Snuffed Out: Smokers Need Not Apply, page 3

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:12 AM

link

reply to post by Grumble

Tobacco is a stimulant, couple that with maybe a cup of coffee and there will be no stopping them! Honestly this rule is ridiculous imo. There is no valid reason to enforce such a thing other than a personal dislike for smokers.

jibeho

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:12 AM

link

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
To all those who accuse smokers of being "less productive"

1. Remember your history. After world war II, over 70% of men smoked and 35% of woman. This was a time of unpreseded productivity that built both the US and Canada.

What's the control though? I have nothing to compare productivity rates at that same time to non-smokers, likely because there was no study at that time to show productivity in smokers vs non-smokers

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Either non-smokers stand with smokers on this one or wait for your turn.

Very true...

Back then, workers actually smoked on the job!! No breaks needed. From factories to offices smoking was widely accepted and permitted. There is a lot of old steel out there with it fair share of incinerated butts in its content.

Back then, smoking a menthol was considered refreshing. My grandpa smoked unfiltered Lucky Strikes and chewed tobacco while on the job in an Iron Foundry.

edit to add:

I would like to hear from someone who has actually been affected by one of these HOSPITAL policies. So far it is only Hospitals that are doing it. Current smokers in these companies were not fired. The policy only affects newly hired workers.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by jibeho]

yeahright

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:18 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Rights, rights, rights. Everyone is all up in arms about their own personal rights with no thought given to someone else's, or where those rights come from, or even what they really are. There's a pronounced tendency to jump on a podium and scream "RIGHTS!" every time something doesn't go our way.

You have a right to smoke. Employers have a right to hire whom they please, and actually there are a helluva lot more restrictions on that "right" than there are on someone's right to smoke.

Some things are chosen and controllable, some aren't. I don't see a person's right to smoke being infringed by an employer choosing to not hire smokers.

If any significant number of employers take that route, there ultimately will be other employers glad to have the ability to hire from that pool of displaced competent workers. If they're competent.

I have a whole lot less concern about private entities making a call about who to hire than I do about the government bludgeoning everyone into hiring whoever they see as a special protected case. "You can't not hire smokers". If the government comes out and says that, there's your rights trample, right there.

Actions have consequences. If your actions aren't delivering the desired consequences, change your actions. If smoking is more important than being hired by the hospital, work elsewhere.

Someone's right to smoke does not, in my opinion, supersede the rights of an employer to hire the people of their choosing. There are plenty of infringements on that "right" already.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

TiredofControlFreaks

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM

link

You know...it occurs to me that the hospital that implemented this policy is openly admitting that they do not hire according to qualifications. That they will reject better qualified candidates just because they smoke.

The hospital is saying that it is more employee to "project an image" than it is for that employee to actually be competent.

Would this hospital ever do things like send you home with an infection instead of treating you and admitting that you got the infection while in hospital?

After all, I am sure that patients with infections that they got in hospital also "don't fit the image".

I am sure others can think of more examples of where perhaps this hospital's concern with "projecting an image" may say more about the hospital than it does about smokers.

Would you trust these people with your life?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

TiredofControlFreaks

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:22 AM

link

Reply to Jibho

Yes there is a control

In the 50's and 60s, approximately 50 % of the population smoked and yet society was very productive.

IN the 90s and 00's, only 20% of the populations smokes - is society more productive today? Or simply replaced by robots.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

jibeho

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:26 AM

link

reply to post by yeahright

Well said. In all of the cases that I am aware of, if you are not hired because of smoking, you can reapply and be retested after 90 days.

I suppose the next step will be for the ACLU to lobby for another new protected class of people.

EnronOutrunHomerun

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:28 AM

link

Originally posted by jibeho
Back then, workers actually smoked on the job!! No breaks needed. From factories to offices smoking was widely accepted and permitted. There is a lot of old steel out there with it fair share of incinerated butts in its content.

Back then, smoking a menthol was considered refreshing. My grandpa smoked unfiltered Lucky Strikes and chewed tobacco while on the job in an Iron Foundry.

I guess to me, it just sounds like smoking is being glorified - Just the same as those who 100% agree that this policy is true-to-form perfection for the workplace glorify the policy as something that stands for all things good and holy...There's little room left here for leeway...

I can look at old photos of my grandfather smoking a cigar - I can look at old photos of myself smoking a cigar - What I can't do is attribute the "coolness" the "manliness" or the "right/wrong" factor to an actual work policy. Where I work is where I get paid - I get paid so I can live my life, not so I can work - So if I see a policy I don't like, I stear clear of it...Those who choose to let that policy inadvertently affect their way of life DO have other choices available to them - I hear nurses are in short supply...

jibeho

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:31 AM

link

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Jibho

Yes there is a control

In the 50's and 60s, approximately 50 % of the population smoked and yet society was very productive.

IN the 90s and 00's, only 20% of the populations smokes - is society more productive today? Or simply replaced by robots.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Back in the 50's and 60's workers smoked on the job and people still thought cigarettes were healthy and refreshing.

This country is now less productive because we don't produce anything that even compares to the level of a bygone era of industrialization. We now consume and import practically everything from other countries who have fewer if any laws that protect the worker or the work place.

TiredofControlFreaks

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:44 AM

link

Reply to Jibho

Then use the 80s and the 90s as your control!

Tired of Control Freaks

Nutter

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:50 AM

link

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Have you ever been closely handled by a nurse who just got back from a fresh smoke break? Yum Yum smells pretty good.
The smoker never smells the stench of a fresh smoke break.

Have you ever smelled a fat nurse who can't reach under her folds to wash? Smells a hell of a lot worse.

jibeho

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:52 AM

link

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Jibho

Then use the 80s and the 90s as your control!

Tired of Control Freaks

That makes no sense!
We no longer live in the 80's or 90's. Our country will never look like that again.

concernedcitizan

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:53 AM

link

Bigger picture here I think. Back when civilization didn't exist, we roamed around as tribes in the wilderness. Threats lurked everywhere: dangerous animals, swamps, famines, diseases, enemy tribes etc. Today, compared to back then, we live extremely safe in our civilized societies, free from most of these problems - but our survival instincts are still there. Although we've come to distrust our intuitions, we still feel danger lurking behind us now and then. The Nanny State knows this and takes advantage of it to increase its power.

What happens when we put in place more regulations and laws, while our lifestyle becomes easier and safer? That's right: our ancient risk evaluation skills are being disrupted. Why? We no longer trust ourselves and our judgement, because we assume the Nanny will do the thinking for us. Why look up facts about alcohol and smoking when you can listen to the weekly health recommendations from the government? I like to think for myself and therefore I also like to check facts instead of blindly trusting the government.

jibeho

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:58 AM

link

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Have you ever been closely handled by a nurse who just got back from a fresh smoke break? Yum Yum smells pretty good.
The smoker never smells the stench of a fresh smoke break.

Have you ever smelled a fat nurse who can't reach under her folds to wash? Smells a hell of a lot worse.

Yes I have! I complained and got a different nurse. She smelled like bubblegum and strawberries. That is why most companies have strict hygiene policies. One difficult conversation with the odoriferous culprit and the problem is usually solved. I had to have that conversation with a guy who always smelled like mildew and a sour washcloth. It wasn't easy but he got the picture.

Detailed Perfection

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:21 PM

link

So when do they make the decision not to treat and/or admit smoking patients into the hospital due to 'health concerns for employees and other patients' ?

It's only a matter of time.

Nutter

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:21 PM

link

My main problem with this policy is that they are testing for nicotine. Not tobacco.

Meaning, someone who is actually trying to quit with the use of nicotine products also will not be hired even though they are not using tobacco.

And yes, I know several people who have been chewing the nicotine gum for years.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Nutter]

Edews

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:32 PM

link

Good, hopefully they'll ban smoking completely some day in the future.

2nd.

concernedcitizan

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:34 PM

link

reply to post by Edews

I'm sure we'll have to ban pets, stairs, cars, tobacco and kitchen knives soon, because they all cause harm to a lot of people who behave like idiots. A better way would of course be to let people take some individual responsibility and then face the consequences of their actions, to learn what works and what doesn't. But wait, that's offensive, because then who are we going to nanny to feel good? The public are the incentive behind nannying, because they cry out for safety. Don't listen to them, or you end up with a civilization in decline and crowdism as culture.

Zatiktoktal

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:09 PM

link

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
You know...it occurs to me that the hospital that implemented this policy is openly admitting that they do not hire according to qualifications. That they will reject better qualified candidates just because they smoke.

The hospital is saying that it is more employee to "project an image" than it is for that employee to actually be competent.

Would this hospital ever do things like send you home with an infection instead of treating you and admitting that you got the infection while in hospital?

After all, I am sure that patients with infections that they got in hospital also "don't fit the image".

I am sure others can think of more examples of where perhaps this hospital's concern with "projecting an image" may say more about the hospital than it does about smokers.

Would you trust these people with your life?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Given the choice I don't think anyone would choose an incompetent, but smoke-free, hospital staff over a smoking competent one. Of course, we don't get to make that choice. Qualifications don't matter anymore, you must fit a quote and an ideal.

SuperSlovak

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 07:36 PM

link

Why would anyone want to hire a smoker anyway? They always stink like cigarrettes, they take extra long smoke breaks, and they leave their cigarrette butts all over the place.

All smokers do is cost the company more money to operate.

dereks

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 07:43 PM

link

Originally posted by bkaust
why, because as a non-smoker i found it extremley unfair to have to be the one to hold up the shop while my co-workers went on 5-10 minute breaks together to have a fag about once an hour. When i would only get my one 10min break and lunch for a whole shift - it was enough to get me to want to take it up just for the free break!

You should have done what a bunch of us did - when the smokers got up to go and have a smoke all the non smokers also got up and followed them. The boss raced out of his office to see what was going on, and we told him we were going for a smoke. That practice was very quickly stopped, and the smokers could only smoke during their breaks!

At my fiance's work they have problems with a couple of smokers who won't stop going out for breaks (we are talking about once-twice an hour) stopping production of picking and packing warehouse orders, causing pickups and deliveries to be late,

Just get the non smokers to follow them out!