When you advertise for a non-smoking nanny, would you accept one who smoked but not smoked when working?

[nannynick]

I've been wondering about this for a while... smoking is I feel frowned upon these days, particularly when it involves people who work with children. Many nanny job adverts request a non-smoker. But I expect there must be some nannies around who do smoke... though they don't smoke when working.
If a nanny applied for a live-out job which specified a non-smoker, how would you deal with it if the nanny then said they did smoke at their home.
I am wondering what parents feel is meant by non-smoker.

How should this be phrased in the Gross Misconduct section? If the employee is found smoking while on duty, that I feel could be grounds for Gross Misconduct. If they were found to smoke while not on duty, could they still be sacked under Gross Misconduct?

Should point out that I am a non-smoker, have never smoked and I expect never will smoke. So I am rather anti-smoking.

No way.

I can smell it a mile off and hate it.

If I were to have a nanny I wouldnt want one who smelt of fags when they came to work. If they smoked at the weekend that's fine.

smoking is a disgusting habbit - unfort my dh smokes

i guess as long as nanny doesnt smoke around children/during working hours, and was honest with employer then shouldnt be a prob

thing is, if they smoke normally, could they survive 10/12 hrs with no cigerettes?

In 2001 a salesman was sacked from his job, because he admitted he smoked at home source. Appears he never took it to court source.
I do wonder what rights someone who smokes has.
Given that society seems to be heading more and more towards anti-smoking... perhaps employers will be able to state that an employee being discovered smoking, be it at work, or in their freetime, is grounds for dismissal.

As a non-smoker, I don't understand how someone can smoke at home, but get through a 10 hour day without smoking.

er easily! they may even wear a patch or have gum during work times. i'd be more worried about drink or drugs than smoking.

I can smell people who smoke even if they haven't had one for hours .. it sticks to them and their clothes .. a non-smoker is a non-smoker

excalty my point nick

Toxins remain in breath, skin, clothes etc whether they'd smoke round my baby or not. So no way.

i do know people who just smoke at the pub (in the old days) so i would accept this, however i wouldn't accept someone who claimed they wouldn't smoke while working.

agreed, alcohol and drugs are also problems. Though a job advert may not ask specifically for someone who does not drink or take drugs.
It may get to a point where employers regularly get employees to pass alcohol and drugs tests. I expect this already happens in some other work industries.

well i would def FAIL the booze test but pass the drugs one with flying colours!!

I am a Nanny and also a parent I am very much aniti smoking!

If i was looking for childcare, i would not accept anyone who smokes

as mentioned above you can smell it on their breath / clothes / hair / car etc even if they havent smoked one recently!

I don't think it is right to stipulate what someone can and cannot do when they are not at work, though. Especially if what they do is entirely legal. Very dangerous idea that employers should be able to control their workers' every waking moment - we are going backwards to the Victorians (Titus Salt, anyone?).

Were I employing a nanny I would ask for him/her not to smoke in front of the DC. Because I don't, though I have the occasional sneaky fag when I am away from DS or he is in bed, so it would be extremely hypocritical of me to refuse to employ a smoker.
I think that anti-smoking paranoia has been racked up to absurd levels these days: smoking round children is bad for them, sure, but so is traffic exhaust, processed food, lots of other aspects of daily living that we mostly all survive.

Also, I really dislike this idea some people have that an employee is property and what he/she does when he/she is off-duty is any fucking business at all of the employer's. If someone is drinking or drugging to the point that their work is actually affected then there's a problem, but moderate recreational drinking (ie drinking on Saturday when you';re off work from Friday to monday) is up to the individual.

If I advertised for a non-smoker that is what I would want, she won't be able to get rid of the smell.

I ended up with this - job was for a non-smoker, nanny claimed to be a non-smoker, and whilst she never smoked in my house, or to the best of my knowledge in front of my child, if she was coming to babysit she would reek of smoke.

So my issue was more about trust rather than whether or not she was a smoker. I felt that she had misrepresented herself, and of course if someone lies about one aspect of their cv, there could be other areas of concern too.

Well yes, of course, it's fair to advertise for a non-smoker for someone who is going to live in (it's the one area of employment law where it is pretty much Ok to discriminate: after all if you are sharing your house with someone it's not unreasonable that you feel they fit in with you).

Similar experience - CV said non-smoker. didn't check during interview.

I'm sure she would say that

1. i never actually asked them directly and if I had, she would have told me, so she didn't technically lie (except on CV - but maybe they only took up smoking after they wrote the CV, because the job was so stressful so it's actually my fault)
2. what she does in free time is none of my business
3. it amkes no diff to kids' well being

and actually I agree with all of that (I used to send kids to nursery and regularly saw nursery staff out for a group fag break), though i do also know that some parents may hold the "harmful chemicals in lungs and breath all the time" theory too.

the issue for me was also trust.

The problem is that you can tell a smoker as soon as you get near them-they reek of it.

one of my closest nanny friends is a smoker

i ahve known her for ages but had NO IDEA at all that she smoked for over a year

she NEVER smokes at work full stop or even in hr car as the kids go in it.

I always thought i could smell smokers a mile off but i could never 'smell' her... she is a FAB nanny btw

btw i dont smoke and HATE smoke and smoking is completley banned even in the grounds (aka garden) of MY house

So if a nanny put on their cv that they were a non-smoker, and subsequently during their employment it was discovered that they did smoke (even when off-duty), what is the outcome?

Ask Employment Law: Gross Misconduct has within typical Gross Misconduct, "Fraud or deception within the course of employment". Could putting non-smoker on a CV be considered to be fraud, or deception?

Haven't read whole thread but just wanted to say, although I haven't been a smoker for years (and I'm strange because I'm anti it until I'm drunk! ), I used to smoke on the rare occasion I went on a big girls night out clubbing or something. It was just part of the night out. I'd never smell of it when working or anything like that - so where would someone like this stand? (as I know many others who are just social smokers like that). Obviously no smoking now due to being pregnant and tbh, you can't smoke inside now anyway (good thing) so not sure I'd even go back to it in the future. Just seems a bit unfair that IF one did do this, they could get into trouble over it

Would you put on a CV that you were a non-smoker?
If you would, then would you inform an employer that you were an occasional smoker?

When I had au pairs the agency I used warned me that a lot of girls would say that they didn't smoke, but actually did. I had babies at the time and wouldn't let any smoker near them regardless of were they smoked or if they'd washed their hands, brushed their teeth etc. However, now they are much older I regularly use a babysitter who smokes (in the garden). So I think it's partly down to the ages of the dc's. Obviously the smoking should never be in front of the dc's or in the house.