• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Smokers do not apply

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Right, they won't hire smokers because they're unhealthy but they probably have no problem making their nurses work 12 and 16 hour shifts instead of 8 hour, for no apparent reason. Hospitals are run by idiots.

This is just another battle in the war on the worker.
 
Last edited:
And yet, regular smoking has a greater effect than all that combined on overall health.


Well then, lets go straight to the source and have the AMA forbid anyone who smokes from practicing medicine in any way, shape, or form. Start smoking, loose your licence. No different really from taking away their licence for malpractice.
 
I don't like smokers. Don't like working with them, don't like being around them... just don't like them.
 
So is it okay to discriminate against age, color, disability, etc?

If a business is dumb enough, or finds value in doing this, fine. I wouldn't force Hooters to hire male waiters, nor a strip club male dancers. If a bar wants to have a "ladies only" night, that's their choice. Where discrimination should never be allowed to exist is within Gov't.

i don't smoke and don't agree with this

I do smoke (unfortunately), and I have no problem with it. It's irrelevant though.
 
This isn't about people taking smoking breaks. This is about smoking. Period. Not all smokers smoke on their breaks at work. Not all people who take their breaks at work smoke.

Only smokers take smoking breaks. Anyone who smokes more than half a pack a day is going to be taking breaks at work to smoke.
 
idiots.JPG
 
Hi,

In Michigan you have to be 100' from the building to smoke.Thre are smoking areas that are well away from all the crybabies and reformed smokers and Drinkers tha sit around tell now tell you the ills of SMOKING.

There are TOO MANY people in this world Like ZEBO... They think that they employ or are boss that they can dictate what you should do with you LIFE! You wonder why People can't find work or have given up looking for work. Would you want to work for someone like ZEBO? Who sits on the WHITE COLLAR ASS and control the lives of their employees?


I am a smoker and while I don't disagree with a companies right to not hire smokers I do disagree with painting with broad brushes like this. I can use the exact same argument to not hire gay men or any other person that through their law abiding actions off the clock could raise my companies healthcare costs.

Zebo's argument wasn't about that though, he said that the smokers he has hired put in an hour less work a day then the non-smokers due to their smoke breaks yet they both expect to be paid for the same hours. He isn't bitching about what they do at home he is bitching about what they do at work. As the employer he is well within his right to do so and it isn't even close to being in the same ballpark as the intrusive bullshit you posted.

If you would like to make an argument that employers should not be able to monitor employees while they are working and being paid by the employer, by all means.
If you want to SMOKE,DRINK OR have SEX That is your business. Not an employers,As long as you do your JOB that is required!!!!

What you do while on the clock is very much your employers business.
 
When America embraced smoking we defeated the Huns twice, the Commies, and went to the moon.

Now we can't defeat a bunch of dirt farmers in the Middle East and our kids are fatter and more stupid than ever.

They should be handing out cartons of unfiltered Lucky Strikes in elementary schools. 😛
 
I am a smoker and while I don't disagree with a companies right to not hire smokers I do disagree with painting with broad brushes like this. I can use the exact same argument to not hire gay men or any other person that through their law abiding actions off the clock could raise my companies healthcare costs.

Zebo's argument wasn't about that though, he said that the smokers he has hired put in an hour less work a day then the non-smokers due to their smoke breaks yet they both expect to be paid for the same hours. He isn't bitching about what they do at home he is bitching about what they do at work. As the employer he is well within his right to do so and it isn't even close to being in the same ballpark as the intrusive bullshit you posted.

If you would like to make an argument that employers should not be able to monitor employees while they are working and being paid by the employer, by all means.


What you do while on the clock is very much your employers business.
I agree with this. The problem with smokers is that that vast majority of them smoke on the job. If they didn't, then it is none of the employers business. When you are on the clock, everything you do is your employers business.
 
Well then, lets go straight to the source and have the AMA forbid anyone who smokes from practicing medicine in any way, shape, or form. Start smoking, loose your licence. No different really from taking away their licence for malpractice.
Meh. I don't think any doctor should smoke, but I don't think that is a fitness to practise issue. It's more a moral issue IMO.
 
Smoking drives up health care costs paid by the employer enormously. Surely you free enterprise people aren't going to claim that this employer is not entitled to reduce its costs by not hiring people whose voluntary behavior will cost the employer more, cuts productivity, give no benefit to the employer and in addition endanger the lives of other employees?

I see this thrown out quite often and have taken notice at my work of the smokers and non smokers. I really do not see the smokers causing higher health care cost. what increase in healthcare would there be? I dont see the effect of smoking in the working age group at my company. the cost come after they are retired and AARP medicaid not while they are employeed. so i ask again, where is the increase in health care paid by the employer?
 
If a business is dumb enough, or finds value in doing this, fine. I wouldn't force Hooters to hire male waiters, nor a strip club male dancers. If a bar wants to have a "ladies only" night, that's their choice. Where discrimination should never be allowed to exist is within Gov't.



I do smoke (unfortunately), and I have no problem with it. It's irrelevant though.

the thing is smoking is a legal activity. the examples you have listed are really discrimination but nobody presses it. if they did they would win.
 
Anyone who smokes more than half a pack a day is going to be taking breaks at work to smoke.

Bullshit.

I was a 2-3 pack a day smoker up until I quit two years ago and seldom if ever took smoke breaks at work. This was made easier by the fact that the distance you have to travel to have a smoke was huge at University Hospital at U of M.

Everyone there who works an 8 hour shift gets a 30 minute lunch and 2 (15) minute breaks. If someone wants to run in and out if they have the ability 2x a day and once for lunch I don't see how this is your problem.

Perhaps you have worked with some real assholes who abuse this and go out repeatedly throughout the day to smoke. Not all smokers are complete assholes you know and can respect the smoking policy at their job.
 
Perhaps you have worked with some real assholes who abuse this and go out repeatedly throughout the day to smoke. Not all smokers are complete assholes you know and can respect the smoking policy at their job.


I'd add that just because you are a nonsmoker doesn't mean you aren't an asshole who wastes company time. I've known plenty of people who just love to gossip or whatever on company time. Most smokers either live below or around the poverty line anyway where their employers don't pay people enough to be picky about who they hire and will fire anyone who doesn't produce in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
Most smokers either live below or around the poverty line anyway where their employers don't pay people enough to be picky about who they hire and will fire anyone who doesn't produce in a heartbeat.

What planet do you live on? That is the biggest load I've seen in a while.
 
Whose fault is it that most non smokers don't take advantage of their two 15 minute breaks?

Most smokers I've worked with take more than their allotted 15 minute breaks to go outside and smoke. Non-smokers don't feel the need to break once an hour or more.
 
Last edited:
I am fine with this. As far as im concerned they can choose to not hire people for whatever reason they want. Drinking, fat, risky lifestyle etc. If you really want the job youll adjust yourself accordingly. Or, find a job somewhere else that is ok with fatty drunkards 😛
 
Most smokers I've worked with take more than their allotted 15 minute breaks to go outside and smoke. Non-smokers don't feel the need to break once an hour or more.

As an non-smoker I can attest to this.
At Tektronix I was able to go 2 hours straight of just knocking work out, no need for a break. And when I did break it was just long enough to go to the can and maybe get a soda, which I drank from a special cup on my desk. No longer than 6 minutes was I gone, and that was at most once every two hours. Sometimes longer.
 
Back
Top