.
SMOKERS TOLD NOT TO APPLY FOR JOBS
It’s technically discrimination, but more and more job ads are cropping up telling smokers they need not apply for work. And they’re not just jobs in the health industry, either. They’re for positions as receptionists, disability workers, drivers, personal trainers.
Acting Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner Karen Toohey said job advertisements must not discriminate.
“Stipulating smokers need not apply for a job may be against the law. Employers should not seek to exclude smokers from applying for a position, unless the need not to smoke is an inherent requirement of the role,” she said.
It’s led to arguments about smokers’ productivity in the workplace. So, where do you stand?
1. Tom Cruise is looking very … well, whatever that is. That and the pictures of the week:
Tom Cruise covered W Magazine with Edita Vilkeviciute and Abby Lee Kershaw. (Photoshopped image)
2. Australia’s oldest backpacker is 95. And he’s awesome. He’s been to 23 countries and 109 cities and started travelling on his own a decade ago after his wife died.
3. George Clooney is holding one of the biggets fundraisers ever for US President Barack Obama. It’s a dinner with the President at his own home, a list of Hollywood royalty and maybe … you. He sold raffle tickets for the final two spots at a few bucks a pop. The winners are announced today.
4. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott handed down his budget reply speech last night, saying the Government’s policy was about ‘class warfare’ and that it should be helping the country’s most vulnerable by making them self-reliant. One of his plans was to make every preschool-aged child learn a second language.
5. Mad Men actor Jon Hamm has given some hilarious (and at times useful) advice to girls who sent in questions. Here it is:
Comments
167 Comments so far
This is absolutely ridiculous!!!
YES of course it is discrimination.
The people that shout the loudest about smokers taking smoke breaks etc, are most likely the ones that will be chatting loudly with co workers in the office, taking millions of ‘coffee breaks’.
There are hundreds of things that are annoying at work people. Smoking is only one of them. Grow up
loading...
I’m a beauty therapist. We have one girl on our team who smokes and it’s a joke when she tries to cover it up. I’m sorry, but no amount of chewing gum, hand washing, deodorant, perfume etc can remove the odour. Non-smokers can pick it up a mile away. If it were up to me, smokers would be banned from working for our business. Nobody wants gross smokers’ hands on their face or body while having a beauty treatment. Yuck!!
loading...
I have smoked for years on & off & am always trying to quit.
People are always surprised to find out I smoke because I don’t smell like it. I always use chewing gum & don’t smoke in contained spaces like inside a car or building, I only smoke in the breaks we are LEGALLY entitled to take.
In the space of a single day I get to put up with bad breath in my face, bad BO & people disappearing for 10 mins at a time to chat with other workers while I take messages for them even though I’m not employed as the receptionist!
Face it some people are inconsiderate but it certainly is not just smokers, I can also bet the non smokers that think this is discrimination are decent human beings, the ones complaining well it’s called karma wait until they make a law against self centered a-holes!!
loading...
I’m confused by the defense of smokers saying non smokers stand around drinking coffee and chatting about non work related things. Using this as a defense for all the smoking breaks makes no sense, it’s like saying a smoker does not chat socially or drink coffee?! Throughout a work day I feel like I can assume everyone has moments of idle chatter but taking extra breaks to go out and smoke is above and beyond the decreased productivity of visiting a friend at their cubicle! I admire those smokers that say they only smoke on designated breaks but unfortunately I’ve never worked with smokers that considerate.
loading...
Ok, so still on the smoking thing. There seems to be two main themes in this thread which support employees deciding not to employ smokers because…well, because they smoke.
One is because of the reduced productivity allegedly caused by a smoker taking cigarette breaks throughout the day. This has nothing to do with the smoking, it has everything to do with an employee not performing at the capacity they are expected to (by fellow employees according to these comments- I haven’t seen any employers post about it on here). If an employee is ducking out for 5 minutes every hour to have a ciggarette, and hen taking a lunch break and arriving and leaving on time…then sure, it probably means they are not working the full hours they are paid for. But, two things- 1) how many people stand around chatting half the day, spend an hour on the phone to their husband/ wife/ brother/ friend/ parents etc, spend time using the internet for banking/ personal emails/ organising Friday night drinks wth the girls/ browsing Facebook, twitter, youtube, mamamia (lol) etc?; and 2) in my personal experience, alot of shit gets done while standing outside having a smoke with a colleague or dare I say it, your boss who also smokes!
I have been perpetually ‘giving up’, sometimes going for three months without a cigarette, and putting all the ‘why don’t you just not take it up again for the love of God?!’ thoughts running through your head aside- when I do go out for a cigarette, it is when I have something to read for work or when I am having a chat with the boss about a work related matter. I also get to work at 7.30am and leave about 5pm and well, what’s lunch except an Up n Go at my desk or outside the court house (yep, I’m an evil unhealthy lawyer who works for the government and gets paid for 7.5 hours a day- note I’m averaging 9.5 hours a day).
I can appreciate not every smoker does all of the above but that just proves my point- isn’t it about the person’s work ethic? Plenty of lazy non-smokers out there!
The second theme is the smell. I can certainly appreciate this complaint. I know it stinks and I know a smoker drags it back into the office for all the non-smokers to put up with. I hate it myself and if I wasn’t so flipping addicted I’d love to get rid of the smell. I carry with me at all times tic tacs, hand sanitizer and very light perfume (because let’s face it, overpowering perfume is not much better!). I’m in an office by myself and I take the walkway that goes past my bosses office and not past the lovely admin girsl who don’t smoke. I try hard not to expose anyone to the smell but I’m sure it’s not always successful. Anyway, the only real defence I have on this one is that not everyone in my office smells that awesome (one girl definitely uses some kind of raw egg product to wash her hair) and in terms of offensive personal qualities, I also have the pleasure of dealing with creepy (but also quite productive ad useful) Mr X who lurks in my doorway staring at me half the day whilst not actually saying anything.
In addition to all of this, I will say that all of this could be avoided if the Government would just grow some balls and make the shit illegal. People will still do it but they sure as hell won’t do it at work- people don’t smoke crack at work and let the smell waft all over the place. And you can definitely, legally, discriminate against drug addicts.
loading...
Whether or not employers should state a preference for a non smoker in the advertisement is debatable. But I’ve never worked with a smoker who didn’t reek of cigarette smoke after a smoke break, and I think an employer is entitled to choose someone who doesn’t smoke, just as they will choose someone who is presentable, has the right attitude and will fit with the business. They don’t need your permission as the prospective employee to have criteria for who they want in a particular role. It is up to them. If they overlook you for a job because you have a big tattoo or you’re a smoker or whatever, it is really their problem. Would you want to work for them? Also the employee has a choice in those things – smokers can quit. Last year an elderly neighbour with many health problems including anxiety, gave up smoking cold turkey from about 50 cigarettes a day. Yes he was addicted, in the worst chain smoking imminent death kind of way, but when his health was on the line he gave up. Because he had a choice. Everyone does.
Frankly I think if more people refuse to employ smokers, it is a good thing. More people can quit and we can move a step closer to banning cigarettes altogether. Of course after that we still need to tackle binge drinking…
loading...
And then nobody will be able to have any fun. Yippee! Ban it all!
Also, why should employers be the moral and health arbiters of the universe?
And employers DO have to prove that they’re employing within the boundaries of the law. They don’t need OUR permission – they need the govt’s permission.
loading...
how sad that to you, smoking and binge drinking represent what it means to have fun.
And actually, an employee or prospective employee has to prove that the employer is not hiring/sacking on discriminatory grounds, not the other way around. They may or may not be legally allowed to state a specific criteria like smoking in an advertisement or say it out loud, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t make judgements (right or wrong) about who is employed within a business daily and an employee wouldn’t be any the wiser. I never said they should be the moral and health arbiters of the universe either – you put those words in my mouth. I said that it is their business, they will choose the applicant who they feel fits the business best, and we will never stop them from doing that unless it can be proven they have discriminated on illegal grounds. Advertising for a non smoker may be wrong, but I’m sorry, smokers will need to deal with this because it is strongly indicating that employers increasingly are preferring to choose a non smoker and they will continue to do so whether they stipulate it as a criterion or not. Maybe smokers need to consider that as smoking becomes less socially acceptable, they might need to seriously thinking about quitting.
loading...
How sad that you want to ban things which represent someone else’s idea of fun, just because they aren’t yours!
And are you saying that you like the idea of employers being able to discriminate as long as there is no proof that they’ve done something wrong?
Because there are literally thousands of older workers out there, workers with disabilities or those who just look a bit ‘funny’ not getting jobs because the employer has judged them on a criteria other than their ability to perform in the role. The employer could quite easily just say that they didn’t ‘fit’ with the company, and discrimination continues unabated and encouraged by people who take your position.
And in the end, why should we live every part of our lives according to what’s socially acceptable? Do you bow to peer pressure in all of your life decisions?
loading...
And just for your information, I am a non-smoker of 7 years and haven’t binged on alcohol for at least 5 years.
I simply support others’ rights to enjoy themselves in ways they see fit which don’t cause harm to others.
And before you stary on passive smoking and violence associated with binge drinking (or most other negatives of the above) – remember that it is not the smoking or the drinking which are the problem, but the circumstances of the smoking, or the violence. If you’re going to ban everything that might hurt somebody rather than simply regulating the behaviour around it, you need to ban cars as well.
loading...
“remember that it is not the smoking or the drinking which are the problem, but the circumstances of the smoking, or the violence”
That is a joke right? Passive smoking IS a public health risk, that is why smoking is banned in so many public places now. It has nothing to do with circumstances, thats BS. And binge drinking is the cause of a lot of violence – you won’t regulate violent behaviour effectively without changing the culture of binge drinking, and you are naive if you think otherwise.
I do not have to justify my opinion to you any further – if you don’t like it, bad luck. I’d prefer smoking to be illegal – it kills. I’d prefer to see the culture of (binge) drinking change for many reasons. That’s my opinion, and your carrying on like I am trying to ban fun is ridiculous and not going to change my mind.
loading...
If there is something I want (a career for example), and I need to change something that is socially unacceptable, then YES I will change it. I chose teaching, and that means my online presence has to be clean. I cannot have drunken photos all over facebook etc. Yes I have to regulate my behaviour somewhat, yes I would miss out certain teaching positions if I had a great big piercing through my nose or a large and visible tattoo. Smoking is not a stretch from this. I have no idea what your problem is, your attitude is a joke. I never said employers SHOULD discriminate, or that it is okay. I said in most cases, you wouldn’t know or prove it and that I have my doubts that stopping employers from stipulating that they want non smokers will actually stop them from choosing a non smoker over a smoker. If you can change your status as a smoker to avoid that, then why wouldn’t you? You can’t change a disability, but you can stop smoking.
loading...
“I never said employers SHOULD discriminate, or that it is okay.”
(Previously) “Frankly I think if more people refuse to employ smokers, it is a good thing”.
Perhaps if you don’t think employer discrimination is a good thing, you shouldn’t state as much in plain English?
And I don’t think you understood what I meant about the circumstnaces of smoking/drinking being the problem, not the behaviour. Smoking *in public* or *not in prescribed breaks* or *without due care to reduce the post cigarette smell* is the problem. What if a person smokes only at night or on weekends? Then obviously the smoking is not a problem at work … so why should the person be denied a job?
The same applies to binge drinking. There are plenty of people who binge drink without becoming violent. There are plenty who cause no trouble to you or anyone else whatsoever.
Just because you are happy not to smoke or binge drink, and just because you are happy to change important parts of your life for the sake of employment, doesn’t mean that it is a good blanket rule for the running of society.
I’d also think it preferable that people don’t smoke or binge drink to excess, but I don’t think it’s the government’s role to constantly be watching over us, telling us what we can and can’t do with substances which have been used in various ways for millenia.
And even if it is government’s role to limit access to some dangerous substances, it isn’t an employer’s role to do so. Refusing people work because they smoke is an enormously heavy handed measure and in most cases unrelated to their suitabiltiy for the job.
Love the “I’m having the last word and now I’m ignoring you” argument strategy too …
loading...
If someone only smokes at night or on the weekend then the employer is never going to know so they are not going to be denied a job are they? No smoker who smokes regularly during the day can take care enough of managing odor that someone wouldn’t know. They might think they are covering the smell up but they are not.
Re: binge drinking. You are just arguing with me for the sake of it. I said I’d like to see the CULTURE of binge drinking change. In my eyes it IS a problem in society, from the long term health effects to the violence it perpetuates. Just because you are happy to accept that not every binge drinker is violent, and so that makes binge drinking ok, it doesn’t mean I have to. Go and visit a home full of alcohol fueled violence and abuse where children are hospitalised or taken into foster care, or watch someone get beaten to death outside a nightclub and then tell me it wouldn’t be helpful to take steps to promote responsible use of alcohol.
Loads of people have fun and enjoy recreational drugs too… but funnily enough they also kill people and as such are illegal. I guess someone just wanted to be a killjoy in this instance too.
loading...
All the comments about smoking at work reducing productivity intrigue me. If someone is not being productive at work I’d suggest it says more about the person’s work ethic than their smoking. If you’re committed to your job you get your work done. There are plenty of people who are not productive because they spend time making personal calls, browsing non-work internet sites and just generally gossiping or wasting time trying to avoid doing the job. Refusing to hire someone because they are useless or unproductive seems reasonable. This is often determined by contacting a previous employer- not smelling the prospective employee!
loading...
Ditto Cigarette breaks.
Also, howz about monitoring the workers who enter, return to or leave the workplace with alcohol in their system – perhaps, for example, after a jolly lunch washed down with a chardy or two?
As a considerate worker, I could sneak down a dark alley; wander through a park at break-time to have a puff; save a smoke-hit for when I get home – and not affect a single other person’s wellbeing on the road, in the workplace, tangle with machinery and so on………
Food for thought perhaps for the smokers-bashers????
So perhaps a deal breaker for a future employer to consider is discovering that a potential employee (or an open law binding pledge in a job interview) enjoys a tipple or two or three or….stuff it…can’t live without it.
loading...
When i smoked regularly i only ever smoked during my breaks because i was usually the only one working at the time and i wasn’t allowed to close the doors. now that i’m in an office i used to go for a smoke once during my morning break and once during my lunch break. I don’t think it’s fair for me to take an extra break when no one else around me is.
At my work you can go down as often as you like and most only go once (excluding their two breaks). Most don’t flaunt it and the funny thing is that people who always complain about the smokers are the ones who are in the kitchen having coffee/tea breaks every hour for 10 – 15 minutes. Alot of the smokers at my work are quite considerate and try their best to mask the smoke smell and also have mints or chewy after every cigarette so you can’t even tell.
loading...
You might think people can’t tell. Trust me, we can.
loading...
Anyone still deluded about the caliber of this Government should listen the Ms Gillard’s Henry Higgins and his abuse and bullying of a journalist who dared to investigate and not stick to the cheat sheet.
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=12733
loading...
Well if the job is an agency that advocates quitting like ‘Quit’ or ‘Quitline’ then I think it is reasonable. Otherwise it is discrimination.
I worked for a place where there was a no smoking policy, a health agency so it looked particularly hypocritical. People still smoked but they weren’t allowed to leave the office multiple times a day to do so and it couldn’t be on the same ‘block’ as the office building. I don’t smoke, I can’t stand the smell and I hate when others take multiple breaks throughout the day to do so, but if that is managed (like they don’t add up to more than a regular lunch break and they don’t take lunch) and doesn’t directly contravene the objectives of the organisation then there shouldn’t be discrimination there.
loading...
Lets ensure English is taught properly and that our kids can write and speak it well first before we start teaching other languages. I’m horrified by the way some people speak English.
As long as smokers only smoke at lunchtime thats fine. When I was working at any given time of the day half the office would be missing because they were ‘getting coffee’….which was actually code for smoking. Non smokers didnt have the luxury of disappearing 4 or 5 times each day for up to 10 minutes at a time so I do see how it can upset people.
loading...
That would be “let’s”, not “lets”. Two different words. That’s also has an apostrophe. I guess you proved your point.
loading...
Emily Blunt looked fabulous, but man, there are some ugly fluffy and hooker dresses in that lot.
Tom Cruise, eeewww creepy.
I think if you smoke during your entitled breaks at work only, it’s nobody else’s business.
The backpacker is awesome!
A preschool aged child needs to learn to write and spell their own language first, sure they can learn about other cultures and a few phrases.
I adore Jon Hamm
and he’s 41 hmm.
loading...
Problem with the smell of smokers – what about the people who have horrible BO?
Problem with the breaks they take – what about the people who are constantly at someone else’s desk distracting them?
Problem with what they’re doing to their own health – what about people who drink alcohol in more than moderation?
Think smokers are selfish, inconsiderate and lacking in willpower? What about the people who have to make themselves appear superior to others for their self-esteem?
loading...
Thank you! I’m not a smoker and while I think some workers take advantage of smoking breaks, how many of us are guilty for playing on Facebook (or mammamia….) taking a long lunch break, taking an extra coffee break.
It’s discrimination and if we open the door to this, what will be the next thing?
loading...
The smoking thing doesn’t sound particularly legal, but some offices/workplaces (like mine) are very small confined environments.
when people return from their smoking breaks they stink like smoke.
which I hate.
So if I knew they were a smoker I wouldn’t employ them.
but I don’t know how you can find out if a person is a smoker or not before you hire them.
loading...
I can smell it on their clothes straight away. I think most non smokers who dont live with smokers can smell them a mile away too. They have that dirty ashtray smell.
loading...
If people are made sick by breathing in the chemicals in cigarette smoke then why would they want to employ a smoker? It’s a health and safety issue if people are forced to put up with it. Just because someone smokes ‘outside’ does not mean they don’t drag it back in with them.
loading...
I’m reading a lot of comments along the line of “I would never hire a smoker”.
What if the smoker was aboriginal, or someone from a non-English speaking background, or a person with a disability or a woman….you know, someone who falls into the Federal governments guidelines of priority employment placement ?
loading...
None of those are a choice.. people choose to smoke. Is it fair if one worker took a 10 minute break every hour and others didn’t?
loading...
I personally don’t smoke, don’t like other people smoking nor the smell of a smoker.
But in my job we are free to pop out to grab a coffee every now and then, we can go and have a chat and a cup of tea in the office kitchen as often as we like, we make the occasional personal call or email form our desks and people regularly pop out of the office to run quick errands. This is all within reasonable limits but as long as the work gets done then nobody really minds if you’ve got your head down from 9-5 or if you take a few breaks throughout the day and work until 6 (or often much later).
If some people in my office choose to use their breaks to step outside and have a smoke then it really does not affect me at all. Yes, you can get a whiff of smoke every now and then, but it’s not constant and not so unbearable that I can’t live with it… I actually really hate the perfume the girl who sits next to me wears and I find the occasional time I smell that more distasteful than the smokers!
I also think we’re treading a fine line here… what if an ex-smoker resumes smoking after they get the job? What if you’re just a social smoker and you’re spotted having a smoke outside at a networking event? Is it ALL smokers who are banned or just smoking during office hours?
Having said that, it is a very unhealthy habit and so for jobs in the healthcare and fitness industries I guess a smoker might not really be the right cultural fit, but perhaps that can be decided on a case by case basis and not with a blanket ban?
loading...
I think the only legitimate reason employers can use for excluding smokers is if it directly relates to the position. With that in mind, I’m going to pedantically say that including “personal trainers” in the list of jobs supposedly outside of the health industry is inaccurate. Health includes fitness to some extent, so I think it’s fair for an employer looking for a PT to exclude smokers at their own discretion.
loading...
“. Tom Cruise is looking very … well, whatever that is. ” Ed Hardy.
As an ex-smoker, I don’t think they should say no smokers, but they should definitely stipulate that you can only smoke in the same breaks as everyone else. Or give everyone else a break on par with a smoke every hour or whatever.
TA has used the class warfare thing to stir the pot. The Coalition’s culture is to divide and make issues us and them and exaggerate and encourage that division, and this is no different.
loading...
How in heaven’s name did you come to the conclusion that it is the Coalition that is causing a class war??!
The ALP have been doing it for months. It’s their newest ‘only hope left’ to save their sorry hides.
The PM hit a new low the other day by declaring those on the North Shore to not be real families! Imagine if TA had something like that!!
Just for Ms Gillard’s information, I consider a married man with children, one who volunteers among the great unwashed, raises funds for charities and is an Aboriginal community worker, to be VERY much in touch with working families!!!
loading...
I didn’t actually say that. I said that they rely on manufacturing and then exaggerating divisions.
By using emotive terms like that, they are trying to get it happening and encourage it.
loading...
Well, it wasn’t TA implying that those from the North Shore aren’t real people or families from there don’t have real struggles. Being from the North Shore, and not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I found it quite an offensive fanning of the ‘class warfare’ flames.
But then, the PM can be excused for ignorance. Tony doesn’t even represent the North Shore – he represents the demilitarised zone between the Lower North Shore (Hockey country) and the Northern Beaches (Bronwyn’s vaunted eyrie).
loading...
I actually agreed with Julia on this one. She’s a little incorrect, as you pointed out, TA doesnt actually live on the North Shore, but just over the Roseville bridge, but its not that far away from it so the gist of her comments remain true. I grew up on the North Shore and live back in the area with my own family. Its a great area and a nice area for my kids to grow up in. Most of my friends have returned to the area with their own kids too.
But, I am forever hearing people moaning about having to cut back on spending and having to budget, and how the GFC has really hit them. Same people whose kids are all in private schools, buy new European cars, have expensive renovations to their homes and go skiing in America for the Christmas holidays. And maybe a trip to Bali mid year if they can get a good deal. And this is cutting back and doing it tough. I have no problem with people working hard and enjoying their success but its insulting to people who genuinely struggle when this is how some North Shore folk live while claiming they have a clue about real financial hardships.
loading...
I’m trying hard to think of enclaves anywhere on the north side where people are truly doing it tough!
loading...
I guess there are different kinds of ‘tough”. I live on the north shore so that I can be close to my family.
I know plenty of single mums in this area who’ve had to pay out their ex-husbands to keep their homes and maintain some normalcy for their kids when their relationships have broken down. Often they have huge mortgages and pretty low incomes because they’ve taken time out to raise kids. It’s tough being a single parent no matter where you live. There are also lots of older people who are asset rich but cash poor.
I know it’s all relative and there are billions of people in the world who are worse off but just because someone has an expensive house it doesn’t mean they have an easy life.
loading...
They *could* move somewhere cheaper and flog their house with the huge paper value, buying a new place outright though, right?
Wanting to stay there and “struggling” is a choice rather than truly struggling.
loading...
I tend to think that employers are over-stepping with the no smoking requirement. However I don’t think it’s unreasonable for employers to require staff not to disappear outside for 5-10 minutes an hour (I have worked with smokers like that). It’s also not unreasonable to ask smokers to manage their personal odour somehow. I am pretty confident that smokers can have no idea how they smell to non-smokers. It’s a bit like the BO/bad breath situation – you’d rather know if it was you right? But being told is excruciating.
loading...
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t it be discriminatory to ask someone whether or not they smoke at the interview stage?
I wasted heaps of time and money smoking for 35 years. I gave up with the help of Champix. I really understand the anger of non smokers about people leaving their work to smoke during the day, but I always seem to have had jobs where you could only smoke during break.
Someone I know works in an office where the boss is giving out free gym memberships to people who don’t smoke or who give it up.
The thing that really helped me give it up was thinking of things I wanted in terms of packets of cigarettes. e.g. those shoes cost 6 packets of smokes. I had a picture of a beautiful pair of shoes on the fridge to remind me.
I am buying a new small car at the moment, the cost is almost exactly that which I used to spend on cigarettes weekly.
loading...
Good on you Vanessa. Shoes over smoking any day.
loading...
Same, I never had a job where I could just walk out for a smoke. We had breaks that everyone had and they were the only times you could walk out.
loading...
It’s always made me angry that there is so little support given to mothers in the workplace if they’re looking for flexible work hours, or the time and space to express milk for their babies, for example, and yet smokers can seemingly take cigarette breaks whenever they feel like it (certainly that’s been the case in every place I’ve ever worked).
I wouldn’t hire a smoker, not just because I think it’s a disgusting, filthy habit and that there’s nothing worse than the lingering smell of second-hand cigarette smoke, but because, rightly or wrongly, I would probably judge a smoker as being pretty selfish, inconsiderate and lacking in willpower and determination – not qualities I’d be looking for in a potential employee in any field of work.
loading...
I’m afraid your comment came across as judgemental and as someone who feels superior to some others. Probably not the greatest qualities either.
loading...
I make no apologies for the fact that I judge smokers. It is an incredibly selfish habit. I know children who are growing up in smoking households and whose mothers smoked during pregnancy, and in some cases, the effects this is having on the children are already evident. One of my parent’s friends was diagnosed with inoperable lug cancer last week – he’s never smoked a cigarette in his life, but worked for a number of years in bars where he was surrounded by second-hand smoke. Yes, I struggle to understand how people can continue to smoke when they are fully aware of the effect it is having not only on their health, but on the health of others, especially when there is so much help available to quit.
loading...
I am no fan of smoking but I think you miss the obvious Siobhan that no adult over 25 is smoking because they think it’s cool or whatever. It is a seriously difficult addiction to overcome and some people have brains that make it it even more difficult to overcome. A bit more compassion while you make your judgement would be nice. There might be some things in your life you are selfish about, and finding hard to change too. That’s certainly the case for non-smoking me.
loading...
You have the right to your opinion, just as I have the right to disagree with you.
I’m an ex smoker of 18 years and still remember how difficult it was to finally quit. All the help in the world can be there and in the end it’s still up to you. Am I correct in assuming you’re a non smoker? Ask some smokers you know how they feel about smoking. Maybe you’ll get bait more insight.
loading...
Yes, I’m a non-smoker, and have never smoked, but I do have family and friends who smoke, and I’ve got to say that most of them have a bit of a f**k you attitude to non-smokers (‘It’s my right to smoke’, ‘It’s nobody else’s business if I want to smoke’ etc.). Some have tried many times to quit and others have no apparent desire to quit at all. I understand that it’s a very addictive habit, but given how it affects not just your own health but the health of everyone around you, my understanding of and compassion for smokers is pretty limited.
loading...
yes thats quite clear
loading...
Im not a smoker but your attitude is so hard and judgy I would prefer to work with a smoker who’s popping out for a ciggie than with someone who talks like you do. Perhaps you could try to find a little kindness. As a previous poster said, there are very few smokers who actually like being tied down to smoking.
loading...
Wil Anderson just tweeted this: “Kids to learn second language under Abbott. Will be able to tell people to go back to where they came from in their native tongue.” Ha!
loading...
Hah! Love Wil.
loading...
Tony Abbott has never told people to ‘go back to where they came from.’
Ignorant Will might like to remember that it was Tony Abbott who refused to endorse Gillard’s Malaysian debacle that would have handed over women and children to the threat of rape and slavery.
Like the majority of Australians, he is against the people smuggling trade and the risk of drowning that has caused hundreds of deaths under the Rudd/Gillard government’s watch.
If you’re happy to spend billions promoting an industry that kills innocent women and children who have had the resources to take the risk while others with nothing languish in camps then I think you need to have a good look at yourselves.
loading...
“Tony Abbott has never told people to ‘go back to where they came from.’”
So it was somebody else whose mantra was ‘turn back the boats’?
loading...
If that’s the case….then I’ll put “The Malaysian Solution” into the same basket.
loading...
His slogan was “stop the boats” if people are being pedantic. Same thing really.
loading...
Actually during the last election campaign mr Abbott stated that he would give permission to the captain of whichever naval vessel to turn (seaworthy) boats around and send them back.
loading...
OK, then we have two choices. Either send people to Malaysia or open ourselves to as many as can get here without drowning.
17000 have already arrived by boat in 4 years, mostly single Muslim men.
Tell me what to tell my single parent friend whose 18 year old daughter was followed in her car and nearly cornered in a carpark by two carloads of men with no respect for Australian women. Tell me what to say to my service station operator who spat abuse at me for buying the Women’s Weekly!!
My parents fled religious abuse and came to Australia only to have it follow them here.
loading...
Oh my goodness ! How dare you judge ALL refugees by 2 bad experiences you/your friends have had. Do you even know that these people were refugees? They were most likely legal immigrants who came by plane! Why judge ALL refugees and ALL muslim men by a few bad individuals?
loading...
How do you know they were refugees, for a start? I’d tell you to say “That’s a really horrible thing that happened to your daughter, I hope she’s not too freaked out by it”.
To the servo operatior, say “Ok, I will take my business elsewhere if you don’t like what you sell to me”
If your parents fled religious abuse, wouldn’t that make them, um, refugees?
loading...
Will just went down 100% in my estimation.
He thinks that he’s funny. He isn’t.
loading...
No trust me – he is
loading...
No. Sorry. He isn’t !
loading...
He isn’t funny *for you*. For. You.
loading...
You know what’s funny? Abbott’s mob cancelled Labor’s National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools funding in 2002 because it would decrease social cohesion.
Well, actually, that’s not funny at all. Just a decade lost.
Liberals. Education policy. That’s the joke.
loading...
Go Wil! Love it !
loading...
I don’t know how I feel about the second language in pre-school thing. I learnt French in primary and secondary school and I loved it, and can still understand it and speak well enough to get my point across (wish I’d continued it in uni though). I think everyone should have the opportunity to learn another language. But at pre-school? I’m not so sure.
Key ingredients for early child development are structured and unstructured play – something that pre-schools etc facilitate so well. I guess my question is “how much” of this second language are we going to teach the kids? They’re still learning the English alphabet, and still trying to conjugate basic past tenses and sort out plurals (heard kids say things like “mouses” and “I felled over” ? All perfectly normal as they learn the rules of the English language). A second language could be very difficult and could take up time that should really be used in play-learning.
Before anyone mentions it, I know there are stacks of kids that grow up bilingual. I think that’s very different. Those (lucky) kids have an “expert” (parent/grandparent/whomever) speaking that second language to them, correcting words and pronounciation etc. Are we going to expect child care workers, with all that they already do for such little money, to fully learn a new language so they can do the same as a bilingual parent?
On the other hand, if all the kids are doing is learning to count to 10 and say hello and goodbye, then they can learn this from Sesame Street, or through songs and nursery rhymes. Remember learning Frère Jacques in pre/primary school? I bet most kids didn’t know what the words meant, it was just a fun song. And in that case, it’s not actually teaching them another language.
Wow that was a long response. I guess in writing all this, I’ve realised that my POV is that if you’re going to teach a second language, teach it properly – which means training staff (and paying them accordingly). Otherwise it’s basically learning fun songs, nothing more.
loading...
I think you’ll find that TA meant that pre-schoolers should be “exposed” to second languages at pre-school which may encourage them to continue through primary and secondary. And the class warfare thing with JG is obviously a deliberate tactic as she used it in numerous interviews yesterday. I find it offensive and disappointing.
loading...
How would the ‘exposure’ work if not through teaching?
loading...
Angry, dismayed, disappointed.
Tony Abbott’s reply budget speech is the worst I have ever heard. The reasons are too numerous to list but class war? my a*se. Students learn more Asian languages? Rightio, that has been my top priority for the country for a millisecond. The business community not to get their tax break? TA’s party (with the Greens) wouldn’t vote it through anyway. Oh my goodness, the list just goes on and on…
Why do politicians take us for such fools?
In my humble opinion, this budget has some real positives in it. But no one in the opposition, especially TA, would know how to find them.
Glad I got that off my chest.
loading...
I couldn’t disagree more. I thought Tony Abbott made a magnificent speech. If you are one of the 27% who can find something positive to say about the Gillard Government then I’d love to know how you do it because I loathe them with a vengeance and cannot wait till we’re free of them once and for all.
loading...
Ha! Magnificent?! Not so much.
loading...
I can find something positive to say about the budget because I can think with my own brain and not fall into line with some popularity poll that says only 27% of people like the budget.
Both TA and JG annoy me but to loathe a politician with a vengeance and want to get rid of them on that basis alone without rationally dissecting their budgets and speeches is naive and cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I guess you’re right, Steph, when you say you don’t know how I do it. This is how I do it: I would be looking for more than a poll figure of 27% to help me decide whether the budget was intelligent, equitable and committed to dealing with real issues we face.
loading...
I think second languages are a fantastic idea, I wish I spoke one! I’m currently studying on exchange in the US and cannot get over how common it seems to be here and pretty much everywhere else in the world. There is 5 aussies here- none of us speak anything other than English.
In comparison, i’ve yet to meet a European with less than 2, with the record at the moment being held by a Spaniard who speaks 5 (at the ripe old age of 20). Speaking with the people here from all over the world, it makes the Australian education system seem behind the times- a second or third language for them was just a reality of schooling. They all agree it helps them with their memory and comprehension beyond simply acquiring a new language.
Most Americans I have met also speak another language, so we really have no excuse… first thing I’m doing when I get home is enrolling in Spanish lessons!
loading...
I get what you mean, and I think the Euro model of learning many languages is fantastic. I did a student exchange in France and stayed with a family, went to school with the kids etc. All the kids studied French, English and at least one other language, even the kids in the Science stream. But they didn’t learn other languages in pre-school. In primary school, yes. Very structured lessons with formal grammar, spelling tests etc – just the same as their French classes (or our English classes). Pre-school had slightly more formal styles of teaching French but didn’t teach other languages. While I think it would be great to adopt the European philosophy of speaking multiple languages, I think it requires formal, structured teaching which is more suited to primary school and beyond.
loading...
I completely get what you’re saying- I’m all for keeping it for primary school. Where I went to school, we had a once weekly Italian lesson. 8 years later, I couldn’t speak italian beyond hello and 1-10. Absolutely ludicrous! And in high school, languages were optional after year 8. Our graduating class had a total of 200- and amongst us there was 1 french student and 1 japanese student. If only I’d had a little more foresight and I would have chosen the classes, but they were optional- I think I chose cooking and textiles instead!
I was more making a comment on the lack of emphasis on language in my experience of Australian education. I think everyone is a little comfortable speaking a hegemonic language and is forgetting the benefits!
loading...
The thing is that it’s best to at least introduce a second language to a child when they’re around two or three years of age, as that’s when their brains are most receptive to learning a second language. My three year old is at a preschool (which goes right up to Year 12) where every child takes a second language from preschool, and a third language in Year 7, so theoretically by the time they leave school they should be tri-lingual. My son’s only been learning Italian since February and already knows how to count in Italian, knows all of his colours, the days of the week, a few basic phrases and the words to a few songs – it’s been incredible to watch how quickly the kids pick language up at this age!
loading...
Agree re: kids ideal ages for learning languages- it’s amazing how quickly they grasp them, isn’t it! Hence if they’re going to learn a second language in pre-school, they need teachers that are almost fluent in the language to help them along. I just think that as that’s a fair bit of training for staff to undertake, it warrants higher wages and more resources (not that they don’t already deserve them). I wonder if TA has asked Treasury to cost this idea yet?
loading...
Yes, I absolutely agree with the points you’ve made. My son is taught by a native speaker and they teach immersion-style, which only someone very fluent in the language would be able to do. My son’s school has a very strong focus on languages, but of course it would take an enormous of organisation and money to make it happen in every school. While I love the idea, I’m sure Tony Abbott hasn’t had it costed or looked at how it could realistically be implemented. He’s the king of the grand but unrealistic promise…
loading...
I think Euro model for education in general is probably much better than here. I say that only because in year 11 and 12 our school had a lot of European exchange students – German, French, Italian, Spanish and Swiss. Every single one I spoke to found the work we were doing easy, they had covered it in earlier years of high school and found pace of learning generally very slow. Perhaps only advanced students came on exchange? I’m not sure, but I found they consistently commented on how little work we were given in class etc etc.
Bit off topic, sorry!
loading...
I think it is pointless to compare the euro model of education to ours too much. Europe has 47 countries clustered together that all speak different languages right on each others doorstep. English is their key to communicating in many other countries, and because they are close together there is more natural, authentic exposure to other languages. The exposure is only partly at school, much of it is at home and in the outside world.
Learning a second language is great for cognitive development in children but it is not a need. I personally think they do not need to learn at pre-school age. They still can hardly speak their first language at that age and the focus for kindy/pre-prep/preschool teachers needs to be on listening skills, developing self help and social skills (taking turns, cooperation, manners, dressing themselves, toileting themselves, tidying up after themselves), letter and number recognition. Sure, teaching them a few words in other languages is fun, but formal learning needs to be left for when they are at school.
loading...
Jon Hamm – “Don’t try to please guys. It’s like trying to please girls. It’s impossible”
Gold.
loading...
I used to work in an office where those smokers among us, me included, would take smoke breaks. I’m talking five minute breaks, not fifteen. Yeah, sure, we were away from our desks at the time. But then the non-smoking staff thought nothing of standing in the kitchen gossiping for fifteen minutes at a time, or at each other’s desks chatting away about non-work stuff. they spent as much time every day ‘not doing work’ as we did. The smokers usually talked work however, and often we’d come up with a problem-solving idea over a smoke as we chatted to each other. I’ve had some of my best ideas over a smoke break. I can’t think when I’m crammed into an office space with other people chattering around me. Everyone’s different I guess.
loading...
I’m a non-smoker now, but I have to acknowledge that in the early years of my career, I actually progressed and got promotions because of smoke breaks where I would meet other smokers who were higher up in the company. That was 10 years ago, and now its very different for me… now I’m talking about my toddler to the owner of my company who has kids also. I think its about finding a common ground.
In my current company almost no-one smokes and we all have the same kind of gatherings around the coffee machine. It really depends on your workplace. But I totally get where you’re coming from… in the past I actually went back to smoking a number of times in order to brainstorm with the head honchos. I’m grateful I don’t work in that kind of environment anymore… now I supervise staff, two who smoke and I don’t take issue with it, if they do their job I’m happy. But they look anxious when I walk past and they are smoking, and launch into what they are doing that day. I’m fully aware that everyone needs a few minutes away from their desk every hour, and I don’t mind if you use it to smoke, gossip, or have a nap on your table!
loading...
I think its brilliant that people are asking for non-smokers. If I went outside as often as the smokers do for a 5 min break I I would never get any work done!!
loading...
I cannot stand working with smokers, I can get over the smell but what drives me insane is the breaks. If they have 4 ciggies a day at 15mins a go thats an extra hour of work I’m doing. I work in a busy office and its pretty bloody easy for a smoker to slip out unnoticed.
I’m with the advertisers, I would not hire a smoker
loading...
While I think that the idea of teaching children a second language preschool is a good one in theory, I just have doubts about whether or not this is something we want in our preschools.
My son goes to preschool five days a fortnight – 3 days one week, 2 days the next. There is so much for the teachers to fit into that amount of time to simply develop basic school readiness that I wonder when they are supposed to fit another learning element in. I would not be happy if there were to be less ‘play time’ or unstructured activity time at preschool, because hey, these are four year olds (generally) and play time is so important at that age.
Also, my son’s teachers are wonderful women and have a way with children that is beyond me. My son had never been in daycare prior to preschool, so it was a big change for him, and they have been so supportive and he loves them. They, however, do not speak another language and I wonder if it is fair to expect them to take on this extra challenge. If the alternative is to provide extra support in the form of another teacher, I would honestly prefer that the preschool be given more resources for what they already have to teach.
I have a cousin who lives in a different city and is a single mother. They live in an area where there are lots of struggling families and would be considered to be a lower socio-economic area. Her little boy attended the local public preschool and parents were often asked to bring in supplies of paints, glue and various other things as they struggled to receive funding for more than just the most basic of supplies.
So, Tony Abbott, I say let’s fix the system we have and ensure that every preschool is equally supported, funded, staffed and supplied. Then let’s talk about a second language for preschoolers
loading...
I love the idea of having children learn a second language. It might help them with their pronounciation of the English language when they get to High School.
loading...
How is not employing a smoker discrimination? Same as not sending kids home who are sick with hand foot and mouth etc? I always thought that you couldnt discriminate based on the following: age,sex,religion,carers responsibilities, disability. So i am not sure how this works…
can any legal eagles in the wings explain it a little better?
I think i have a reasonable laymans grasp on EEO, such as seniority is indirect discrimination based on age, eg if people are losing jobs, and seniority is a criteria, then simply by being younger you cannot have the same years of service as an older person, so this is indirectly discrimination due to age….if someone wanted to challenge the old ‘last in first out” concept ingrained into alot of workplaces..
am genuinely interested….
loading...
As smoking is an addiction one could argue that they are being discriminated against due to a mental health status.
loading...
I do like your thinking, but I dont think that would hold up.
It would be like saying a person who needs medical marijuana, or is addicted to painkillers etc has those same rights to the employment compared to someone without the addiction. Off the top of my head, that would be my first counter argument.
Personally, im not on either side of the fence – i dont smoke. I currently work in a smoke free office/company, but I have worked in the past with people who only smoked before work, at lunch, and after work, and therefore there was no impact to productivity as a result of the addiction.
loading...
Discrimination is a tricky subject, but as said below, the issues with discrimination are usually from things that are natural in a human being. Discrimination is evident if you miss out because you are of colour, are LGBT, are a woman, are ‘middle aged’ etc. The clincher is that for most of these things, they wouldnt affect a persons capacity to work, and they wouldnt negatively affect the other employees.
In contrast, smoking is often held in the same light as the people who make ‘personal decisions’ which set them apart from the norm. if you front up for a job as a receptionist, and you have pink/blue/green hair, you might miss out on that basis – because you ‘chose’ to dye your hair. Recruiters see smoking as a choice (one which a willing person could go without), and that smoking might affect asthmatic colleagues, it might affect clients, it might effect productivity, and it might fly in the face of company image.
I dont think recruiters or employers would struggle to justify this legally if challenged.
loading...
Interesting to think about this same argument in light of facebook and other social media forums and employers using them as a recruitment tool. Does this become about personal judgment of the recruiter, or culture of the company, and if so could be argued that the potential employee has not had EEO principles applied to their application.
loading...
I agree with what you are saying. Although I think the justification that recruiters use (im not one, but i know several) is that the people in question essentially create that issue themselves by having an ‘unfavourable’ online presence.
I have said it before on another post, i keep my online presence clean, but my problem is there is a girl with the same name, similar age, in my city, with a wild partying profile. That might turn out to be unfair to me.
Either way, the average joe might not necessarily ‘win’.
loading...
If this becomes ok, then discriminating against people on the basis of weight is probably next. Will that be ok? Quite often being overweight is a choice too. Right?
I read on medscape that a hospital in Texas has just started refusing to hire those whose BMI is over 35. So don’t think it couldn’t happen.
loading...
I think it might be a stretch (Texas does have its differences with the rest of the world).
Smoking on the job affects your productivity directly IF you are ducking out in work hours to smoke.
Smokers can sometimes smelll of smoke enough to trigger problems for asthmatics. That asthmatic might be a colleague or a customer.
Being obese doesnt have these external issues. A recruiter or employer would likely rely on these issues if challenged on their decision to not employ smokers.
loading...
You’re right about the asthma thing. I get wheezy from smokers sitting next to me. I had a friend come over and get cranky when I said no smoking on the balcony. Why as a pregnant asthmatic should I make allowances for your dirty habit in my space?
loading...
I’ve worked with obese nurses and some of them struggled to lift (before no lift policies), could not run down a corridor in an emergency and were humiliated by not having the standard range of uniforms fit them (not external I know, but still).
I still think its the thin edge of the wedge.
loading...
How times have changed. Around 1980, I worked in the CBA and we all used to smoke as we worked! The branch was full of smoke and no-one thought anything of it.
loading...
And aeroplanes? Lol
I think this is what we call progress!
loading...
Well I guess if I were you I would have some serious concerns about my lungs in the future … you probably already have a degree of lung disease (diagnosed or not)
loading...
And cinemas and theatres.
And doctors’ surgeries – all doctors seemed to smoke, and there was always an ashtray on their desk which they would push in your direction when you sat down opposite them.
Ahhh, the good ol’ days, eh?
loading...
Peter Mac cancer hospital in Melbourne has a smoke free policy for staff. If you are a smoker when you are hired you have to commit to a QUIT program.
I think this is not only perfectly reasonable but amazing ! How many people here are suffering from terrible cancers because they smoked (lung cancers is just 1 that smoking makes worse) how many visitors are distraught that there loved ones smoked themselves to an early death- how many people a day to we tell (beg!) to quit smoking how can we be taken seriously if we don’t commit
The point is smoking kills and it’s proven – why should people be allowed to bring a that too work – any body who works in health should be banned at lest in working hours / around the hospital BUT also anybody who works with children and anyone who works with someone who has loved ones – ie passive smoking kills – so get that proven carcinogen out of my face and out of my workplace and out of my life
Some places have rules : hair up , uniform , no being drunk , be courteous to it her employees etc not endangering your co workers should be a no brainer
loading...
It’s an interesting idea. Do you know what they do if the employee completes the QUIT program and then lapses and starts smoking again?
loading...
Makes them enroll again
You have to be actively trying to quit
loading...
Great workplace health & well being program, I am apprehensive in relation to these policies due to the fact that people write policy, and personal judgment and bias can exist. What happens when a company creates policy in relation to people being overweight or diabetic(and don’t manage their condition well). EEO principles where created in the first place to remove bias and judgment
loading...
You do raise a very logical point anon.
I dislike slippery slope arguments as a general rule because they can be used for such crap (sex with ducks anyone?) however your points are fair
I guess the argument would be that you have to draw a line somewhere – and the line in a cancer hospital is carcinogens
A very interesting point though for me to ponder now over my coffee thankyou
loading...
In theory I like the idea of a second language for preschool kids but we live in a rural area and have trouble having our preschool staff keep up to date with the training and qualifications that they need. How would we ever attract a teacher that would be able to teach the children a second language? I’d imagine there were lots of preschools in rural and regional areas that would have the same issue.
loading...
Yep, our preschool is full- no three year old places, waiting list for four year olds and mostly kids going to school next year. I’d love my son to learn a language but he’d need to get into the preschool first. Can we fix access first?
loading...
Excellent point!
loading...
Australian importers of brands strike deals with brands to not sell to Australians online via Amazon and other sites.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/shopping/importers-close-door-on-overseas-online-stores-20120511-1yg3r.html
Importing from overseas is now a two-step process (ship to US address, have forwarded to Australia).
loading...
Very frustrating. I do wonder how it can be legal.
loading...
F*ckers.
loading...
That backpacker is the coolest.
loading...
Isn’t he great. I hope I can do the same thing at his age.
loading...
There was one point when I was working in an office and they were a group of about eight people who took regular ‘smoke breaks’ throughout the day. This left the remaining staff – about four of us in our team – to cover the phones and was just really disruptive. On top of this, these ‘smoke breaks’ sometimes totalled 45mins across the day, on top of lunch. A couple of people complained that it was getting out of control, but nothing was said or done about it because there were so many of them.
So, one week, every time the smokers went on one of their breaks the rest of the team would take a break too, diverting our phones to a different team.
By the end of the week, there were new rules in place about ‘smoke breaks’ – time restrictions, but also no more than two people at a time. That really changed things – the smokers still took breaks but for nowhere near as long or as often.
I can completely understand why employers would want to avoid smokers, it’s a productivity issue, but also, have you ever stood next to a smoker in a lift? Or in a meeting? It’s not much fun, and I can’t imagine it is the best representation for a company either.
loading...
Agreed! Lifts are the worst. I don’t think smokers realise how much they reek. I used to be a smoker and never thought you could smell it, now i realise how bad it is.
loading...
Sometimes the lift still smells even after the smoker has got out – I’ve got into empty lifts before, & it’s immediately obvious that the last person in it had come back from a smoke break because I can smell it.
loading...
I have to say, I love the idea of getting preschool children (those who are there) to learn a second language. Clever.
I learned more about the English language studying German for 10 years than I did in most of my English classes … everyone should do it.
loading...
I think the emphasis is on learning an Asian language. I do support the idea of second languages but I think a language like German is a hell of a lot easier (for an English speaker) than the Asian languages. They are so different: English vs. any Asian language, I’m not convinced that one would help with the other.
loading...
I’m not talking about the structure of the language. Learning any language is good for the brain and development. It forces kids to think about language generally and how we construct it. And Asian languages make sense for us where we’re located. If it were me I’d be learning Mandarin. And then one day Spanish and Arabic. The three fastest growing in the world.
loading...
And preschool is the best time to learn- it is easier to become flit. If they could link with the schools to continue the language, not switch to another language.
loading...
That’s been an issue for us. My husband is from Germany so my son was learning bits of German at home. Then in prep he started to learn Japanese and loved it, now we’ve switched schools and he’s at a school where they teach German from year 4 (he’s in year 2). Who knows what they will be teaching at the high school he’ll attend.
loading...
I agree. My Spanish teacher said it was frustrating teaching students what conjugating etc. was in a second language, when they didn’t know what it was in English.
loading...
My high-school French teacher said the same thing – “In order to teach my students French, I first have to teach them English”.
For me, taking french highlighted gaping holes in the English curriculum.
Also, when taking a language, you tend to learn a lot about the culture of that country too, which I think is more valuable than people give credit for.
loading...
Agree – you have to know your own language rules before you can even begin to translate into another language. If you didn’t know your English (if that is your “mother tongue”) before you started learning another language, you bloodywell will find out about it PDQ … as well as the language you are learning.
Win Win.
loading...
Lol…Jon Hamm, I love you!
loading...
I used to have to cover the phones whenever the receptionist went out for a smoke. About 6 times a day. I’ve got my own fucking job to do, I’m not there to do yours so you can fuck around outside.
loading...
I’ve never understood the reasoning behind forcing smokers to quit smoking. It’s their business, not yours. So if they want to smoke, let them, it’s their life. And it gets me really annoyed when the government becomes involved with all their stupid advertising.
loading...
But isn’t that a productivity issue not a smoking issue?
Agreed it is is really annoying but really no different to having to pick up the slack for someone who is incompetent, goes on 5 coffee runs a day or spends all day on their iphone….
loading...
At least the coffee drinkers don’t STINK
loading...
I think it would be their business though – if both me and you work for Company ABC and you’re a smoker taking a break for 10 minutes every 2 hours – that’s around 40 minutes – 1 hour of a day that you’re not working that I am.
loading...
Because they smoke around me. I don’t won’t to breathe it in thank you very much. The smell of someone who’s been smoking is enough to give me asthma. Because I work with stroke patients, many used to (some still do) smoke and it was a significant risk factor to them having a stroke. Because I’ve had a loved one die from lung cancer. THAT is why I, and many other people, and the government want others to stop smoking. Not to mention the smaller things, like Detachable Princess mentioned above, having to cover for other people at work why they go out to have a smoke. Is that enough reasons or shall I continue?
loading...
Me too, Anonymous. The girl that sits opposite me at work is a heavy smoker – at least one an hour. Every time she comes back from a cigarette break, I need to take my Ventolin inhaler because the smell is so strong that I immediately get wheezy and tight-chested. I believe that then IS my business. Why should my health be affected by someone else’s dirty habit?
That’s not to mention the fact that we do the same job and I don’t leave my desk for 5-10 minutes every hour…
loading...
I hate smokers who take more breaks than other employees. As a smoker I only smoke on designated breaks that everyone gets and then i make sure to be away from everyone else. I think it’s quite rude to my colleagues and to customers.
loading...
Why do you need a ventolin for a smell?
loading...
“…because the smell is so strong that I immediately get wheezy and tight-chested”
loading...
Yeah, I can read. I asked because I’ve never heard that just a smell could trigger an asthma attack. You could have answered with that rather than just copy/pasting.
loading...
Asthma attacks can be triggered by strong fumes and fragrances.
loading...
Wow! I thought that it would have to actually be in the air, like having them smoke near you, not just the smell of the smoke on someone after they’ve had one.
loading...
Kris, I guess it’s more the ‘fumes’ that the smell is coming from. That’s a pretty terrible explanation but if you’re not an asthma sufferer, it’s hard to explain – sorry! And I should note, this colleague is the only person I am ever affected by the ‘smell’ of cigarettes alone. I cannot be around people actually smoking but no one else sets off my asthma when they come back from a smoke. She is a heavy smoker, so perhaps uses much stronger cigarettes. I don’t know.
Other ‘smell’ triggers are spray deodorant (even if it’s right at the other end of the office) strongly scented flowers, strongly scented hand creams…
loading...
It’s called third-hand smoke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-hand_smoke
loading...
My grandmother died of lung cancer so I have never been a smoker and I think 2 of my friends are “social” smokers. I would get pissed too if smokers take “smokos” and it imposes a burden on the other workers. Having said that, an employer (like mine) can simply say no to smokos! An employee doesn’t have any right to leave their job and go and have a smoke if its not in their designated break. But I think its a hard call to talk about the smell at work. If this was the case bottles of deodorant should be made available to ALL employees and aftershave and perfume should be banned!!! This is often a lot worse that smoke!!
loading...
I agree they can do what they want – but I think there should be serious curbs on when and how they can let their habit affect others. e.g.
1. I HATE when some buildings (like Sydney airport) have smokers huddled directly outside doors so that you have to walk through a disgusting smoke trap to get in and out of the building.
2. I HATE when my children and I are walking behind smokers on our way to school. We have to cross the road or slow down to avoid them at least twice a day. It’s gross. These smokers walking along and not even thinking about how their disgusting habit is affecting those around them. You’re leaving a feral smoke track, and my son is asthmatic!
3. In apartment buildings – when smoke seeps out into common areas or floats onto others balconies – gross! It is unhealthy AND it smells disgusting and I am SO SICK OF IT!
Smokers get away from me!!!
loading...
How is every pre-school child going to learn a second language when not every pre-school child gets to go to pre-school?
loading...
It’s only discrimination if it’s something you have no control over. You can’t change being female. You can’t change being LGBT. You can’t change being of a certain ethnicity in appearance. But you can change being a smoker. It’s a choice
loading...
If only addiction was so easy as a choice, I have worked in all areas of health and there are more smokers than any other industry.
loading...
I agree….it isn’t as easy as saying smoking is a choice. We also need to remember that there is nothing about smoking that is illegal, and there is a wide spectrum of people who could be defined as ‘smokers’. If someone smokes in the evening or on weekends are they deemed acceptable as it isn’t occurring in the workplace? Or are they still undesirable because they are making a poor health choice?In that case, are you going to extend the exclusion of people making poor health choices to heavy drinkers and people who eat junk food?
I think employers have the right to maintain a smoke free work place, but if someone is making a personal choice that isn’t impacting on the health of anyone else in the workplace then can you really discriminate?
I just think it isn’t as black and white as making a choice not to smoke. Nor is it really an employers right to tell you what you can and can’t do in your personal time, regardless of how damaging it may be to your health.
loading...
Hit the nail on the head- it’s not illegal. It should be. It will never be because the tax revenue raised by it is significant. Given there is so much medical and scientific evidence of health issues associated with smoking, it’s incredible that it hasn’t been made illegal. Given the argument that smokers become a financial burden on the healh system eventually, it should be made illegal. Sure, people would still smoke the same as people still take drugs and committ crime…but it would be making a clear statement that the government not only agrees it is killing people, it doesn’t want to profit from this addiction. But it won’t be made illegal because it injects too much mony into our economy.
FYI I’m a smoker and I support making it illegal.
loading...
but what someone does in their own time is up to them.
I could understand if it said, ‘company policy states there is to be no smoking during work hours’
lots of people are ‘smokers’ but do not smoke in public or at work
loading...
I don’t know many smokers who would be able to go an entire work day without smoking. I have to agree with Jo. Smoking is a choice and it’s not fair on other staff who choose not to smoke to have someone less productive and coming in to work smelling like smoke. I can see that those people who see this as discrimination will start saying things like what about obese people. They choose to be big and how would they feel about missing out on employment. I think the thing about smoking that is unique is that not only can it potentially kill the smoker but it can also kill other people who choose not to smoke. I think an employer has an obligation to protect the welfare of staff and letting a smoker into a workplace can potentially harm those already working there.
loading...
I know lots of teachers
loading...
Smoking for some might be a choice, like drinking or having a joint once a year.
For most smokers it is not a choice it is an addiction.
The President of the USA is a smoker.
If companies ban smokers they could be missing out on the best person for the job, employment is on merit this is the basis of EEO principles.
loading...
Barack Obama is no longer a smoker
loading...
The President of the US is an ex-smoker, he too realized it was a bad choice for both his health and how it looks in his workplace!
loading...
Who else would you like to ban from the workplace? people that are over weight? older Australians? Parents? all these groups also contribute to loss of productivity, and look bad in some work places
loading...
What about the lifestyle choice to have children and the extra time away from the office both men and women take, should business be able to ban parents from the workforce?
As having children is truly a choice and not an addiction
loading...
Having children doesn’t harm others. Smoking does.
loading...
Having children harms us, over population of the planet, poor parenting, increase in taxes to pay parents to have more children, loss of productivity, the list goes on. The issues are not as clear cut as you think.
loading...
Having a baby/babies does harm others.
loading...
Having a child and taking up smoking are both choices. But a smoker can quit (yes, it’s hard, but has been done) while a parent generally can’t (however tempting it may be when grocery shopping with a two year old).
loading...
As an ex smoker I never smoked at work – ever. Didn’t matter what field I worked in it was something that I did at home not work so it can be done. And I did that for years and years.
loading...
As a smoker with a mild habit (4-5 a day) I go all day without one. And know a lot of people that do the same. I agree that is not fair to be able to take more breaks than the average worker. As long as you do it in your own time, I don’t know what the problem is?
loading...
surely it’s unfair to imply that every single smoker is unproductive. I know plenty of smokers who probably go out more often than is acceptable by others but still get everything done on time, whilst some non smokers fluff around, and procrastinate and don’t get things done in time. Being unproductive is a personality/character trait, it has nothing to do with whether you’re a smoker or not.
loading...
No, but every single smoker stinks, and the third-hand smoke on their hair and clothes represents a health risk to their co-workers.
loading...