Employer Asked Employee To Quit Smoking Is It...
This is a rhetorical question I just want to hear opinions:
If smoking is a choice and religion is a choice why is it OK to discriminate against smokers but not religion?
10 Responses to “Employer Asked Employee To Quit Smoking Is It Discrimination?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Technically smoking is not discrimination because the Federal gov — EEOC (www.eeoc.gov) does not recognize it as a discrimination base. No state recognizes it as a discrimination base either. So, in the legal world unless the act has been labeled as a discrimination base, you cannot use it in a discrimination lawsuit. Actually the EEOC office and your state’s human rights dept/comm/office will reject a complaint based on smoking.
There are other things that are unfair but not illegal. For example a supervisor can hire/fire/promote/demote and harass a person because of their weight. Being called fat, being fired because the boss says the employee is far is not discrimination — why because the fed and state gov does not recognize weight as a discrimination base.
I bring that up because this country is going on ‘fight fat’ campaign. The insurance companies that carry employees health care insurance are making noise about ‘how bad it is to have to insure all these ****** fat people’. Next we may see our health care premiums increase unless we are at the perfect weight. Right now there is no legal way to fight that.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I have never heard of second hand religion but I have heard of second hand smoke. Yes it is a choice but whose choice is it the smoker or the one person standing next to him.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
You don’t give enough details to have us make a fair assessment.
If one is smoking right outside the window that is open and it’s blowing in and everyone has to smell the smoke, then how is that fair to everyone else? I would have asked the smoker to put out the cigarette or move.
If smoking makes a person and the company look bad to customers and/or clients then I can fully understand their wanting to do what’s best for their company.
Also – comparing religion to smoking is not even close to being the same thing. Smoking affects all those around (uh, yeah, it could cause others, as well as one’s self to get cancer) while often times religion does not – unless you get someone highly forceful and arrogant in their beliefs – in which case, they too would be asked to quit (preaching) to avoid bothering others.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
because smoking is a health & safety issue that affects EVERYONE. religion is not an issue of health & safety.
In canada there are now federal & provincial laws that control where you can smoke. Most smokers are now required to smoke outside on their breaks.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:52 am
The two are not comparable. Discrimination due to religion is against the law. Smoking is not legally protected so no discrimination exists.
Religion does not affect people’s job performance or their health insurance premiums. Religion does not have health risks for people sitting in adjoining cubicles.
I used to manage a department that was open on weekends. Shifts were set strictly by seniority. Christians received no special treatment so that they could attend Sunday mass. They had to go on their own time. Nor did members of any other faith get special treatment so that they could go to their religious services. In contrast, I had to routinely watch for smokers who tried to take extra breaks to sneak off for a cigarette. That’s not fair to their non-smoking colleagues who have to keep working without extra, unauthorized breaks. I don’t mind if smokers want to light up on their scheduled breaks (outside of the building!), but I don’t believe that they entitled to special treatment because of their addiction.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:33 am
smoking makes me nauseated even when someone only smells of it, smokers usally do less work(statisticly), they miss more work (sick more often) so many reasons why they are bottom of the barrel!
January 28th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Well, unless the employer sacks the employee for smoking a cig, it’s not discrimination, just a request.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
being a smoker myself i say yes its my right to choose.I know about all the damages it causes.But these no smoking laws are gotten way out of hand
January 28th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
It’s not discrimination.
The employers have the right to contain health care costs. The use of tobacco has been proved to cause harm. That harm (cancer for example) is very expensive to treat.
In order to provide health care benefits to all employees, the employer needs to contain costs.
As far as religion goes, I know of no employers that would discriminate any religion, as it’s against federal law to do so.
It’s not against the law to have your employees encouraged to live healthier lifestyles. If you don’t like the encouragement, you’re free to look for employment elsewhere.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
No one said it was OK to discriminate against smokers, but if the employer deduced that the smoker was affecting his and other peoples health, he has full right to tell the smoker so. People do discriminate against religion, it just isn’t publicized.