How much does your employer need to know?

[DogCalledRudis]

A friend of mine worked as a nanny. Employers asked if she was a smoker, she said no. Ok, all fine, she worked for a month or two. All fine. Then one day (her day off) her employers noticed her outside a pub having a cigarette.
So they fired her -- as she lied to them therefore cannot be trusted.

But really... If she never smoked on the job, what does it have to do with employers if she lights up socially in her free time?

Myself i'm a social smoker. I have a pack of fags in my handbag, but i maybe have one twice a WEEK, not more. If a job required non-smoking, would i be a liar if i applied?

'I'm with the employer here, I hate smoking and liars and I wouldn't employ someone who does both.'

But you would employ someone who does one or the other.

She lied. That's the issue. How are they to know she definitely doesn't do it around the children if she lied about it once already?

Are people allergic to smoke? I have never, ever heard of that before, and worked in a tobacco control job for many years.

I suppose it depends on the definition of smoker, and whether they cared about her being a smoker or wanted to use that as a yard stick of her honesty.
For life insurance purposes, using nicotine chewing gum in the last 12 months means you would be classed as a smoker.

For most people, having an addiction to cigarettes is probably more like their definition of being a smoker.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a social smoker/someone who only has the occasional cigarette with a drink to be a smoker, but others might see it differently. Very few jobs could require you to be a non-smoker, although lots might require you to not smoke on work time, or turn up to work stinking of smoke. Although for the latter, could a non-smoker who lives in a smoking house be discriminated against?

no sqoosh I wouldn't, maybe I should have worded that sentence a bit better but thanks for picking up on it

I think people can be allergic to cigarette smoke, but regardless it can certainly be a dangerous trigger factor for people with asthma, COPD etc spare.

I wonder if they were actually allowed to ask that question, under employment law. Unless there were specific reasons, such as health, to ask it.

But she lied. How are they to know they can trust her not to smoke around the children when they are not around?

Its the lying that is the problem. If I found out that someone who was looking after my children had told me a direct lie to my face about something like smoking then I wouldn't trust them.

There are very few occasions where lying to parents is acceptable if you are looking after their children (I would accept a white lie not to spoil a surprise e.g. if the DC were making a card for a my birthday and wanted it to be a secret).

If I was asked if I drink alcohol, I'd have to say I do, even I do it rarely. But I am not tea total.

I am not a smoker, though, because I never smoke. And hate it too.

In this case, she should have said she rarely smoked and assure them that she wouldn't within X time of being with the children.

I expect it might be classed as discrimination, if challenged, but then I expect the employer would put forward reasons to justify the need for a non smoker, therefore negating the argument in this instance.
I'm no employment lawyer.....!

Sufficient

"We saw you smoking on x day, we did specify we wanted a non smoker why didnt you say you smoked"

" I smoke once in a blue moon when out which I felt totally irrelevant to my employment as I wouldnt entertain ever smoking at work and smoke so rarely I would not class myself as a smoker"

"OK, but so you are aware, any sign of you on the smokey joes around us and your out"

"OK"

"Good"

Harold, the problem is that they can't trust her now not to smoke around the children when they are not around.
They don't expect her not to get caught. They expect her not to smoke around the children, and they simply can't trust someone who lied.

It would also have been very simple for her to be upfront to them. They could then choose to accept her or not, but they would trust her not to smoke around the children.

Maybe, but I think there's no obligation to be accommodating.

Inbthe first 2 years of employment, there's no employment protection.

My last post was a slow reply to Harold.

I don't think its discrimation as smoking is not a protected characteristic.

discrimination even - I can't blame the phone as I am on the desktop

There is a world of difference between smoking in a pub when drinking booze than smoking around the children.

I dont see that its such a huge lie to be honest, I know people that only smoke once or twice a year and should you really have to go into detail with an employer that you MIGHT smoke, but only if your rat-arsed?

She lied and therefore is untrustworthy. What else might she lie about that matters to the employers?

Not worth the risk when it comes to children.

She might not have had any intention of having a fag.

The ale takes us strange at times.

"Hi prospective employee, do you smoke?"

"I wouldn't class myself as a smoker, but I might have one once or twice a year on a night out. Never so it would affect the children though."

Honest, and allows the employer to make an informed decision. Now they don't know the extent of her smoking because she said she didn't do it at all.

If an employer wants a non smoker / non drinker / non meat eater / non vegetarian / certain religion looking after their children, then surely they can choose their own criteria and look for a candidate to suit?

Especially if they are sharing a home.

But if she had a fag, that means that she does smoke, even if very rarely.
She could not say that she is 100% smoke free.

They have seen her by the pub, but they won't follow her if she takes the children to the park, so how would they know if she smoked around the children? And it's not only about the direct effect of the smoke, but also the action of smoking as role modeling.

They thought it was sufficiently important to ask, so it wasn't such a small lie for them.

If she had said that they probably wouldn't have offered her a job, she probably thought it was none of their business, what she does on a night out. Or maybe she had stopped and had a relapse.

You cant confess to things you might do in an interview can you?

Id never get a job!

Look at this one, coke. Thats why she couldnt stop singing.

We all had our vices.

Harold, but then the operative word is don't get caught!

As I see it, either she lied because she does smoke occasionally - no matter how occasionally. If she was telling the truth at interview and had never smoked before that night at the pub then she should have told them that. Whether they believed her is another matter.

Why lie about something like that? Just because lots of people are against smoking doesn't mean they wouldn't have offered the job to her if they thought she was the right candidate even she was a social smoker.

A lesson learned I think.