I am writing a debate, the topic being "we should allow employers to refuse to hire smokers" and i am on the negative panel. I need any details people have about discrimination laws or even any topic ideas.
2006-07-31 13:19:32 · 16 answers · asked by brigomole 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Smokers tend to be less productive, on average.
Take several cigarette breaks, often disturbing others while in route. Often sneaking out of meetings early to feed their addiction.
Tend to be less healthy and require more sick leave. As smokers age the company's health plan will see more and more smoke related illnesses as a result of hiring smokers, raising the company's medical insurance costs.
No amount of second hand smoke is safe. It is in their breath and on their clothes. Thus, they endanger those around them.
Should other employees be forced to work with someone who smokes? Employers should be able to screen for nicotine just as they can for other drugs and alcohol.
2006-07-31 13:21:56 · answer #1 · answered by Plasmapuppy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In one job consisting of a group working a four-hour shift, I was the only non-smoker. The smokers (about 7 of them) were allowed to have a smoke break whenever they wanted: typically a minimum of 2-3 10 to 15 minutes smoke-n-chat breaks over the course of the 4 hour shift. As a non-smoker, it was deemed unnecessary for me to take a break unless I needed to use the restroom.
At my last job, we had one girl who would tell others she was going to the bathroom about once an hour - an average of 6 to 7 times a day, disappear for about 10 minutes each time and come back reeking of smoke...really obvious and making everyone else annoyed since they had to cover for her while she was out. After that the owner would find any excuse not to hire a smoker.
In my opinion, non-smokers ARE less productive and employers should be able to refuse employment, but I don't see how an employer could be forced to hire anyone, regardless of the applicant.
2006-07-31 13:33:11 · answer #2 · answered by dragonwing 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am the only smoker where I work, (auto body repair shop) except for a one member of management. I rank second in production among 6 workers, (producing 55-65 hours work in a 40 hour week) and I step outside for a smoke whenever I damn well please!
As far as taking off work, I missed 1 day 4 years ago with the flu.
2006-07-31 13:42:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every smoker I work with spends at least 10-15 minutes every 2 hours outside smoking. According to state law, you're entitled to a 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked. Why should they be allowed to take more time? And the person who said they are out sick more is correct too.
2006-07-31 13:23:59 · answer #4 · answered by A nobody from Oklahoma 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the employer is following the same break entitlement allowance for both a smoker and a non-smoker, why would there be a difference in productivity?
2006-07-31 13:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I smoke and can do the same amount of work as three nonsmokers. Productivity is not physical, it is mental. Your panel should investigate why the United States young are so lazy. Your debate should be "we should allow employers not to hire lazy people". People that eat McDonalds or any other fast food are lazy-therefore not productive. Too damn LAZY to fix their own lunch. And while I am poisining my body I must go through the DRIVE THRU BECAUSE I AM TOO LAZY TOO WALK IN, not productive. Who would hire?
2006-07-31 13:32:22 · answer #6 · answered by Tim B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most smokers I have worked with on average were way more productive than those who did not smoke!! The best workers I have ever seen are at least 75% smokers!!
2006-07-31 13:22:46 · answer #7 · answered by Jimmy Pete 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Such a generalization is hard to justify.
Many smokers are focused and much more
productive than non-smokers. I know many
of them. To say it is smoking that makes the
difference in people is naive.
EDIT:
Bill has the best answer, though. He aptly summed
up the point I was getting at... be careful when you
discriminate, your arguments might not apply just how
you want them to.
2006-07-31 13:23:59 · answer #8 · answered by PoohP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because smokers need a 10 min break every hour or so to go and smoke i know i smoke and it sux it takes more time for me do do my work than a non smoker.
2006-07-31 13:24:00 · answer #9 · answered by tpkn_mchaley 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they're not.
They take cigarette breaks, lots of them.
They miss more time out sick because of smoking-related illnesses.
Studies have shown that smokers miss more work due to accidents, illnesses and injuries than nonsmokers, and are less productive at work.
Here is an in-depth analysis of the topic, plus some other resources:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/A/200111296.html
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/3/233
http://www.tobacco.org/news/62907.html
2006-07-31 13:22:13 · answer #10 · answered by Bad Kitty! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋