Rights group blasts 'non-smoker' stipulation for job

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Rights group blasts 'non-smoker' stipulation for job

MONTREAL -- The job requirements are on par with what would be expected for any company looking for a webmaster, with one notable exception: smokers need not apply.

And a Quebec group that defends the rights of smokers is fuming over the job posting by an anti-smoking organization, calling it discriminatory.

Arminda Mota, president of mychoice.ca, a website dedicated to smokers' rights, says the advertisement that says the successful applicant must be either a non-smoker or an ex-smoker opens the doors to all sorts of discrimination by employers.

"They get at least $3 million a year from the government - from taxpayers who are non-smokers, and smokers like me and they are openly discriminating," Mota said Wednesday.

"Even if you're a non-smoker, can you agree with this? What's next? You're not able to apply if you're over 150 pounds?"

Mota said the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health is essentially promoting discrimination using taxpayer dollars.

But council president Mario Bujold says his organization is well within its rights to hire a non-smoker given its mandate.

"We are a non-profit organization that does work to prevent smoking and that's why we ask our employees to be non-smokers or ex-smokers," said Bujold.

"We promote activities to reduce smoking so we want to set good examples."

Bujold said his organization employs a dozen people and some, including himself, are ex-smokers.

Bujold said the stipulation doesn't violate any charter rights.

Mota said the non-smoking requirement is rarely asked for by employers in Canada but is gaining steam in the United States.

"It's not the smoking issue itself - it's the fact that public health is starting to dictate behaviour and everyone thinks what they're doing is OK," said Mota.

"For now it's just smokers - but I don't want to live in a society where what I put in my body is dictated by government."

Mota said most of her employees in the past have been non-smokers and it has had no bearing on the work they do.

"What you do, it's none of my business as the employer," Mota said.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission says it hasn't yet dealt with a similar complaint and a spokesman says he isn't sure it would constitute discrimination because smoking isn't spelled out in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Spokesman Robert Sylvestre said Sec. 10 of the charter forbids discrimination on the basis of a number of conditions from race and sex to political convictions and language.

But smoking is not one of them.

Sylvestre said some people in other provinces have attempted to argue that someone with alcohol and drug dependency is akin to being handicapped.

But no one has attempted that with smoking, Sylvestre said.

You want a handicap?

How about the fact that all but 3 people in the company I work for, which employs a few dozen people, don't smoke. The rest of us do..... so based on that mentality, if things went down the road this very could lead to, all but three people in this company wouldn't be allowed to work.

And did it ever occur to anybody that a good chunk of the reason why adults start up smoking later on in life might have to do with stressful jobs?

Can anybody actually picture an entire society where the only people who actually work are all non-smokers?

Isn't that sort of an oxymoron?

And last I checked, smoking is still god damn legal to do! They have no right to dictate if someone is qualified for the job based on if they smoke or not, regardless if they're a company to prevent smoking.

^ Maybe some of those people have a little more insight on what goes through the mind of smokers? Maybe they want to quit and could use the employment there to do so? Maybe those people who smoke won't smoke during their whole time they're working and wait until they go home?

I know a few people who do that. Not because their job looks down apon smoking, but because they choose to.

Seriously, what's next? If I'm left handed, with red hair, freckles and still watch cartoons I won't be allowed to get a job?

Fk'n mental.

 

[Said1]

That's almost funny. Personally, I've worked at different places that have different views on smoking - usually determined by the number of smokers. I usually go along with what is acceptable because I need the money more than the cigarette break I'm not supposed to have.

Personally, I wouldn't have applied for the job, given the nature of the organization and the fact that I smoke. On the other hand, I had to deal with a lot french bs when looking for a job, I can sort of sympathize with the person.

 

[Tonington]

And last I checked, smoking is still god damn legal to do! They have no right to dictate if someone is qualified for the job based on if they smoke or not, regardless if they're a company to prevent smoking.

Sh!tty deal, but thats how she goes. I have a buddy who didn't make it as an RCMP officer because he drinks a case of beer on the weekend. Now he's an officer in Amherst. I guess they thought it was a blemish on his character or something stupid like that.

If your employer is paying insurance coverage for you and you smoke, that's an added risk and they can make the argument against hiring you. You can't work in the Poultry center at my school if you own a pet bird, because of risk. You won't like it. But you can always quit smoking ;-)

 

[EagleSmack]

Smokers get picked on WAY TOO MUCH.

I can see them banning smoking at a restaraunt or a bar but to deny a job to them. That's bull. I also get bull at towns that try to ban smoking at parks or in public... more bull. It is legal and I think the attack on smokers is pathetic.

 

[TenPenny]

That's funny, but there is no way that an employer can specify a smoker or non-smoker. You can specify what people do on the job, but not hobbies (except for hockey players, who aren't allowed to have certain hobbies).

 

[karrie]

So long as your guidelines are clear about breaks and the like, there's no reason to not hire a smoker. Frankly, this is hypocritical to the worst degree, because isn't the best way to reform a smoker, to have them immersed in your propaganda all day? The non-smoker doesn't need that job like a smoker does. Morons. :lol:

 

[Zzarchov]

Its easy "Im an ex smoker"

he sees you after work smoking "I relapsed, I tend tor relapse about 5 or 6 times a day, then I quit and im an ex smoker again, unless im drinking"

 

[Praxius]

I could see a problem if smokers smoked during the time they did their job, but that's not allowed.... heck, it's difficult to find a place where you're allowed to smoke outside.

It's a firggin witch hunt if you ask me, and maybe I should just start my own company and hire only smokers.

Think about it, they'd die off sooner, then I could hire new people and start them off on minimum wage again.... then they die off sooner and thus I end up saving more money in the long run by avoiding long careers and wage increases.

 

[VanIsle]

I could see a problem if smokers smoked during the time they did their job, but that's not allowed.... heck, it's difficult to find a place where you're allowed to smoke outside.

It's a firggin witch hunt if you ask me, and maybe I should just start my own company and hire only smokers.

Think about it, they'd die off sooner, then I could hire new people and start them off on minimum wage again.... then they die off sooner and thus I end up saving more money in the long run by avoiding long careers and wage increases.

Make sure you don't enter your own business so that you don't die along with the rest or you won't need to worry about hiring new people.

 

[Tyr]

How about obesity. I get agitated when a sweaty obese person waddles through the "cube jungle". Perfume... Some people "bath" in it.

Can I stipulate no fat or stinky people in the workplace??

 

[Praxius]

How about obesity. I get agitated when a sweaty obese person waddles through the "cube jungle". Perfume... Some people "bath" in it.

Can I stipulate no fat or stinky people in the workplace??

I don't see why not.... it's an unhealthy life habbit as well and can be harmful to others depending on if they fall on someone.

Not likely to happen? Neither is catching cancer from someone who doesn't smoke inside the office.

 

[Twila]

We are a non-profit organization that does work to prevent smoking and that's why we ask our employees to be non-smokers or ex-smokers," said Bujold.

THis is the main point.

If I ran an organization on addiction prevention...I don't want some junkie working there. An ex junkie maybe...but not a practicing one.

 

[TenPenny]

THis is the main point.

If I ran an organization on addiction prevention...I don't want some junkie working there. An ex junkie maybe...but not a practicing one.

While that's a lovely point of view, I thought that the whole point of equality is that you can't discriminate against employees for things they do on their own time.
If someone chooses to smoke at home, what business is it of yours?

Are you saying it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals? People who speak Spanish?

Either discrimination is allowed, or it isn't.

 

[Tyr]

Hmm Maybe Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig stipultes "fat people need not apply for employmnet"

I imagine the docket would be full in civil court with "rights abuse" cases

 

[Twila]

Why is this addiction protected? Why are heroin addicts assaulted with cleaning up their act, but not smokers? Morbidly obese people have an addiction and we know it's not ok. Crack heads have an addiction and we know it's not ok. But smokers...it's like their special or something.

How can anyone recommend Not Smoking when they have employees that smoke?

Maybe we ought to let practicing pedophiles work the schools? Wouldn't want to discriminate...

 

[karrie]

THis is the main point.

If I ran an organization on addiction prevention...I don't want some junkie working there. An ex junkie maybe...but not a practicing one.

while you have a point Twila, what the position is matters a bit to. And, webmaster doesn't seem like a position where tobacco use outside of the office will effect performance, or their ability to spread their message. Now, if he were a counselor to those trying to quit. If he were a front desk worker smelling like smoke, etc.... I'd see the point. But, this would be like Jenny Craig, as someone compared earlier, not being willing to hire overweight people in their manufacturing facility.

 

[tracy]

It's the council on tobacco and health. You can't see why they wouldn't want a smoker? Really? It's like hiring a personal trainer to work in a gym who is horribly out of shape. I can see why for them it's an issue. It shouldn't be in general, but given their mandate it seems appropriate to me.

 

[karrie]

Why is addiction protected? Why are heroin addicts assaulted with cleaning up their act, but not smokers? Morbidly obese people have an addiction and we know it's not ok. Crack heads have an addiction and we know it's not ok. But smokers...it's like their special or something.

How can anyone recommend Not Smoking when they have employees that smoke?

Maybe we ought to let practicing pedophiles work the schools? Wouldn't want to discriminate...

I disagree about smokers getting special treatment. People would cause just as much of a stink if someone posted an add saying 'fatties need not apply'. Court cases have been fought (and won) all across this country over piss testing employees for everything from pot to cocaine. All across the country people have demanded that so long as their vices don't impact performance, they be left to live their own lives.

 

[Praxius]

THis is the main point.

If I ran an organization on addiction prevention...I don't want some junkie working there. An ex junkie maybe...but not a practicing one.

So smokers are junkies now?

And what kind of message is being sent when you are willing to work with people who never smoked before, or have quit, but won't even look twice at someone who still smokes and might actually want to quit?

They sure don't have a problem getting business from smokers, but have an issue with working with them?

If they're going to give off the image that smokers arn't worth their time for employment, then what kind of people are they to get help from?

And how does it make more sense to hire someone who has never smoked before in their lives, to help others quit smoking or to never start up, who have no damn clue what it's like, over someone who's gone through or still going through the processes in order to relate to those they wish to "Help?"

Oh wait, that's right, they're trying to "Prevent" smoking, rather then "help." So I guess smokers are simply a lost cause to them..... and since preventing smoking in general is kinda impossible while it is still legal..... wtf does this company exist in the first place and taking money for their non-profit company to do what they will never accomplish?

 

[karrie]

It's the council on tobacco and health. You can't see why they wouldn't want a smoker? Really? It's like hiring a personal trainer to work in a gym who is horribly out of shape. I can see why for them it's an issue. It shouldn't be in general, but given their mandate it seems appropriate to me.

Not really a very good comparison... one impacts ability to perform the job, but, being a smoker doesn't impact one's ability to be a webmaster last I checked.