to take the same breaks as everyone else - they should be having a fag then and not taking breaks and THEN fag breaks as I've known happen in previous workplaces!

YABVU.

As other posters have said, would you not employ a drinker? How about someone who enjoys garlic or lentils? They might pong a bit too.
No one under a size 10 maybe?
While we're at it, let's discount everyone who
Wears patchouli oil, or Kuoros aftershave, never liked those scents.

Working with children sometimes means you don't get a job as a smoker. Some nanny jobs ban smokers and I think some nurseries too (though that may not be true).

Many things say a lot about somebody's lifestyle, I see where you're coming from but where do you draw the line??!

hasn't a firm in the states already done this - and without being sued.
I'll have a search.

Katy I'm afraid I find the smell of smokers really off putting and would try not to hire a cleaner who smoked.

While it's an utterly ludicrous idea, I wish places would implement this because it would seriously lower the number of applicants for roles where I live, and then I'd stand a chance of getting a job

I think that the purpose of this thread is just to get a reaction, but where I work, while the bottom layer of staff don't get extra fag breaks, the managers certainly do. Some of them spend more time standing outside than they do inside working. (not quite, but certainly a lot more breaks than other managers and staff get)

already done

I suppose there is an argument for smokers costing more - in terms of days off ( they have stats on just how much more time smokers take off in terms of sickness and breaks).

Those porpoises are dedicated smokers, they're sea life ffs that's dedication!

It's not illegal to refuse to employ someone because they smoke

Daft, potentially but not illegal.

Smokers underestimate how much the smell hangs around. Last week I could tell that a particular colleague had been in a meeting room before me as I could smell the smoke in the air even thou he hadn't smoked in that room.

I"m spluttering on my fag at the spelling gaffes!

my old workplace used to. you were asked if you smoked and had a physical. people lied and hid their smoking at work breaks and night outs until they got a permanent contract.

Smoking doesn't impact on someone's ability to do a job.

The problem with hiring a smoker is only if they take the piss with breaks. But that can also go for excessive phone users or tea drinkers too.

As long as its done fairly and how they do it doesnt harm anyone else (in the car for example ) then there's not a problem.

Smoking doesn't impact on someone's ability to do a job.

The problem with hiring a smoker is only if they take the piss with breaks. But that can also go for excessive phone users or tea drinkers too.

As long as its done fairly and how they do it doesnt harm anyone else (in the car for example ) then there's not a problem.

I've always found it unfair that smokers get to take fag breaks without comment or reprisals from colleagues/bosses, but if I've ever said 'I'm just going for a break' (I'm a non-smoker) it raises eyebrows.

I'm more bolshy about it now though ? not before time! ? and am brave enough at work to take a REASONABLE number of short fag breaks without the fag.

I have noticed that too say lady

I think if everyone buggered off for 15 mins every hour-2hours more might be said. But then I have worked where people do take the piss immensely.

Let's face it, if you are interviewing for a position you can reject someone for any old reason you like and you don't even have to justify it. You secretly might not like their face or their size or their accent or their dress sense. It's no different with smoking. If you turn your nose up at something about anyone then you are probably not going to give them the job.

Hyperpathetic porpoise. Brilliant.

I think many companies already choose smokers over non smokers for jobs.
I have heard bosses discussing applicants and have rejected smokers for that reason only.

Really because you know smoking isnt the only vice that shortens life expectancy right? maybe you should have said...

No smokers
No drinkers
People who don't do 30mins exercise a day
People who don't eat a nutritionally banished diet all the time and
people who live in heavily polluted areas maybe
who would be left to work op?

I don't and have never smoked and think yabvvvvu

Obviously when people have a serious drinking habit, or any other kind of addictive vice it will affect their ability to do their job properly, but smoking is the only one I can think of that also directly adversely affects the comfort of others around them. Even when you are not smoking you will still often smell unpleasant.