[Yogi]

If you were an employer would you consider attaching such a condition? Just because 'smokers rights' aren't mentioned in the Charter, apparently it is legal, but does that make it 'right'?
Is this just the beginning of employers adding whatever conditions they want based on a whim? If so, then to paraphrase the article ' If 'I' as an employer don't want to hire you because 'I' think you are fat-whatever my definition of fat is- then I can say so, refuse to hire you and there is nothing you can do about it!



Sun, February 8, 2009

Smokers need not apply


By THE CANADIAN PRESS



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.

[roger-roger]

I think its alright, it a pre requisite for the job. If you want to join the CF you cant if you are out of shape.

[coaster_dot]

I can see both sides of the story. But to me it seems like there writing between the lines.

I have experience in this though. I have two life guarding and swim instructor jobs. For both of them it says in the job description that you may not use tobacco products while you are punched in. Which means that we cannot have a smoke break during our shifts. Main reason is the fact that they do not want to community to see people who are "lifesavers" smoking. Same goes for the swim instructor position.

But I think some people will be unfairly turned down jobs because of this.

[Yogi]

[quote="Eisensapper"]... it a pre requisite for the job....


And that's the part that is all wrong. Even A.A., who's mandate is to help people quit drinking employs people who drink!

[bootlegga]

It's discrimination alright, but one within the organizations rights. Given that it's an NPO that works to prevent smoking, it makes sense not to employ smokers.

Yogi wrote:

Eisensapper wrote:

... it a pre requisite for the job....


And that's the part that is all wrong. Even A.A., who's mandate is to help people quit drinking employs people who drink!

Do they drink during their shift? Or outside the entrance to the office? I doubt it. That's an apples/oranges comparison.

[acidcomplex]

Eisensapper wrote:

I think its alright, it a pre requisite for the job. If you want to join the CF you cant if you are out of shape.

Damn actually agree with you here

[Yogi]

bootlegga wrote:

It's discrimination alright, but one within the organizations rights. Given that it's an NPO that works to prevent smoking, it makes sense not to employ smokers.

Yogi wrote:

Eisensapper wrote:

... it a pre requisite for the job....


And that's the part that is all wrong. Even A.A., who's mandate is to help people quit drinking employs people who drink!

Do they drink during their shift? Or outside the entrance to the office? I doubt it. That's an apples/oranges comparison.

Not that I have ever seen anyway. Of course you would expect that they partake in the appropriate social setting. The same 'understanding' could be applied to smokers in this situation.

What about healthcare workers. The greatest number of overweight people I have ever seen under one roof is at our hospitals. Shouldn't their employers be making 'good physical condition' a requirement of nurses employment? That is not'comparing apples to oranges'!

[Axeman]

The Charter hasn't much to say about discrimination. You need to look to the Provincial Human Rights Codes. As for acceptable discrimination, the phrase is "Bona Fide Occupational Requirement", for such things as physical testing, etc. In British Columbia, smoking HAS been ruled a disability. I can't recall the name of the company, but I'll try to find it or post a link. Basically, that company banned smoking on company property, but the workers worked several kilometers inside the property and could not, practically, just go "off site" for a butt during breaks. The courts ordered the company to provide shuttle service to the gate or else set up "smoking areas".

Another interesting case was the Hooter's Restaurant case, which refused to hire a server with 15 years waitressing experience, but did not fit, shall we say, the Hooter's body type. Hooter's established that such a body type was an essential element of the service they provided and of the brand they'd established, so the courts held that discrimination, on the basis of physical appearance WAS a bona fide occupation requirement to slop beers and chicken wings at Hooter's.

[Axeman]

The BC "smoking = disability" case I was referring to was Cominco Ltd. v. USWA Local 9705 (Feb.29, 2000). It is a 450 acred lead and zinc smelting facility.

[bootlegga]

Yogi wrote:

Not that I have ever seen anyway. Of course you would expect that they partake in the appropriate social setting. The same 'understanding' could be applied to smokers in this situation.

What about healthcare workers. The greatest number of overweight people I have ever seen under one roof is at our hospitals. Shouldn't their employers be making 'good physical condition' a requirement of nurses employment? That is not'comparing apples to oranges'!

My point is how effective would an anti-smoking organization be perceived if its smoking employees stood out front smoking? The answer is not very.

For the record, I don't think that doctors or nurses should smoke either (or anyone else for that matter either). I think that they should set a healthy example for their patients. Unfortunately, if you enforced this rule, Alberta would lose a big chunk of doctors and nurses overnight. I would, however, be in favour of creating a rule that enforced it for all new hires, grandfathering in existing smokers in much the same way the helmet rule was in the NHL 20 years ago.

However, Capital Health is far different from an anti-smoking NPO. One receives its funding from the government, which until very recently had protection from a diehard smoker (Ralph Klein), while the other is a private non-profit organization, which isn't affliated with the government, even though it may receive a grant or two from them.

Remember how quickly Alberta's new anti-smoking legislation got passed after Ralphie retired? That is a sign of things to come. Smoking, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, is slowly going the way of the dodo.

I support people's freedom to smoke, I however do not support the freedom to smoke any damn place they please. If you want to smoke, do it at home. Please don't pollute the air I have to breath while I'm walking down the street or outside a restaurant.

[TattoodGirl]

VCH has a no smoking policy on all there grounds and worktimes. There is no smoking at anytime, but they do not discriminate against it, they supply nicotine replacement options and incentives to quit for employees and in-patients.

[Brenda]

I think it is none of the employers business what people do in their own time. Breaks are not paid, so if I want to smoke on my break, I can. If the policy is, not on company property, you have to find a way to get off that property. What I do in my own home, is my problem.
I don't think it is necessary to tell my employer whether I smoke or not. I'd consider that a privacy matter.

[Yogi]

bootlegga wrote:

Yogi wrote:

Not that I have ever seen anyway. Of course you would expect that they partake in the appropriate social setting. The same 'understanding' could be applied to smokers in this situation.

What about healthcare workers. The greatest number of overweight people I have ever seen under one roof is at our hospitals. Shouldn't their employers be making 'good physical condition' a requirement of nurses employment? That is not'comparing apples to oranges'!

My point is how effective would an anti-smoking organization be perceived if its smoking employees stood out front smoking? The answer is not very.

For the record, I don't think that doctors or nurses should smoke either (or anyone else for that matter either). I think that they should set a healthy example for their patients. Unfortunately, if you enforced this rule, Alberta would lose a big chunk of doctors and nurses overnight. I would, however, be in favour of creating a rule that enforced it for all new hires, grandfathering in existing smokers in much the same way the helmet rule was in the NHL 20 years ago.

However, Capital Health is far different from an anti-smoking NPO. One receives its funding from the government, which until very recently had protection from a diehard smoker (Ralph Klein), while the other is a private non-profit organization, which isn't affliated with the government, even though it may receive a grant or two from them.

Remember how quickly Alberta's new anti-smoking legislation got passed after Ralphie retired? That is a sign of things to come. Smoking, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, is slowly going the way of the dodo.

I support people's freedom to smoke, I however do not support the freedom to smoke any damn place they please. If you want to smoke, do it at home. Please don't pollute the air I have to breath while I'm walking down the street or outside a restaurant.

I agree with you Boots in most of what you say. The part I take issue with is that the organization does get some of its funding from grants, ie; 'my taxes', thusly they do not, or should not have the authority to tell an employee that they cannot be a smoker away from work. Much the same way as A.A. has done in regards to those they employ who do drink alcohol.

[mtbr]

TattoodGirl wrote:

VCH has a no smoking policy on all there grounds and worktimes. There is no smoking at anytime, but they do not discriminate against it, they supply nicotine replacement options and incentives to quit for employees and in-patients.

The Calgary Foothills (Tom Baker Cancer Center) has the same policy "no smoking anywhere on hospital grounds" it's a joke I have never seen so many smokers congregate in one place in my life. 5 feet from the from the front door, it's disgusting.

I can't understand why a smoker would want to apply for this job.

[hwacker]

It is discriminatory and should be taken to court. What people do on their own time is their business PERIOD (just ask PET he'll tell you).

If this passes the smell test then you can ask if you're gay.

If this passes the smell test then you can ask if you've ever smoked pot.

The list is endless.