Is it OK for a workplace to demand an employee smell decent? Employee never smoked at work, and smoked a pack a day at home.
(I highly doubt she did everything possible to solve the problem. She 'bagged' her clothes, but really, ultimately, you have to have a smoke free house, or else all your stuff will smell like smoke. Its as simple as that).
I personally can't stand cigarette smoke smell, and I'm siding with the people who fired her. Cancer patients have to come in and be subjected to smoke?
One Minnesota woman is claiming that smoking a cigarette in the privacy of her own home cost her a job.
Stephanie Cannon was fired from her job as a receptionist at the Frauenshuh Cancer Center of Park Nicollet Health Services on the grounds that she smelled like smoke at work, KSTP-TV reports. Cannon is a regular, pack-a-day smoker, but she told the local ABC affiliate that she never brought her habit with her to work.
Six weeks into her job, Cannon's boss told her she could no longer show up to work smelling like smoke. Despite efforts to eliminate the smell from her clothing -- which she claims included bagging and spraying her clothing with air freshener before work -- the stench just wouldn't go away, and the hospital let her go.
Cannon isn't the only person to find herself out of a job for smoking in the privacy of her own home. Three EVAC paramedics in Volusia County, Florida, were fired last year after they were found in violation of the county's anti-nicotine policy, The Daytona Beach News-Journal report.
Many employers may not go so far as to fire their workers who smoke, but they can be penalized in other ways. Companies are increasingly requiring that employees who smoke, have high cholesterol or are overweight pay more for their health care, according to The NYT. In Michigan, several hospitals have recently started not offering a job to applicants who smoke or chew tobacco, according to MLive.
Local and state ordinances have made smoking in public places an increasingly rare spectacle too. Twenty-five states have placed a full ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces, the Orlando Sentinel reports. And 10 more states ban smoking in one of those three locations.
No state, however, bans smoking in the home for private-sector employees and Cannon told KTSP that she's speaking to an attorney. "What I do in my home or outside of work when I'm not punching into that little clock is what my business," she says. "I shouldn't have to be made like I'm a leper."
The place where my mom works (eye doctor) hasn't hired smokers in a LONG time. It's about health insurance costs, but I'm sure they would do the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Not fond of companies being able to tell their employees what they can and cant do outside the work place. If there was no 'smell policy' when she started, I see a huge lawsuit in the future.
If a company can start telling you what you can and cant do outside work, how long before they can start telling you what you have to eat or what car you have to drive or else lose your job? Smoking is legal. As long as she wasnt caught smoking on the property, I dont feel the company had any right here, to fire her.
The place where my mom works (eye doctor) hasn't hired smokers in a LONG time. It's about health insurance costs, but I'm sure they would do the same.
I dont know if this is legal, but still they catch it at the hiring level, not after they have worked there.
I think some would claim this is discriminating, which is against hiring laws.
Not fond of companies being able to tell their employees what they can and cant do outside the work place. If there was no 'smell policy' when she started, I see a huge lawsuit in the future.
If a company can start telling you what you can and cant do outside work, how long before they can start telling you what you have to eat or what car you have to drive or else lose your job? Smoking is legal. As long as she wasnt caught smoking on the property, I dont feel the company had any right here, to fire her.
We've discussed companies with policies that require employees to make sure the HR department has the password to their FB so they can take down stuff they feel would make the company look bad.
I'm not sure when the vast majority of sheep will wake up and realize they are getting nothing for the headaches they are given on a daily basis. Corporate power has to be in a bubble right now. Eventually governments will no longer be able to prop them up to stabilize the job market and then we'll get competition again.
I think some would claim this is discriminating, which is against hiring laws.
Smokers are not a protected class.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
They gave her six months to rid herself of the problem and she failed to do so. Its similar to showing up to work without bathing for six months. People notice.
There are places you just don't want to smell smoke, and on a receptionist at a health center is one of them.
Not fond of companies being able to tell their employees what they can and cant do outside the work place. If there was no 'smell policy' when she started, I see a huge lawsuit in the future.
If a company can start telling you what you can and cant do outside work, how long before they can start telling you what you have to eat or what car you have to drive or else lose your job? Smoking is legal. As long as she wasnt caught smoking on the property, I dont feel the company had any right here, to fire her.
Isn't a 'no smell' policy pretty much assumed for people who deal with the public?
She smoke outside the workplace but she brought the smoke into the workplace. I love eating garlic but I do not eat in during the workweek since I know that the next day I will bring bad breath to the office even though I ate it at home.
Isn't a 'no smell' policy pretty much assumed for people who deal with the public?
She smoke outside the workplace but she brought the smoke into the workplace. I love eating garlic but I do not eat in during the workweek since I know that the next day I will bring bad breath to the office even though I ate it at home.
I work for the city I live in, and I know one of our respectful workplace policies covers offending smells. Of course because it's the city and there's a proper HR department, (don't quote me on this) the offender first gets a verbal warning, then a written warning, then I believe a talk with management and finally dismissal. I think the smell thing covers anything that would be considered excessive, like cigarette smoke, strong perfume, body odor, and actually also considers smells from cooking, like microwaving a pungent fish dish or something to that effect.
I fully side with the employer. Strong smells can be extremely annoying when you have no escape from them, and for a cancer centre employee to smell like something that irrefutably causes cancer... it seems like a blatant slap in the face.
We've discussed companies with policies that require employees to make sure the HR department has the password to their FB so they can take down stuff they feel would make the company look bad.
I'm not sure when the vast majority of sheep will wake up and realize they are getting nothing for the headaches they are given on a daily basis. Corporate power has to be in a bubble right now. Eventually governments will no longer be able to prop them up to stabilize the job market and then we'll get competition again.
I would agree if this was all laid out prior to her being hired. It doesnt say how long she has worked there. If she was hired as a smoker and had been with the company for some time, I dont see 'smelling like smoke' as being a justifiable reason for firing.
Smokers are not a protected class.
Discrimination is discrimination. If a company can discriminate because someone smokes, then they can start discriminating because of skin color, sickness, hair color, shoe size. Its a slippery slope.
Discrimination is discrimination. If a company can discriminate because someone smokes, then they can start discriminating because of skin color, sickness, hair color, shoe size. Its a slippery slope.
Most of the defined protected classes are things that you have no choice over: race, sex, age, national origin, disability, genetics. The only ones that you do have a choice over are religion, family, and veteran status (no choice for draft veterans). If you can get smoking on that list then it would be discriminatory to fire a smoker because he or she smokes.
Discrimination is discrimination. If a company can discriminate because someone smokes, then they can start discriminating because of skin color, sickness, hair color, shoe size. Its a slippery slope.
Admitting your own argument is a fallacy is not generally the best idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
"Slippery slope" is not a formal fallacy, and is only arguably an informal fallacy. What I can say for sure, is that it is a valid argument, and should be weighed appropriately.
"Slippery slope" is not a formal fallacy, and is only arguably an informal fallacy. What I can say for sure, is that it is a valid argument, and should be weighed appropriately.
His argument is absolutely invalid because he equates a life choice with discrimination based upon something you have no control over. Race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Discriminating against a smoker would be like firing someone for finding out they were part of the KKK, not for finding out that they were black.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Admitting your own argument is a fallacy is not generally the best idea.
Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.
Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?
Discriminating against a smoker would be like firing someone for finding out they were part of the KKK, not for finding out that they were black.
Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.
Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.
No, it isn't. There are choices people make, and punishment for those choices is fine. Punishment for something no one can change is not.
Hell, YOU discriminate against people that have committed the act of murder by wanting to a) separate them from society and b) kill them. Murder is a choice, not something you are born with.
Don't tell me "discrimination is discrimination and all discrimination is bad" when you very vocally support discrimination against a particular choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.
Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.
Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?
The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.
Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.
As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?
EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?
Those are things that do not affect the workplace. Therefore are very much red herrings to this conversation.
Remember the issue was not that she was a smoker, it was that she smelled like smoke in the workplace. I would very much have a similar issue with someone of my faith Evangelizing in the workplace or anyone of any sexuality trying to "convert" others in the workplace.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.
Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?
As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a ***** does to a ******.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Those are things that do not affect the workplace. Therefore are very much red herrings to this conversation.
Remember the issue was not that she was a smoker, it was that she smelled like smoke in the workplace. I would very much have a similar issue with someone of my faith Evangelizing in the workplace or anyone of any sexuality trying to "convert" others in the workplace.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
No, it isn't. There are choices people make, and punishment for those choices is fine. Punishment for something no one can change is not.
Hell, YOU discriminate against people that have committed the act of murder by wanting to a) separate them from society and b) kill them. Murder is a choice, not something you are born with.
Don't tell me "discrimination is discrimination and all discrimination is bad" when you very vocally support discrimination against a particular choice.
LOL!
Comparing a felony to something legal.. I love how people blur concepts with extremes.
Wanting to see all cancerous humans like murderers, rapist, and child molesters be put to death and taken out of society is nothing like being discriminated on because you do something LEGAL, in our society. It might not be the social norm as it once was, (tho reports show more young teens are smoking then in the past deacde) but its still legal.
If they hired her knowing she was a smoker and had nothing in the guidelines about smell. I would side with the woman. If she lied and conned her way in and everything was spelled out for here prior, then I would side with the employer. The problem is the article posted doesnt give too much detail to the story.
I still dont like that a company can tell you what you can and cant do on your own time. The company 'owns' you for you 8 or 10 hours you are in the office. Once you leave, they should have no say over your life. What you do (as long as its legal), or who you spend your time with.
Comparing a felony to something legal.. I love how people blur concepts with extremes.
Wanting to see all cancerous humans like murderers, rapist, and child molesters be put to death and taken out of society is nothing like being discriminated on because you do something LEGAL, in our society. It might not be the social norm as it once was, (tho reports show more young teens are smoking then in the past deacde) but its still legal.
If they hired her knowing she was a smoker and had nothing in the guidelines about smell. I would side with the woman. If she lied and conned her way in and everything was spelled out for here prior, then I would side with the employer. The problem is the article posted doesnt give too much detail to the story.
I still dont like that a company can tell you what you can and cant do on your own time. The company 'owns' you for you 8 or 10 hours you are in the office. Once you leave, they should have no say over your life. What you do (as long as its legal), or who you spend your time with.
Exactly, I love when people who demonize corporations so quickly grandstand them when they hold the same opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it OK for a workplace to demand an employee smell decent? Employee never smoked at work, and smoked a pack a day at home.
(I highly doubt she did everything possible to solve the problem. She 'bagged' her clothes, but really, ultimately, you have to have a smoke free house, or else all your stuff will smell like smoke. Its as simple as that).
I personally can't stand cigarette smoke smell, and I'm siding with the people who fired her. Cancer patients have to come in and be subjected to smoke?
If a company can start telling you what you can and cant do outside work, how long before they can start telling you what you have to eat or what car you have to drive or else lose your job? Smoking is legal. As long as she wasnt caught smoking on the property, I dont feel the company had any right here, to fire her.
I dont know if this is legal, but still they catch it at the hiring level, not after they have worked there.
I think some would claim this is discriminating, which is against hiring laws.
We've discussed companies with policies that require employees to make sure the HR department has the password to their FB so they can take down stuff they feel would make the company look bad.
I'm not sure when the vast majority of sheep will wake up and realize they are getting nothing for the headaches they are given on a daily basis. Corporate power has to be in a bubble right now. Eventually governments will no longer be able to prop them up to stabilize the job market and then we'll get competition again.
Smokers are not a protected class.
There are places you just don't want to smell smoke, and on a receptionist at a health center is one of them.
Isn't a 'no smell' policy pretty much assumed for people who deal with the public?
She smoke outside the workplace but she brought the smoke into the workplace. I love eating garlic but I do not eat in during the workweek since I know that the next day I will bring bad breath to the office even though I ate it at home.
I work for the city I live in, and I know one of our respectful workplace policies covers offending smells. Of course because it's the city and there's a proper HR department, (don't quote me on this) the offender first gets a verbal warning, then a written warning, then I believe a talk with management and finally dismissal. I think the smell thing covers anything that would be considered excessive, like cigarette smoke, strong perfume, body odor, and actually also considers smells from cooking, like microwaving a pungent fish dish or something to that effect.
I fully side with the employer. Strong smells can be extremely annoying when you have no escape from them, and for a cancer centre employee to smell like something that irrefutably causes cancer... it seems like a blatant slap in the face.
GRBKarrthus, the CheatinatorBRG
RWGMayael, Who Sneaks her Friends into PartiesGWR
BWRKaalia, Angel PimpRWB
I would agree if this was all laid out prior to her being hired. It doesnt say how long she has worked there. If she was hired as a smoker and had been with the company for some time, I dont see 'smelling like smoke' as being a justifiable reason for firing.
Discrimination is discrimination. If a company can discriminate because someone smokes, then they can start discriminating because of skin color, sickness, hair color, shoe size. Its a slippery slope.
Most of the defined protected classes are things that you have no choice over: race, sex, age, national origin, disability, genetics. The only ones that you do have a choice over are religion, family, and veteran status (no choice for draft veterans). If you can get smoking on that list then it would be discriminatory to fire a smoker because he or she smokes.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Admitting your own argument is a fallacy is not generally the best idea.
I would side with the employer, if they enacted the policy with some sort of grace period and she just continued to smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
"Slippery slope" is not a formal fallacy, and is only arguably an informal fallacy. What I can say for sure, is that it is a valid argument, and should be weighed appropriately.
His argument is absolutely invalid because he equates a life choice with discrimination based upon something you have no control over. Race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Discriminating against a smoker would be like firing someone for finding out they were part of the KKK, not for finding out that they were black.
Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.
Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?
Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.
They can however make a rule that you are absolutely not allowed to smell like smoke in the workplace. Good luck smoking and pulling that one off.
No, it isn't. There are choices people make, and punishment for those choices is fine. Punishment for something no one can change is not.
Hell, YOU discriminate against people that have committed the act of murder by wanting to a) separate them from society and b) kill them. Murder is a choice, not something you are born with.
Don't tell me "discrimination is discrimination and all discrimination is bad" when you very vocally support discrimination against a particular choice.
Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.
It is not a slippery slope.
The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.
As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?
EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
Are you saying that addiction is a choice?
Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?
Those are things that do not affect the workplace. Therefore are very much red herrings to this conversation.
Remember the issue was not that she was a smoker, it was that she smelled like smoke in the workplace. I would very much have a similar issue with someone of my faith Evangelizing in the workplace or anyone of any sexuality trying to "convert" others in the workplace.
If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.
As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a ***** does to a ******.
Yeah thanks for re-phrasing. Make sense.
I actually smoked when I first started working in a hospital years ago. No one knew until I told them. Gum and other trickery can go a long way.
This, plus the fact that it's a cancer center, so there's the additional matter of the center's image.
LOL!
Comparing a felony to something legal.. I love how people blur concepts with extremes.
Wanting to see all cancerous humans like murderers, rapist, and child molesters be put to death and taken out of society is nothing like being discriminated on because you do something LEGAL, in our society. It might not be the social norm as it once was, (tho reports show more young teens are smoking then in the past deacde) but its still legal.
If they hired her knowing she was a smoker and had nothing in the guidelines about smell. I would side with the woman. If she lied and conned her way in and everything was spelled out for here prior, then I would side with the employer. The problem is the article posted doesnt give too much detail to the story.
I still dont like that a company can tell you what you can and cant do on your own time. The company 'owns' you for you 8 or 10 hours you are in the office. Once you leave, they should have no say over your life. What you do (as long as its legal), or who you spend your time with.
Exactly, I love when people who demonize corporations so quickly grandstand them when they hold the same opinion.