Smokers need not apply!

DublinWriter

We seem to have adopted the American model of 'presentationism' to judge someone's productivity.

I guess it's all down to appearances.

I know plenty of non-smokers who'll slack off most of the day and appear to look busy while they browse the Internet.

I know plenty of smokers who are very hard workers.

Personally, I get some of my best ideas when having a cig. Anyone in the legal business would be familiar with a client-chargeable item called 'consideration'.

Xavi6

DublinWriter wrote: »

I know plenty of non-smokers who'll slack off most of the day and appear to look busy while they browse the Internet.

I have no idea what you're talking about!

KnifeWRENCH

If a smoker is the best candidate for the job, I'd hire them.
If there's an equally good non-smoking candidate, I'd hire the non-smoker.

Dudess

Me too. Not hiring someone because they're a smoker... I don't know. To me that seems rather petty, and smacks of "you're stupid to ruin your health like that so now I'll teach you a lesson".

Eoin

Dudess wrote: »

Me too. Not hiring someone because they're a smoker... I don't know. To me that seems rather petty, and smacks of "you're stupid to ruin your health like that so now I'll teach you a lesson".

I find it hard not to equate it with not hiring fatties for the same reason.

Steve_o

Firetrap wrote: »

No, I wouldn't employ a smoker if I had a choice of an equally qualified non-smoker. Equally, I wouldn't employ a heavy drinker or someone who takes drugs. :cool:

Smoking doesn't effect your ability to work, drink and drugs do....

norrie rugger

Dudess wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't hire a smoker if they are suitable for the job.

The smell would be enough for me.


As would the lingering chemicals surrounding them,
plus incresed chance of long term illness,
plus (regardless of what people say) incresed chance of people taking "breaks",
plus having to provide them with a smoking area so that they are not in front of the building smoking.




And it is IKKY (where is the ill smiley gone)

ergonomics

In my last job I was the only person on a team of four cleaners who didn't smoke. We worked 5 hour shifts. The other staff would always be ten minutes late as they had to have a smoke outside before work. Then before our ten minute break they took an extra ten minutes for a smoke, and another ten after the break for another cigarette (so that's 30 minutes, when I got 10). They'd normally take two or 3 more breaks on top of that in a 5 hour shift.

My manager was always giving out to me for being lazy and being slow, never wondering where the other staff were. I often stayed late to get the work done that they didn't do and always came home exhausted from covering from them. When she told me she couldn't give me a good reference I told her what the other staff were up to and she went crazy. But she didn't do anything about it. She said she couldn't stop them smoking because they were addicted.

Needless to say I left.

norrie rugger

One thing though, would you hire a boardsie??

they amount of time spent on here during office hours!!!


Now would you hire a smoking boardsie???

biko

I'd hire whoever seemed best for the job, smoker or not.
"Go on smoke breaks as much as you like, just have the project finished Friday lunch".
In a situation like ergonomics above I'd tell the smokers to only smoke at breaks or get fired.
Depends on the job you're hiring for really

Dudess

norrie rugger wrote: »

The smell would be enough for me.


As would the lingering chemicals surrounding them

I'm sorry but I cannot see how the smell of smoke off someone who is otherwise qualified for the job is grounds for not hiring them.

plus incresed chance of long term illness

Fair enough.

plus (regardless of what people say) incresed chance of people taking "breaks",
plus having to provide them with a smoking area so that they are not in front of the building smoking.

You don't have to do that so why feel like you do? As for the breaks thing - lay down the law. Tell them they cannot exceed the amount of breaks their non smoking co-workers get.

norrie rugger

Dudess wrote: »

I'm sorry but I cannot see how the smell of smoke off someone who is otherwise qualified for the job is grounds for not hiring them.

Because you have to provide a comfortable working environment for your other employees also. I am sorry but sitting next to someone who just had a smoke can make me gag. I bloody hated it during school/college and would ask to be moved if the closest person in the office started smelling like that

jobucks

I am a smoker, I have a full time permanent position.. I work from 9-5:30 monday to Friday and the only time I smoke during the working day is during my one hour lunch break from 1-2pm, I don't take any cigarette breaks at all. In fact because I work on reception I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to leave my post unmanned to go for one and also I wouldn't like clients and visitors coming in and smelling the smoke off me.
Surely even though I am "a smoker" I should not be discriminated against when it comes to any interview process??

4Xcut

As long as they get the work they are supposed to get done done, then I don't really care if it takes them 2 hours and they smoke the rest of the day, or if it takes them the whole day, with no smoke breaks.

It's about results, not effort put in.

ShooterSF

I've no problem with smokers who do so on their break. Worked in a bar for years and my boss being a smoker allowed staff to wander off for smoke break every so often. Pissed me off no end. Started taking "Fresh air breaks to escape the smell of stale smoke" Even told him I was gonna take bulmers breaks as they were my legal drug of choice and if he stopped me he'd be discriminating :-D

Red Alert

I'd only not hire one if you had equal qualifications and ability to do the job. However, I'd have no time for 'smoking breaks' or anything else, and i'd have a zero-tolerence policy on any smoking-related concessions.

thebman

nouggatti wrote: »

+1 it's not discrimination.

I smoke as do a fair few of the people who work on my teams, and oftentimes the weirdest problems in work get discussed/solved over a smoke, so I've no real issue with smokers.

That's really biased against the non-smokers who aren't part of the discussion. Maybe they have a better solution to the problem. That's as bad as making decisions on the gold course TBH.

eoin_s wrote: »

Many of the anti-smoker people seem to think that non-smokers are always working when smokers would be out having a ciggie. My experience is that non-smokers will stay much longer in the canteen on tea and lunch breaks, read newspapers, browse t'internet etc. None of the people that I remember being particularly bad for taking annual leave were smokers.

No offense but thats bollocks. Smokers are equally capable of spending time on the Internet and taking smoking breaks. There is no connection between the two.

jobucks wrote: »

I am a smoker, I have a full time permanent position.. I work from 9-5:30 monday to Friday and the only time I smoke during the working day is during my one hour lunch break from 1-2pm, I don't take any cigarette breaks at all. In fact because I work on reception I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to leave my post unmanned to go for one and also I wouldn't like clients and visitors coming in and smelling the smoke off me.
Surely even though I am "a smoker" I should not be discriminated against when it comes to any interview process??

Depends on the job really. If a job requires you to not smell bad (sales/dealing with people, eh few jobs where you don't deal with people TBH) or be constantly at a desk or counter then I think its fair to assume that if a person smokes they'll taking smoking breaks.

If they don't they should bring it up, its not that hard.

Interviewer: Do you smoke?
Interviewee: Yes but only at lunch time and during other acceptable break periods. I don't take additional breaks.

That would actually make you look pretty good IMO. The only issue is if you have to deal with people all the time and you stink of smoke all the time as this could affect your performance.

Dragan

ShooterSF wrote: »

Even told him I was gonna take bulmers breaks as they were my legal drug of choice and if he stopped me he'd be discriminating :-D

Hardly like with like.

Personally, i don't drink coffee in work. Yet about 3 times a day the people on my team will get up and all wander downstairs for a coffee.

I'd say it adds up to about 30 to 50 mins a day depending on how much chat is had.

FlutterinBantam

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

A the stink
b the skin= lined and pitted
c the cough
d thin as bony arsed

A- No, I don't.
B- Wrong
C- No cough.
D- I'm a fat bastard

Your argument is flawed.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why the hell should I always cover for smokers!

You shouldn't. And you don't have to. Do something about it and tell your manager etc. as it's their fault it goes on.

spinandscribble wrote: »

to be honest i will never understand why someone would choose to smoke. at least hash gives you a high. i just don't see the point except when you're 13 and you want to seem 'cool' and 'mature'. fair fecks to anyone that has a better reason then that btw, i mean it.

It's a different sort of hit, the nicotine high. Kinda like coffee/caffeine.

eoin_s wrote: »

I find it hard not to equate it with not hiring fatties for the same reason.

Exactly, if someone was turned down a job for being overweight the same saps on here saying no would be on here giving out yards. Gimme a fcuking (smoke) break.

People who don't smoke spend just as much time talking and chatting and skiving off in other more socially acceptable ways as smokers do. I worked in an office where all the women who had children would bring them in when they were a few months old, and every single one of them would crowd around her and spend 30 mins to an hour crowing about the kid, then spend every spare minute for the the rest of the day talking about him/her. Load of bollocks.

Anyway, smokers are usually sounder than non-smokers. Bunch of whiny, self-righteous pricks the lot of ya. :P

ShooterSF

Dragan wrote: »

Hardly like with like.

Personally, i don't drink coffee in work. Yet about 3 times a day the people on my team will get up and all wander downstairs for a coffee.

I'd say it adds up to about 30 to 50 mins a day depending on how much chat is had.

True. Though can't see a whole lot of difference unless I had 5 or 6 :-) My point to my boss was that if I can put off a drink even when I'm dying for one till my break I'm sure smokers can manage to curb their cravings too.

But then my workplace could have been an exceptional situation. Even knew someone who took back up smoking just to get out of the bar every few hours for 10 minutes.

Dudess

I do think some people take the piss out of smoke breaks though. I used to work in a newspaper and it was unreal - probably added up to an extra half hour's break per day.

Kinetic^

Dragan wrote: »

Hardly like with like.

Personally, i don't drink coffee in work. Yet about 3 times a day the people on my team will get up and all wander downstairs for a coffee.

I'd say it adds up to about 30 to 50 mins a day depending on how much chat is had.

I don't drink tea/coffee or smoke so I'm a perfect candidate for any job........ in your face!!!!*









*browsing the internet is my vice

the_syco

Always found at least 50% or more of my bosses, and around 30% of my colleagues smoke in job I've been in, kitchen/pub/cinema/IT. Seems the higher the position, the more chance they have of been a smoker.

Terry

The next person to post here and complain about smokers taking cigarette breaks will be banned for wasting their company's time by posting on a message board and not seeing the hypocracy of their actions.

faceman

Terry wrote: »

The next person to post here and complain about smokers taking cigarette breaks will be banned for wasting their company's time by posting on a message board and not seeing the hypocracy of their actions.

And unfortunately we cant cry discrimination if Terry was to do that!

Kinetic^

Terry wrote: »

The next person to post here and complain about smokers taking cigarette breaks will be banned for wasting their company's time by posting on a message board and not seeing the hypocracy of their actions.

Fair point Terry but what if they smoke and post on a message board....huh.......huh!!!1!!!!!!! DOUBLE TIME WASTING!!!!!!!!

norrie rugger

Terry wrote: »

The next person to post here and complain about smokers taking cigarette breaks will be banned for wasting their company's time by posting on a message board and not seeing the hypocracy of their actions.

What if we are on an internet break while our collegues are taking a ciggie break

norrie rugger

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Fair point Terry but what if they smoke and post on a message board....huh.......huh!!!1!!!!!!! DOUBLE TIME WASTING!!!!!!!!

Ahem...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57105108&postcount=60

Terry

norrie rugger wrote: »

What if we are on an internet break while our collegues are taking a ciggie break

WTF is an internet break?
Are you addicted to the internet and do you need to use it every hour or so?

Regardless, if you are taking a break, then you cannot complain about smokers taking a break.

Anyone sitting at a desk is supposed to take a 10 minute break every hour. I don't see why they can't use a government sactioned drug during that 10 minutes.

jawlie

Smoking is now so socially unacceptable there are those who think it should be banned completely.

In my experience, smokers are, generally, more fun than non smokers, and I know non smoking people who go out to join the smokers at parties etc because they are usually much better fun.

We've become obsessed with controlling others and intolerant of difference, and we are not a happier or better society for it.

norrie rugger

Terry wrote: »

WTF is an internet break?
Are you addicted to the internet and do you need to use it every hour or so?

Regardless, if you are taking a break, then you cannot complain about smokers taking a break.

Anyone sitting at a desk is supposed to take a 10 minute break every hour. I don't see why they can't use a government sactioned drug during that 10 minutes.

Internet break?? just made it up like
Relax.. are you due a ciggie break;)

You are ment to take a break from the screen, not work every hour.


PS
I am not taking a break, either waiting for a report to run or half listening to people on a tele con. Multi tasking like




Anyway, my main problems would be the smell of the person. You would not hire a person with bad hygeine and smelling of BO, what is the difference with smoking. Especially if that person is customer facing or in closr proximity to others.
Other main problem is the increased potential for long term illness

Terry

norrie rugger wrote: »

Internet break?? just made it up like
Relax.. are you due a ciggie break;)

You are ment to take a break from the screen, not work every hour.


PS
I am not taking a break, either waiting for a report to run or half listening to people on a tele con. Multi tasking like




Anyway, my main problems would be the smell of the person. You would not hire a person with bad hygeine and smelling of BO, what is the difference with smoking. Especially if that person is customer facing or in closr proximity to others.
Other main problem is the increased potential for long term illness

You're meant to walk around every hour. Sitting in front of a screen or not.

I'm not in work at the moment. I can't use the internet in my job anyway.

barnacle

I smoke about 20 - 25 a day.
Been working since I was 12/13.
Never taken a sick day in my life.
I did kinda take one actually, but I just went into work 2 hours late when I'd stopped yakking.

Mr. Presentable

dotsman wrote: »

I think any company that refuses to hire smokers is in for big trouble. If they hold something as petty as smoking in such a high regard, then 2 things are clear. They have stupid recruitment policy, and they must be assholes to work for.

If a smoker is taking a load of time, then you deal with that specific smoker. The same way if someone was sitting on the throne reading a paper for half an hour every, you don't ban toilet breaks!

I'm a smoker, and typically go for 4 smokes a day during work. I rarely take my break (and I'm entitled to 2!), frequently work through lunch, and often stay late. Even while out smoking, I am typically doing one of three things.

1. Talking to a colleague about something work related and possibly discussing something that would otherwise have required a "meeting"
2. Thinking about a problem I am dealing with or planning what I need to discuss at the meeting I'm about to head off to or digest the info from the meeting I've just been to.
3. Relaxing and clearing my head for a few minutes, which I think (and most experts agree, makes me far more efficient when I go back to my desk!

I'm employed to get things done. If I get these done, then only the most retarded manager would quibble with the petty things like smoking or coming in late (unless you're really taking the piss).

What do you smell like? I don't want to sit near a smoker. Four breaks a day for smokes, eh? All off the premises. And you get paid for this time while you are not at work?

ShooterSF

Terry wrote: »

WTF is an internet break?
Are you addicted to the internet and do you need to use it every hour or so?

Regardless, if you are taking a break, then you cannot complain about smokers taking a break.

Anyone sitting at a desk is supposed to take a 10 minute break every hour. I don't see why they can't use a government sactioned drug during that 10 minutes.

Exactly. Next time you non smokers go to work bring a six pack!

Tigger

faceman wrote: »

Its simple enough actually. There are 9 grounds for discrimination:

Gender
Marital Status
Family Status
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Age
Disability
Race
Being a traveller

Unfortunately for smokers, smoking doesn't fit into any of the above!

do you have to be born a traveller

faceman

Tigger wrote: »

do you have to be born a traveller

Dunno, dont care either! I disagree with this provision in the Act. Travellers are just Irish people who dont live in settled accommodation. Nothing different about their culture that would warrant specific provision from them, but thats just me. Anyway lets not start a traveller off topic discussion!

Red Alert

The real question I'd ask is 'Do you smoke with your kids in the car?' - anyone who does is so reckless and irresponsible I couldn't trust them to work in my company.

Eoin

Red Alert wrote: »

The real question I'd ask is 'Do you smoke with your kids in the car?' - anyone who does is so reckless and irresponsible I couldn't trust them to work in my company.

It's hard enough holding a mobile and a beer can while driving as it is.

faceman

Red Alert wrote: »

The real question I'd ask is 'Do you smoke with your kids in the car?' - anyone who does is so reckless and irresponsible I couldn't trust them to work in my company.

There is consideration being given I believe, to ban this next. I.e. ban smoking in all cars.

Terry

nipplenuts wrote: »

What do you smell like? I don't want to sit near a smoker. Four breaks a day for smokes, eh? All off the premises. And you get paid for this time while you are not at work?

Are you complaining about people taking smoke breaks while posting on an internet forum from work?

Red Alert wrote: »

The real question I'd ask is 'Do you smoke with your kids in the car?' - anyone who does is so reckless and irresponsible I couldn't trust them to work in my company.

My friend does.
I tut disapprovingly.
My rant the first time I saw him do it didn't really work.

Tigger

i'm not

i used to smoke but i gave up in feb 2007 it was hard

for the next two months i was have been worse at my job than if i had taken a 10 min break every 2 hrs to maintain the nicotine

after that i'm about the same

its a form of bigotry and a stereotype but if i was a smopke and a potential boss asked me i'd say yes but i'm quitting

panders perfectly to their stereotypyped views

faceman

Terry wrote: »

Are you complaining about people taking smoke breaks while posting on an internet forum from work?

My friend does.
I tut disapprovingly.
My rant the first time I saw him do it didn't really work.

Id rather sit beside someone who browsed the net all day than someone who reeks of cigarette smoke. At least the guy dossing on the net can be sacked if he's dossing!

Terry

faceman wrote: »

Id rather sit beside someone who browsed the net all day than someone who reeks of cigarette smoke. At least the guy dossing on the net can be sacked if he's dossing!

I'd rather sit beside someone I get along with.

Tigger

i'd rather sit on my own

EL_Loco

wonder when they'll start in on the drinkers. Huge amount of man hours wasted through hangovers/sick days due to drink.

people who day dream, they'll be getting it.

humming a tune at work, gone.

Did you just take a toilet break? don't come back.

Although i don't smoke and I do use it as a "well I'm not taking 10 minutes" gripe, the amount of flutin done otherwise is staggering as evidenced by this post.

I'd say getting 3 hours solid work out of someone per day is good going in an office environment. Very hard to quantify mind you.

Mr. Presentable

Terry wrote: »

Are you complaining about people taking smoke breaks while posting on an internet forum from work?

.

Yes I am. One of my duties is to test keyboards. I am very dilligent at this task and it never entails time wasting. I also take my health and safety required 10 mins per hour away from the screen and use this time to pack away my keyboard and unpack the next one.

Oh, and I decide who to employ.

No smokers
No obese
No unwashed
No flatulents
No women of child-bearing age

I find it hard to get the staff these days, though.........

Mr. Presentable

EL_Loco wrote: »

.

humming a tune at work, gone.

.

If you're going to hum James Blunt tunes all day you should say so at interview, or be prepared to hum silently

shoelaceface

i would hire them... and fire them... and hope that they sue me... coz then i could give them money!!

im such a friendly person

DublinWriter

EL_Loco wrote: »

wonder when they'll start in on the drinkers. Huge amount of man hours wasted through hangovers/sick days due to drink.

Screw that, they're coming for the fatties obese next.

Godwins law invocation time methinks...

They came for the smokers,
But I am not a smoker,
So I did nothing.

They came for the secret workplace browsers,
But they were using personal Internet Dongles,
So they couldn't prove anything.

They came for the obese,
But the obese had bought everything from the office vending machines,
So I was too weak from hunger to do anything.

They came for the lunch-time joggers,
I applauded.