company fires smokers

[nabraxas]

hygene issues are personal & should be dealt w/outside ov management.

if a person cannot resolve such an issue then some management involvement maybe appropriate.

but as far as smoking goes; are we agreed that as long as a smoker doesn't stink, does their job, doesn't smoke at work & pays their own health care--then there is no justification for employer descrimination?

[rkundalini]

My point of relativism still seems to have been missed except perhaps by Flip. A person that smells of hair oil, armpits, etc is in mainstream elements of our society considered to "stink" or have "poor personal hygiene". In many (IMO, saner) cultures this natural human aroma is considered natural, and typical westerners would be considered to "stink" of various synthetic "personal hygiene" products -- shampoo, soap, deodorant, etc. I know which smell I prefer!

Likewise, we are talking about the smell of smoke on the clothing. This is not "second-hand smoke": I highly doubt any negative health impact of the mere smell of smoky clothing could be proven. So you are indeed talking about aestetics, which is a highly personal, subjective and relative matter.

Now, Torsten you stated that you refuse to enter into employment because you refuse to conform. So obviously you recognize that most workplaces are conservative places where people who do not share the dominant preferences for behaviour, appearance, etc are discriminated against. Your attitude seems to be "fine, I'll just stay away". While this is okay for you, do you really think it is fair for every person in society to be forced to choose between (1) conform (2) become an entrepreneur (3) starve ? People have a right to work that should not be contingent on conforming. (Although I'd rather see a society that wasn't so heavily structured around "work", this is another matter...)

[rkundalini]

P.S. Flip, has there ever really been a "right to offend" in the US? In Australia there have always been various laws against "lewd" or "offensive" behaviour. (And, censorship of films and publications judged likely to "offend a reasonable adult".)

[nabraxas]

RK---while i accept the smell ov people in an office maybe "un-natural", it is what society has created--like the que for the bus.

if someone continues to condition their hair w/urine after appeals from staff & management then they can't really expect to keep their job.

 

quote:

---

Likewise, we are talking about the smell of smoke on the clothing. This is not "second-hand smoke": I highly doubt any negative health impact of the mere smell of smoky clothing could be proven.

---

---it doesn't have to be proven, it just takes the people sitting at the next desks to find it offensive/irritating.

[ 21. February 2005, 10:54: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[Torsten]

Originally posted by nabraxas:

but as far as smoking goes; are we agreed that as long as a smoker doesn't stink, does their job, doesn't smoke at work & pays their own health care--then there is no justification for employer descrimination?

Yes 100% at this time. Future research may show that smokers indeed cause more accidents that may well involve other workers, in which case this would need to be revisited. But personally I would find that difficult to proove and because of the 'slippery slope' nature it would have to be one hell of a significant statistical difference.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by rkundalini:

My point of relativism still seems to have been missed except perhaps by Flip.

Nope, I thought I addressed this. I will again below.

A person that smells of hair oil, armpits, etc is in mainstream elements of our society considered to "stink" or have "poor personal hygiene". In many (IMO, saner) cultures this natural human aroma is considered natural, and typical westerners would be considered to "stink" of various synthetic "personal hygiene" products -- shampoo, soap, deodorant, etc. I know which smell I prefer!

I fully agree although I prefer no smell at all or rather natural smells like essential oils etc.

My point is that people are genuinely offended/irritated by smells and this affects them deeply. This is not a shallow 'attitude' kinda irritation, but a truely distracting irritation. In visual terms someone getting upset about being forced to sit on a bright organge chair is shallow, while someone getting irritated by the obtrusive nature of a bright orange painted office is actually truely affected. Hence the occasional mild whiff of smoke may well be OK, but someone soaked in stale smoke is distractingly offensive.

And you are right about the cultural difference. While in australia someone soaked in garlic cooking smells may well become a problem in a small space office here, I am sure in India, asia or the middle east he would not stand out at all.

There are also obvious differences between workplaces. Someone who works in a feedstore and smells of farmyard will not stand out like someone who works in perfumery retail smelling of farmyard.

While I am all against discrimination, I also feel common sense needs to prevail. And if this sometimes means conforming to some degree to avoid conflict then so be it. And it's not like only the employees have to make such concessions - the employer has to make them too. It's just a matter of striking the right and fair balance.

Likewise, we are talking about the smell of smoke on the clothing. This is not "second-hand smoke": I highly doubt any negative health impact of the mere smell of smoky clothing could be proven.

That was not the point. 20 years ago there was also no way of proving such negative health impact and yet a few years later it became quite apparent.

Just hypothetically (and note that I have a hard time believeing this myself), if we assume there is truth to aromatherapy, then aren't subtle smells possibly highly affecting if they are constant? Isn't it THIS coimmunity that constantly touts the high impact of such small exposures? Where are the homeopathy defenders when you need them

So you are indeed talking about aestetics, which is a highly personal, subjective and relative matter.

Aesthetics can have real impact. Why do you think McDonalds/Hungry Jacks is yellow and red? Why do you think kindergarten sleep rooms are being painted blue? Why do we put lemon aroma in cleaners? Why do we put green plastic plants in office spaces? Why do fresh-air-loving-hippies wear patchouli and stink out the house with lavender oil? Why do we classify smells as uplifiting, calming or aggressive? etc etc These are all aesthetics that have real and measurable physical effects.

Now, Torsten you stated that you refuse to enter into employment because you refuse to conform. So obviously you recognize that most workplaces are conservative places where people who do not share the dominant preferences for behaviour, appearance, etc are discriminated against.

No. My main gripe is less with any possible discrimination or aesthitic confirmity as with the corporate ownership principles and mental conformity. The jobs that I have worked required high degree of aesthetic conformity as do most jobs in hospitality and entertainment (eg uniform, shaving, even body hair had become an issue at one point). I never had a problem with these, because they do not limit my mental, social and moral divergences. And just because I haven't been in employment for many years doesn't mean I don't have to conform almost constantly in my business. Sure, I can wear pretty much what I want stylewise, but in most cases it needs to be clean and tidy (eg try and open a trading account if you look like you don't have 20c to rub together). I also need to conform my workhours to everyone else, which is particularly hard for me. Why should my nightowlishness which is a real physical problem be less of an issue than the aesthetics of your dreads?

Your attitude seems to be "fine, I'll just stay away". While this is okay for you, do you really think it is fair for every person in society to be forced to choose between (1) conform (2) become an entrepreneur (3) starve ? People have a right to work that should not be contingent on conforming.

As soon as you work you conform. 'Silly' things like earrings, dreadlocks, smells etc are trivial in comparison to the major conformist issues like working 9 to 5, braving rushhour, or needing a bank account to have your wages deposited into. We get hung up about these little things because we are blind to the fact that we have already conformed with everything else. So to me I really can't see much real significance in these trivialities anymore (I used to in my teens and early 20's). In fact, from my own experience and statements from others (including you) these tokens of free expression are more to test the resolve of the 'other side' than to truely express yourself. Gosh, if someone's existence boils down to what hair he is allowed to wear at work, then we are all pretty well fucked.

(Although I'd rather see a society that wasn't so heavily structured around "work", this is another matter...)

It's not so much the work itself that is the problem, but rather the slavery that it really is. I would have no problem with employment if the money stayed in the local community for the benefit of that community. I loathe the greed that sees the majority of people work for a select few.

[ 21. February 2005, 23:23: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[Rev]

 

quote:

---

 

Or maybe you would (I've smelled your place at times [Wink] )

---

LOL of course - thats the funky bit in funky fungus

I see all your points T but the fact remains that you are decidely anti-smoking, which you have demonstrated on several occassions over a period of time. I know daniel is also quite anti tobacco.

Of course this is your perogative to have your own positions but i already know youre biased against smokers rights. In contrast youll prob find me pro -smokers as a part time smoker myself - though ill be the first to tell people to smoke outside or away from kids.

which from my own perspective are the rights to put whatever you want into your body so long as it doesnt cause harm to others. This isnt just about drugs either, but food, or even body art or sexual matters.

I guess where we differ is what constitutes harm to others, im drawing the line at actual harm whilst your expanded definition strays into hurting others sensibilities - which is an area too slippery for me to accept going to.

[Torsten]

yep, I am anti smoking, yet when my lungs allow it I will have a puff of various herbs. Never at the inconvenience of others though. I am not fanatical about it, but after spending 15 years in work and social environments (nightclubs, bars, studios) where smokers have taken no consideration for non smokers I don't mind if I appear to be a little on the aggressive anti smoking side. And yes, I am a classic candidate for passive smoking disease due to no fault of my own, but purely because of how other people's freedom impacted on me. So after putting up with this selfishness for that long I make no apologies for taking my smoke-free rights a little further.

And yes, we basically differ in the definition or severity of harm. I believe that *reasonable* discomfort is harm as well. And I agree that the smell of smoke is very borderline in that definition and largely depends on the intensity. I guess I am mostly thinking back to working with people who popped out of the office for 5 mins every hour or two and came back stinking out the whole space, while totally oblivious to the discomfort they cause to the majority of the workers. Someone who has their last and first ciggie at home probably would not bother me.

I fully agree that it is everyone's right to put into their body whatever they like (as long as they don't expect anyone to pay for the consequences) and if smoking was odourless I would have no issue with it whatsoever.

It seems though that the denser our population gets the more we need to accommodate others to retain some sort of harmony.

[ 22. February 2005, 03:07: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[nabraxas]

i'm a smoker, but i agree that working closely w/anyone who smells strongly can be offensive/irritating, be it BO, garlic or smoke;

i think that's pretty obvious & nothing much to do w/ones stance on tobacco.

the health issue is more debateable. if smokers can be discriminated against on the grounds that they are 'less healthy', take more time off etc; then the same should apply for obese people, diabetics, parents ov very young children etc.

& as Gom pointed out anyone involved in the riskier sports.

[reptyle]

If a person was forced into a job and had no option to go find another job then its probably reasonable that they would be allowed to be however they wish to, however, people make a choice to seek employment in other peoples enterprises. the person that own the business should have every right to choose who they wish to be working for them. whether it is discrimination based on performance, smell, personality, size.

there should be no obligation to hire a specific person so why should there be an obligation to keep them on staff once they have started? if the situation doesnt work out, for any reason, then piss em off.

i wouldnt expect an employer to keep me on their staff even for somethin as trivial as not liking the height which i wear my pants. the same as any employee has the right to quit whenver they wish to.

unfair dissmisal is bullshit. lifes not fair.

[nabraxas]

reptyle:

the person that own the business should have every right to choose who they wish to be working for them. whether it is discrimination based on performance, smell, personality, size.

--& what about race, sex, & age?

[ 23. February 2005, 05:22: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[reptyle]

unfortunately there are people that do discriminate based on those issues, i say good luck to them. i still belive employers shouldnt have to employ someone for the sake of not discriminating, or keep them on their staff for the same reason.

just the same as i dont have to invite certain people to my home, i dont have to invite them to my work. and if they do something i dont like, however contraversial, i should have every right to ask them to leave.

[nabraxas]

so if a venture capitalist buys a bar, but doesn't think the bar staff are young sexy or white enough to attract the big spenders; you are saying he would be quite justified in sacking the present staff solely on that basis?

please tell me if i've got your opinion wrong.

[ 23. February 2005, 08:20: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[reptyle]

As much as i despise a person that would act in such a way, i feel it is their right to have what ever type of person they wish on their staff. discrimination is a fact of life, i choose to be indiscriminate, even to people with whose idea's i dont agree.

[Torsten]

As am employer it would never occur to me to discriminate on the basis of anything that the individual cannot change, eg sex, race, beauty etc

However, I have been in industries where such discrimination is absolutely essential for their viability. eg, in a teens/twenties nighclub good looking and young bar staff simply sell more drinks than ugly and old ones, or a pretty gay boy will always be more likely to get a job in a gay club than an ugly girl. In these cases the punters expect such discrimination and the employers have little choice if they want to stay competitive. It's not fair to always put the onus on the employer while the rest of society (incl the paying customers) quite clearly do not support equal opportunity.

My point here is that in some industries the responsibility really lies with the community as a whole rather than with the employer and as such employers need a little flexibility. I do not however believe that where race, sex etc make no difference to the business that the employer should be allowed to discriminate.

As I said before, common sense should prevail.

[nabraxas]

I do not however believe that where race, sex etc make no difference to the business that the employer should be allowed to discriminate.

yeah, same here; but that's why i used the bar as an example. no easy answer.

reptyle, i guess i would disagree w/you on the employers "right" to treat the business like his home/hareem---he should treat it like a business, ONLY if an employees age/sex/race/smokeing/diabetes/obeseity/high risk sports etc. are costing the business time/money, then the employer has a right to do something.

[gomaos]

I have worked in many jobs...

met many people, some stank, some reeked, some thought they were better than others...

I've endured all smells and other uncomfortable thing easily; the only thing i could never put up with was their stupid right-wingedness, their redneck mentality, their judging of other people to which they absolutely have no right too, I have had to listen to evil racist remarks, been branded a Nazi german (by real Nazi Australians!), and anti-drug and antifreedom and anti-liberty bullshit.

In most cases this pissed me off so much that i left or had myself fired...

that's the one thing I can't cope with:

Idiotic Minds!

never mind the smell...

(then again: especially after giving up alc and tobacco:

Sometimes my neighbour comes in reeking of alcohol and nicotine, and if I had to work with him all day... I simply couldn't!)

[ 24. February 2005, 14:55: Message edited by: gomaos ]