Smoking and employment
Thursday, January 22, 2009 Someone has drawn attention, on another thread, to an article by Prof Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health which raises the question of smoking and employment. This is an issue that Forest first highlighted eight or nine years ago when we analysed hundreds of recruitment ads in a number of publications (including the Guardian) and noted the increasing trend for companies to employ "non-smokers only". (Our subsequent report caused quite a stir.)
The press release that promotes Siegel's article is unambiguous: "US experts call for rethink of trend to bar smokers from employment". It continues:
The increasing trend for employers, particularly in the US, to bar smokers from applying for jobs or staying in post should be stopped, until the appropriateness of such policies has been properly evaluated, argue experts in an essay published in Tobacco Control.
As of August 2008, 21 US states, 400 US cities, nine Canadian provinces, six Australian states/territories, and 14 other countries, including the UK, had banned smoking in workplaces, bars, and restaurants.
But in recent years, smoke free workplaces have shifted to “smoker-free workplaces”, with some companies even stating “tobacco free candidates only” in their employment policies ...
These policies aim to cut cigarette consumption, by promoting the need to quit and by making smoking less socially acceptable, say the authors from the Universities of Washington and Boston.
The evidence backs them up. And there is also some evidence to suggest that these policies could boost productivity and reduce absenteeism, they add.
But quite apart from infringements of personal privacy and individual rights, smokers who are sacked or forced to resign many not be able to find other work, which in itself could have a seriously detrimental impact on their and their families’ health, contend the authors.
Smokers will also be unjustly discriminated against in a way that people who risk their health by drinking or eating too much, and exercising too little, are not ...
The authors call for a much wider public health debate, and for proper evaluation of these policies, on the grounds that “the potential unintended side effects ... could be far reaching”.
Michael Siegel writes about the article on his blog HERE. For the full article, in Tobacco Control, click HERE.
Reader Comments (11)
That's terrible it's discrimination and nothing less.
All that will happen is that people will hide the fact they smoke to colleages, employers at work.
The Zealots will then demand "drug" testing of employees at random to determine if they smoke ,drink etc.
I do hope it doesnt come to that in the UK.
It's demeaning and anybody who thinks that is a good idea has a "sick mind".
The result of all of this would be a very "nasty" society to live in,indeed,.
we are practically there now.
Politicians and the public at large appear not to grasp this disturbing angle.
I am hoping that someone will contact Cancer Research in England and ask them for the basis of their employment bias against people who smoke. They can say no smoking at work, or during the working day as many, indeed most employers say the same about alcohol consumption. It is difficult to understand how they can have the power to dictate their employees private lives though. Think for a moment where this can lead, think and shudder.
Is the rationale that smokers are at higher risk of cancer? Will they refuse to employ people with cancer risk associated genes?
Will they insist, eventually, despite the total lack of scientific evidence, that drinking promotes cancer and therefore all employees and their families must be teetotal?
We are looking at the slippery road to perdition, the agenda behind the third hand smoke farce is plain to see. Bar smokers from employment, all social interaction, render their property valueless, deny them services and health care and condemn them to poverty. Where have we seen these strategies used against one section of the population before? Come on it's not all that long ago, you must remember.
"Unintended...." I think NOT !
See my post on Tuesday under Obama's Toughest Task.
Today is my last day in employment because I am a smoker, not just that, I am a depressed smoker and whilst companies cannot use depression against me, if smoking enters the equation then I, and anyone else in a similar position, are fair game!
At the moment I am waiting to see my psychiatrist, I have an appointment in about 3 weeks time, to see if there is any chance of getting onto the long term sick, as I have very little chance of finding further employment, especially at this time of economic turmoil!
So, C, it has already arrived in the UK!
It certainly is the era of the bans! We had the ice age the golden age the iron age and now we have the ban age. We sure are progressing and living in exciting times. Maybe we should bring back the birch.
Will the next job advertisements read 'mormans need only apply'. Its not so long ago that the human rights brigade banned the word 'enthusiastic' from employment ads on the grounds it was discrimatary.
So if smokers are not employable will it be acceptable for drug takers in employment to have a quick snort in the loo and work away to employers delight. Or will they start in on them next with hidden cameras.
What about gum chewers will they be acceptable when they've got rid of the smokers and drugies and drinkers.
I can see a scenario looming in the future where the security man in every office block searches the staff every morning for knives or wmd's before they start work!!
I have never played Bingo in a Bingo Hall and I have never been in a betting shop and don't know how to put on a bet. It took this site to alert me to the pain and isolation now being experienced by those for whom an evening at Bingo was their weekly treat. My point is that if one is not directly affected, other people's pain may not be perceived let alone sympathised with.
I know of a leafy country pub where a visiting ploughman with pipe and dog would be an outsider. I doubt he would stay for a ploughman's lunch.
This ancient inn appears to be doing well as a restaurant, its clientele seemingly from the safely, cosily-pensioned retired. They probably never smoked or, if they did, are comfortable in their new status. No-one will come for them...
Maybe they once indeed had their own struggles. They have reached calmer waters. I am one such myself, being in my seventies. Perhaps we've no imagination left for others.If only we could awaken a sense of fair play, of English live and let live.
If I may mention this, I wonder where the Church is in all this. It's Founder defended and spoke up for outsiders.
It's prejudice and discrimination pure and simple. Surely you could take any employer who did this to an Employment Tribunal?
Im sure the BBC and the Guardian , see ,(Pravda -Izvestia) ,will publish the Propaganda when the "Joseph Mengele branch of Epidemology", who love dictating to decent folks think they can get away with this.
They'l be wearing black uniforms with armbands next.
Thanks Antipholus Papps. Unfortunately, in order to leave with some cash in my pocket, rather than trying to 'ride the storm' so to speak, I had to sign a compromise agreement, which meant that I got the cash, but have no comeback!
One of the reasons I took this route was quite simply that the moment smoking is mentioned we seem to be fair game and we are the ones at fault. This, of course, would be the angle that any case was fought against me on, the depression would not come into it, but even if it did, the smoking would still be more than enough to get rid of me, with absolutely nothing to help me through financially! Unfortunately I am not in a position to risk this.
I have also heard that some temp/employment agencies do not take on smokers! I could, at this stage, be unemployable, I guess!
Dick Puddlecote has written an interesting piece:
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/
I don't smoke but I could understand how smokers are feeling about this proposed policy of a smoker-free workplace. I do want people to quit on this deadly habit but imagine the families of these smokers who will suffer because their dads or moms got dumped from their jobs because they're smokers. This scenario just doesn't look right.
Darwin Jones
http://www.mylittlerockjobs.com