PDA

View Full Version : Court: European employers can fire smokers, even if they only smoke at home


Regis Philbin
Aug 13th, 2006, 10:06 PM
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html


Snubbing Smokers At Work


A European Commission ruling says that employers can sack workers who light up — even if only out of office hours

By JEFFREY IVERSON

Sunday, Aug. 13, 2006

Is it the boss's business if you have a cigarette after dinner? After an Irish job ad stipulated that "smokers need not apply," that question was put to the European Commission, which decided that employers refusing to hire smokers do not breach European antidiscrimination laws.

How can Britain weeding out al-Qaeda-inspired extremists question was put to the European Commission, which decided that employers refusing to hire smokers do not breach European antidiscrimination laws.

"The Commission can legislate on age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, race and gender," says Commission spokesperson Katharina von Schnurbein. "For all other areas, it's the member state's responsibility." Critics fumed that though some countries, such as France and Belgium, have laws requiring employers to hire on qualifications alone, the Commission is doing nothing to stop growing numbers of employers from prying into the lifestyles of potential recruits.

The Geneva-based World Health Organization launched a hiring ban on smokers in December 2005, the same month Sophie Blinham was fired just minutes into her new job at an English data communications firm after admitting she smoked. Von Schnurbein insists the Commission's decision is not "a green light for employers to discriminate," but Tom Jenkins of the European Trade Union Confederation disagrees. "This opens the possibility for all kinds of discriminations," he says, citing the obese and alcoholics. The Dublin Internet entrepreneur who placed the ad, Philip Tobin, was quoted as saying that smokers "stink."

If you eat a pungent lunch, says Jenkins, "you might stink, too."

BrokenHalo
Aug 14th, 2006, 06:41 AM
I can see both sides. I don't think it's really one's employer's business what one does in the privacy of their own home (so long as it's not illegal/harmful to anyone). However, that said, I can see the employer's arguement that smoking *is* harmful to them and that it could lead to higher insurance costs, etc. On the other hand, it does really open the door to a lot of other things like firing people with eating disorders (whether it be anorexia or obesity) or then could lead to firing someone who spends too much time sunbathing and might develop skin cancer. It's a dangerous precicent to set. Where would the line be drawn?

Ultimately I guess I'd have to disagree with this ruling and say that smoking in and of itself should not be a firable offense (or a not-hiring offense--I don't really think it should be a question asked on an application or in interviews, but that's my opinion I suppose...)

Annoyedlistner
Aug 14th, 2006, 07:23 AM
I'm not a fan of this...what you do on your own time is your business as long as it does not negatively effect your company.

pinky
Aug 14th, 2006, 08:43 AM
Yes, but actively engaging in behaviors that are PROVEN to be detrimental to your health does affect your company, in lost productivity due to health issues and in insurance revenues.

I can see it both ways.

SparkleHugs
Aug 14th, 2006, 08:44 AM
Things like that even further prove why America is a good place to live. While i do see where they are coming from, its still discrimination and unfair.

pinky
Aug 14th, 2006, 09:02 AM
Ah, but it's discrimination based on something the person can control, unlike discriminating because of someone's race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. That makes it an apple to your oranges.

SparkleHugs
Aug 14th, 2006, 09:24 AM
ah, very true.

BrokenHalo
Aug 14th, 2006, 10:21 AM
It's something that they can control, but then so could be argued things like weight, tanning (greatly ups odds of skin cancer), eating sushi (you know the ones that are poisonous if not prepared perfectly), crossing the street (odds greatly increase that you'll be hit by a car)...lol. I know I'm getting absurd, but I don't think you can really hire/fire someone on what *might* impact their health. My grandfather smoked a pack a day every day since he was 8 years old and lived to be 96 with very few health problems ever (until he was 94 he was extremely active...).

I admit, I hate smoking as a concept and I do see the company's point, but I gotta say that it's opening a big can of worms and opening up to a lot of potential for discrimination in other ways. I highly encourage companies to offer quit smoking programs (and definitely that they enforse no smoking at work/on the job), but really don't think it's good to hire/fire based soley on smoking (unless they do so *at work*.)

Whoda Thunk?
Aug 14th, 2006, 02:19 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to find that in the US soon as well, assuming it isn't already here. People have been fired for using competitor's products off the clock, can this be too far in the future?

Edit- just as I thought:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458


http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-05-11-smoke-usat_x.htm

Regis Philbin
Aug 16th, 2006, 01:29 AM
Doesn't Europe have socialized health care? I'm pretty sure most of it does, so they'll be OK as far as that goes. I can see why employers would only want healthy workers, especially since it's so damn hard to fire anyone in Europe anyway. I'm really surprised they'd have a law like this there. You practically have to shoot the boss to get fired there but now they can can you just for lighting up??? Go figure... :scratch: