A reason to be fired?
#21
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apparently he didnt look at the dictionary source...
anyway if there not smoking around other people and they dont have a real heavy smoking scent all the time, the company has no right to fire them.
anyway if there not smoking around other people and they dont have a real heavy smoking scent all the time, the company has no right to fire them.
#22
Originally Posted by dblack1
apparently he didnt look at the dictionary source...
anyway if there not smoking around other people and they dont have a real heavy smoking scent all the time, the company has no right to fire them.
anyway if there not smoking around other people and they dont have a real heavy smoking scent all the time, the company has no right to fire them.
#23
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jim W
How bout productivity?. Now that people need to go outside for a smoking break, they expect to get paid for it. Now in my office, coffee breaks and smoke breaks are paid. Add it up though. An office of 1000 employees and 35% smoke, thats 350 people taking 5-10 mins, 3-5 times a work day. That adds up to a tremendous amount of production hours lost each day.
Its up to the discretion of the employer. If the government can outlaw smoking in public places an employer has every right to outlaw smoking on their premises. Or you lose your job.
Its up to the discretion of the employer. If the government can outlaw smoking in public places an employer has every right to outlaw smoking on their premises. Or you lose your job.
#24
Senior Member
Expert Gearhead
A policy change like that must be driven by economics, you can drink coffee at your desk etc, you cant smoke at your desk.
Corporations care more about bottom line, I believe that is the issue when considering firing staff if they smoke, or considering it.
Corporations care more about bottom line, I believe that is the issue when considering firing staff if they smoke, or considering it.
#25
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Originally Posted by 94 SSE with Sizzle
I don't think the real issue is smoking on the job, it'* wether you have the right to smoke, PERIOD, and at your home. No place of employment should have the right to tell ANYONE what they do in the privacy of their own home.
Of course this practice would get out of hand if *everything* was prohibited all the time; but we're only talking about smoking, which has no healthy or pleasant side effects AFAIK (other than a temporary nicotine high, which could be argued is pleasant for the user).
#26
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
My coworkers/subordinates would say smoking has a pleasant aspect. I'm much less likely to kill them if I get to take a break and grab a smoke...
And, Jim, since you mentioned paying smokers for taking thier breaks, the company also pays the people that use thier breaks to grab coffee/tea/pop/water/whatever, or just to get away from thier desk/work area.
My two, legally required, 15 minue paid breaks per day include my travel time to and from the smoking area (way back by the back door, which only makes sense), just the same as people who only travel to the break room for a drink/snack or the ones that go to the lounge to watch TV. I don't see how me grabbing a smoke costs the comapny any more than a non smoker.
BUT, the basic issue is still - How can a company get away with telling me what LEGAL activities I can or cannot do on my own time and at my own home?
Heck, I worked at a company that said "No smoking on the grounds." So, we all walked across the street. Problem solved. Was still on time getting back from break, just had to smoke that much faster...
And, Jim, since you mentioned paying smokers for taking thier breaks, the company also pays the people that use thier breaks to grab coffee/tea/pop/water/whatever, or just to get away from thier desk/work area.
My two, legally required, 15 minue paid breaks per day include my travel time to and from the smoking area (way back by the back door, which only makes sense), just the same as people who only travel to the break room for a drink/snack or the ones that go to the lounge to watch TV. I don't see how me grabbing a smoke costs the comapny any more than a non smoker.
BUT, the basic issue is still - How can a company get away with telling me what LEGAL activities I can or cannot do on my own time and at my own home?
Heck, I worked at a company that said "No smoking on the grounds." So, we all walked across the street. Problem solved. Was still on time getting back from break, just had to smoke that much faster...
#27
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Originally Posted by MOS95B
BUT, the basic issue is still - How can a company get away with telling me what LEGAL activities I can or cannot do on my own time and at my own home?
#28
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Okay, I finally got around to reading the article. The initial post on this is kind of misleading. They aren't firing smokers, they are just not hiring them...
That makes it entirely different. If part of your job interview says "We don't hire smokers" and you lie about it, then if you lose your job it'* because yer a dumass. Not because the company is discriminating (or whatever you wanna call it)
If you smoke, don't even think about applying for a full-time job at Kalamazoo Valley Community College. The new policy went into effect at the beginning of the year. The college will no longer hire into full-time positions individuals who use tobacco products.
Full time employees at KVCC before the policy was implemented are not affected, but the college will be offering smoking cessation programs. The policy also says that part-time employees who use tobacco products can not be promoted to full-time until they kick the habit.
Full time employees at KVCC before the policy was implemented are not affected, but the college will be offering smoking cessation programs. The policy also says that part-time employees who use tobacco products can not be promoted to full-time until they kick the habit.
#29
This will only fly in this economy.
In an employer driven economy, such as we're in now, employers have the liberty to set these ridiculous guidelines. If this were in the 90s when employees were harder to come by and turnover was much higher, KVCC could never get away this and expect to remain competative. Employees wouldn't even bother applying or just quit and go somewhere else. Even those who don't smoke and feel strongly against the policy would be hard to attract.
In an employer driven economy, such as we're in now, employers have the liberty to set these ridiculous guidelines. If this were in the 90s when employees were harder to come by and turnover was much higher, KVCC could never get away this and expect to remain competative. Employees wouldn't even bother applying or just quit and go somewhere else. Even those who don't smoke and feel strongly against the policy would be hard to attract.