Search
Forum Home | Login
terpfan1980
terpfan1980
Join Date 08/2004
+13

WHO puts a stop to the hiring of smokers

December 2, 2005 3:05:48 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
It seems that the World Health Organization is opting to put it's own policies of reducing tobacco use into effect in it's hiring. Smokers need not apply (for jobs at the WHO), at least not any more.

As with other companies that have banned the hiring of smokers, I'm left to wonder how they'll really make sure that smokers aren't hired. If they hire someone that later starts smoking, I would assume that individual could lose their job over taking up the practice.

But is this all discriminatory, and will these practices eventually be ruled unconstitutional by various governments along the way?

Original news article snippet follows. Headline is linked.





WHO puts a stop to the hiring of smokers


By Andrew Jack in London
Published: December 2 2005 02:00 | Last updated: December 2 2005 02:00

The World Health Organisation yesterday became the largest international employer to ban the hiring of smokers in an effort to promote its public health campaign against tobacco use.
In a memo circulated to its 8,000 staff this week, the WHO stressed that it had "a responsibility to ensure that this [its campaign] is reflected in all its work, including recruitment practices".
The move is an escalation of action taken against smokers. Several countries have introduced legislation banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and public places, while some employers ban smoking on their premises.
The WHO has taken the lead in the fight against tobacco, which it says kills 5m people a year.
Its job advertisements now carry the statement "WHO has a smoke-free environment and does not recruit smokers or other tobacco users". Applicants will be asked if they are smokers and if so, if they would continue to smoke if employed by the WHO.
The ban will not apply to existing WHO staff or those on temporary contracts who apply for permanent jobs for the next two years. But the agency said it was already offering programmes to help staff to stop smoking.
In the US, a number of employers have recently launched recruitment bans, driven by concern about rising health insurance premiums for smokers.
As a United Nations agency, the WHO has fewer employment constraints than many national companies. But in the UK and other countries, experts said there were no specific anti-discrimination clauses that protect smokers.
Simon Clark, director of Forest, a pro-smoking group, said: "This is very discriminatory. It could mean a loss of jobs for what is a perfectly legal habit."
Amanda Sandford, research manager at ASH, the UK anti-smoking lobby, said: "We don't think this is a very good way of tackling the issue." It was better to help people quit, she said.
politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
bakerstreet
Join Date 03/2001
+7
Reply #1 December 2, 2005 3:26:27 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
What's more funny is the fact that firing someone because of an addiction in America is basically a crime these days. On two occasions I was involved in the dismissal of people who came to work drunk/under the influence of drugs where I worked, and both times all we got was a dressing down for not helping employee get help.

Each time the dismissals were deemed illegitimate and they got their unemployment anyway, since we didn't keep a breathalyzer handy. I have a feeling that they will have a much, much more difficult time with this than they think. If it is that difficult to fire someone who is staggering drunk at work, I'll be damned if I can figure out how you can fire them for smoking.

Smoking is legal, and until it is made otherwise they shouldn't disallow anyone from a job because of it.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
UBoB
Join Date 06/2001
+1
Reply #2 December 2, 2005 3:31:23 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
If a company was favorable toward smokers would it then be legal for that company to refuse to hire someone who is not a smoker?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #3 December 2, 2005 5:13:05 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Smoking is legal, and until it is made otherwise they shouldn't disallow anyone from a job because of it.

Exactly!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #4 December 2, 2005 9:51:42 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
firing someone because of an addiction in America is basically a crime these days.


Not basically, it IS a crime.


In the above court case, a worker was fired for addiction to Valium. She sued, and the court's finding was that it was NOT okay for her to be fired for an addiction. That firing was justified because she was addicted to a drug. Which adds to your other statement:
Smoking is legal, and until it is made otherwise they shouldn't disallow anyone from a job because of it.


Since the Dept. of Labor's website is maddeningly vague, I quote from the State of Oregon's Labor Department web site:
Q. Are alcoholism or drug addiction considered disabilities?
A. Alcoholism is considered a disability under state and federal law. Current use of illegal drugs is not considered a disability, and a company policy may prohibit employees from consuming or having alcohol or illegal drugs on company premises, or from coming to work impaired by alcohol or illegal drugs. However, employees undergoing treatment for drug addiction are protected under both state and federal law.

Even though this answer deals with alcohol consumption, smoking is similarly not illegal and therefore addiction to smoking is not a disability that is grounds for dismissal or refusal to hire. Doing so in the US would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Abanamore
Join Date 01/0001
+13
Reply #5 December 3, 2005 12:41:01 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'm sure WHO would say that it is required for WHO to dicriminate.

Discriminatory actions are bad when others do them.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
MasonM
Join Date 01/2004
+45
Reply #6 December 3, 2005 1:05:16 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
total bullshit
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
kingbee
Join Date 04/2004
+42
Reply #7 December 3, 2005 2:17:07 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
it used to be a crime to be addicted to narcotics in many states (the theory being, i guess, if you weren't sick, you were guilty of internal possession).

if an employer is able to demonstrate it's more expensive to insure smokers, i'd think it reasonable to require them to kick in whatever the difference might be. this wont affect most employers, of course. who still offers fully-paid health care(a question...or is that a statement?)

i'd also guess if it can be proven that smokers cost an employer more than non-smokers in some other way, there might be basis for refusing to hire them.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
UBoB
Join Date 06/2001
+1
Reply #8 December 3, 2005 6:17:27 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'm an ex-smoker. I quit mostly for financial reasons, (cigarettes in Canada reached $7.00 a pack and I was smoking 1 pack a day). I also quit, believe it or not, because it made the house smell bad. But I did not quit for health reasons. I have never bought into the notion that smoking is the number one bad habit causing all the world's health problems. The biggest cause of the world's health problems is people.

I've posted this link before. It's an excellent essay on the whole smoking issue from a smokers viewpoint. The smoker in question is the artist Joe Jackson. It shows that the hysteria over smoking has gotten out of hand. If you have the time give it a read. Link
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #9 December 3, 2005 4:53:53 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
This pendulum has sure swung the other way. Back in 1980 I had a job at at Godfather's pizza place. I was the only one working there who didn't smoke. Except during rushes, anyone who needed a smoke break could sit at a designated table and get nicky of their back. There were rules such as "only 1 person at a time" and "only 1 cigarette per break"... etc.

I made the mistake of pointing out that it amounted to all the smokers getting an extra 15-30 minutes break per day. For some reason, as soon as I said it, all of the sudden I could do nothing right at that job... a week later I was fired. ;~D
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+