Smokers need not apply

[GlennB]

In the USA where the actual smoking ban for employment actually exists, yes you could. Of course, you could also have that same smokers only requirement. So it is even handed even if all of these concepts are over the top for most any industry.

BTW, as for the semiconductor industry the issue of smoke breathing/clothing particulates is well known. A few companies have tried a no smoking at all while at work policy and it just was not worth the effort. Too many irritable employees did not outweigh the very small benefit in less particulate in the breath/clothing. Its only an issue on the really heavy chain smokers. Basically, if you can smell something on the production floor that is coming from someone else it is damaging product. This applies to make up, perfume, flatulence, cigarettes, chewing gum, food, deodorant, sweat ect. The clean room suits and masks we wear generally accounts for most of this, but a few people can build up very powerful (highly particulate) smells that can make their presence consistently known on the work floor. Such people usually get banished to areas it might not matter, or get fired for small excuses. Or usually, it just gets ignored unless massive product damage gets noticed by someone high up. In a mature line a few people breaking the rule on odors should have a very small impact. It also helps that in some places you wear different clothes under the clean room suits than you wear on your breaks. I have seen a few heavy smokers pick up the habit of brushing their teeth after their breaks too.

Interesting stuff. How about walking into work after passing through a street heaving with diesel particulates? Could that contaminate your workplace? In my country Athens has banned diesel engines in the city centre apart from buses and taxis. And studies elsewhere have linked diesel emissions to asthma attacks. Should we, logically, deny employment to drivers of diesel cars?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well I'll be buggered. I didn't know that. Unfortunately it also means we'll have to sue our neighbours for burning their tree prunings and having bbq's.

Merely staying alive from day to day is getting much too complicated <sigh>.

eta: can job applicants be tested for having had a recent bonfire or bbq and therefore denied employment before they wreck the health of the western world? I think they should. Can't be too careful.

Pretty sure that'd count as "private"/"at home"

Nice strawman.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Interesting stuff. How about walking into work after passing through a street heaving with diesel particulates? Could that contaminate your workplace? In my country Athens has banned diesel engines in the city centre apart from buses and taxis. And studies elsewhere have linked diesel emissions to asthma attacks. Should we, logically, deny employment to drivers of diesel cars?

I have never come across anyone smelling heavily of diesel on the production floor. It must not have the lingering and powerful effect that other items do, or perhaps few people really expose themselves directly to it before working. Why is it logical to deny employment to them? I already stated that a strong arm denial of these things was not worth the very minor benefit in general to the semiconductor companies. It doesn't take much to reduce the particulate levels to managable levels. Wearing a closed coat while smoking and brushing afterwards seems to remove any need to regulate smokers at work. With deisel you could probably just take a shower first. Every semidconductor plant I have worked for has had on site showering facilities, and I don't just mean the emergency wash showers installed for chemical exposure.

It would be legal for such a denial of employment in the US, depending on the state. I imagine there is some extreme anti-petrol small company out there somewhere that in fact does this. In most cases I do not see any of these denials as logical, but I could see them as consistent with a business's operating goals.

ETA: On a previous note, municipal laws banning the burning of compost is not unusual in the US. Or more accurately heavy restrictions and possible permits required before doing so. I have never heard of a law banning bbqs on private property in the US.

 

[bigred]

You don't have to believe the author of the book. I linked to that appendix because it lists, in detail, each of the 64 longitudinal studies that have been done looking at correlation between being married to a smoker and lung cancer.

....and summarily dismisses most if not all to one degree or another with a clear bias and questionable logic, IMO. I admit I haven't read all by any means though; general impression.

That you are prepared to believe the dictats National Cancer Institute without and understanding of the history of anti-smoking lobbying of government and health agencies, and how this has moulded policy, and not look at the evidence, well that's not a very sceptical way of approaching a subject, is it?

I'm prepared to believe the dictats of an organization which has little if anything to gain by lying or distorting facts and would have hell to pay by doing so - unlike a guy trying to make money off of a book who can pretty much make whatever claims he wants.

As for the history/lobbies thing, which country are we talking about, given that so many of the studies of those 64 were neither in the UK or US?

As for health agencies against smoking, gee go figure. What's next, the Humane Society against dog fighting rings?

I'm going to have to ask you to stop using a gas lawn mower as well. Why do I have to suffer the toxic effects so you can have a trim lawn?

Analogies like this generally seem to mark the beginning of the end for a thread. Oh well.

 

[GlennB]

Pretty sure that'd count as "private"/"at home"

Nice strawman.

It isn't a strawman at all, it's irony. Re-read the thread if you wish, but the whole point of the entire damn thread is whether minor stuff that happens outside the workplace - and has no impact on the workplace - should be a bar to employment. D'uh.

 

[joobie]

Life's not fair.

who said it was?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

It isn't a strawman at all, it's irony. Re-read the thread if you wish, but the whole point of the entire damn thread is whether minor stuff that happens outside the workplace - and has no impact on the workplace - should be a bar to employment. D'uh.

Sueing neighbors for "damage" is different than a silly rule for employment in an at will state. Hooters can have a talent test for their employment, but that does not follow I could sue my neighbor for lack of talent when she mows her lawn.

 

[GlennB]

Sueing neighbors for "damage" is different than a silly rule for employment in an at will state. Hooters can have a talent test for their employment, but that does not follow I could sue my neighbor for lack of talent when she mows her lawn.

If you are in Oregon you shouldn't be this stoned this early

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

If you are in Oregon you shouldn't be this stoned this early

I work nights. I am shifted 12 hours from everyone else. Also, I am the token non-toker in the state.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sueing neighbors for "damage" is different than a silly rule for employment in an at will state. Hooters can have a talent test for their employment, but that does not follow I could sue my neighbor for lack of talent when she mows her lawn.

That's not the part of the post that was being called a strawman.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

That's not the part of the post that was being called a strawman.

Both the sueing a neighbor and the employment test for bbq/bonfire were quoted by KN. Nothing indicated just the bbq/bonfire employment test was a strawman.

 

[Fnord]

It isn't a strawman at all, it's irony. Re-read the thread if you wish, but the whole point of the entire damn thread is whether minor stuff that happens outside the workplace - and has no impact on the workplace - should be a bar to employment. D'uh.

If a Christian can be denied employment at an observatory, then a smoker can be denied employment at a hospital.

 

[23_Tauri]

I'm prepared to believe the dictats of an organization which has little if anything to gain by lying or distorting facts and would have hell to pay by doing so - unlike a guy trying to make money off of a book who can pretty much make whatever claims he wants.

Organisations in charge of public health have a vested interest in hitting targets, one of most fundamental ones (for them) being reducing the number of smokers. The logic is that this can be achieved by supporting further controls on smokers and emphasising the dangers to third parties through SHS. Therefore their literature will tell you categorically that SHS causes disease.

The alleged dangers of SHS have been promoted by the prohibitionist anti-smoking lobby since the concept of passive smoking was invented in the early 1970s in order to push through justification to demonise smokers and, eventually, make tobacco illegal.

Ironically, since smoking bans were introduced in Italy and Ireland, smoking rates have increased, not decreased.

You don't have to believe the opinions of the author, as I said in an earlier post, the existence of over fifty studies showing no statistical significance in increase in lung cancer rates in wives of smokers indicates that the data on the risks of passive smoking is not conclusive. But as far as public health officials are concerned, the debate is over.

As for the history/lobbies thing, which country are we talking about, given that so many of the studies of those 64 were neither in the UK or US?

I don't see how the countries where the studies were carried out is relevant.

The prohibitionist movement (alcohol and tobacco) has a history going back to the 19th century in America and Western Europe.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

If a Christian can be denied employment at an observatory, then a smoker can be denied employment at a hospital.

Sure, but it being legal is another matter entirely.

 

[Stray Cat]

Both the sueing a neighbor and the employment test for bbq/bonfire were quoted by KN. Nothing indicated just the bbq/bonfire employment test was a strawman.

The first part of GlennB's post was in direct response to Tauri who had clearly labelled her post [satire] and therefore wasn't a strawman as it was meant also to be satirical and not forming part of the argument.

The ETA part of Glenn's post wasn't directly related to his reply to Tauri. It was on topic for the thread and wasn't a strawman.

 

[Stray Cat]

The prohibitionist movement (alcohol and tobacco) has a history going back to the 19th century in America and Western Europe.

And these lobbies learned a lot from the outright prohibition of alcohol in the US. They know that demonising smokers will have the path of least resistance as opposed to banning the product they detest. Which is why anti-smoking legislation is structured the way it is.

 

[Stray Cat]

If a Christian can be denied employment at an observatory, then a smoker can be denied employment at a hospital.

And a vegetarian can be denied employment in a butchers shop.

The difference being that a Christian can get employment in a Christian book shop or open their own Christian observatory, a vegetarian can get employment in a fruit and vegetable shop or open their own butchers but a smoker can not get employment in a smoking club or open their own smoking club... because such places are illegal (in the whole of the UK and most states in the US).

 

[Fnord]

Sure, but it being legal is another matter entirely.

Legalities can be by-passed.

If the aforementioned Christian can be 'officially' denied employment at an observatory on unrelated grounds, then a smoker can also be 'officially' denied employment at a hospital on grounds unrelated to smoking.

If a candidate for employment reeks of tobacco smoke, and my 'official' rejection of his or her employment is based on the results of a technical examination, my impression of their attitude during the interview process, and the presentation of their curriculum vitae in their resume, then how can I be cited for any illegality?

Discrimination in hiring and employment is illegal if based on age, disability, genetic issues, race, color, marital status, political affiliation, military service, religion, sex, or national origin. There is no similar anti-discrimination law that is based on substance abuse or addiction; but to play it safe, an employer can focus on qualifications and background checks to find something to disqualify the smoker.

"Gee, fella ... sorry to hear about that unpaid parking ticket ... we'll keep your application on file ..."

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

And a vegetarian can be denied employment in a butchers shop.

The difference being that a Christian can get employment in a Christian book shop or open their own Christian observatory, a vegetarian can get employment in a fruit and vegetable shop or open their own butchers but a smoker can not get employment in a smoking club or open their own smoking club... because such places are illegal (in the whole of the UK and most states in the US).

In the US 27 states have statewide public smoking bans. 7 exempt private clubs from the ban. 13 exempt cigar bars from the ban. 22 exempt tobacconists from the ban. Some form of smoking ban in some public areas exist in most of the other states.

To clarify, in the US a private club would be something that is not open for business to the public. A cigar bar may or may not allow cigarrettes as the main form of sale depending on the particular state law. Usually tobacconists cannot additionally sell open alcohol to qualify as a tobacconist.

I was not sure if by smoking club you meant the same thing as US state laws do, or if you meant a retail establishment that you can smoke at.

 

[23_Tauri]

I was not sure if by smoking club you meant the same thing as US state laws do, or if you meant a retail establishment that you can smoke at.

In the UK, private members' clubs, which a smoking club like the one you describe would fall under, are not exempt from the smoking ban. So no, we're not allowed smoking clubs.