Posted on 12/23/2005 7:13:34 AM PST by Millee
SACKED smoker Sophie Blinman threatened to take her former employers to court yesterday, fuming: "I'm furious. Surely this is discrimination."
Stunned Sophie, 21, was given the boot 45 minutes after starting her new job even though she promised not to light up in office hours.
Her bosses declared: "It's positive discrimination and we're proud of it." Experts agreed the company was not breaking the law. But smokers' pressure group Forest said: "This is outrageous."
Sophie, who smokes five to 10 cigarettes a day, was delighted to land her £6-an-hour job as an administrator at Dataflow Communications.
She said: "I dressed smartly, arrived in good time and was about to be taken on a tour of the offices when I was asked if I smoked. When I said I did, I immediately sensed a problem.
"I explained I'd happily wait until my lunch break to smoke, and leave the premises to do so. But I was told the company didn't employ smokers and there was no longer a position for me.
"I can't believe a business is allowed to have a policy against employing smokers. I was never even asked at my interview if I smoked."
Threatening legal action, Sophie, of Shepton Mallet, Somerset, added: "This has left me angered and unemployed. I shall be seeking legal advice."
Dataflow, which employs 20 workers at its offices in Wells, advertises its non-smokers policy on its website.
Managing director Fran Edwards said: "All our employees have been recruited on this basis. We can't make an exception."
Information Services boss Ian Murray added: "We didn't ask Sophie at her interview if she was a smoker because we assumed the agency that sent her only asked non-smokers to apply."
Employment lawyer Frank Ryan said: "This is unusual, but it doesn't breach the law. Sophie won't qualify for unfair dismissal but she might challenge on the grounds of human rights."
Forest said: "Only smokers can be discriminated against without penalty."
All choices, and as such, can be discriminated against. All I'm saying, if you read my previous posts, is that the employer should get to decide whom she wants to employ. It's her money she's spending for labor. If she wants to discriminate against someone for a lifestyle choice--or even for their gender or ethnicity--she should be able to do so.
Of course, the marketplace will react to her and perhaps show her that she has behaved foolishly. People may stop doing business with her. Workers may choose to voluntarily work elsewhere.
A "chose your legal pleasure" underground.
Since most jobs s***, it isn't that hard a choice.
"Employees forget that they work for the employer, not with the employer."
This is a very good point. So many businesses over the past 30 years have tried to put across the idea that employees are "associates" or some such crap. In the beginning, I guess they try to convey that "we're-in-this-together" b.s. so employees wouldn't want unions. Now, nobody belongs to unions and employers have become much stronger.
My stock of funny feminine Arabic names is pretty small, that one comes by way of the old '50s song "Ahab the Arab". But I don't think "Fatima" would be offended anyway. It was a Joke, Senior Ratone, a Joke.
I know. I have the same reaction to "ice" hockey.
You said, in part: What if my boss finds out I collect and target shoot guns? Or (gasp!) hunt deer?!!? Should he be allowed to fire me because he doesn't like guns or hunting?
***
In NC and most states, and employment relationship requires the consent of both parties, employee and employer. If either wishes to terminate that relationship (absent an employment contract, the terms of which control), the other can do nothing about it.
Imagine the reverse proposition. An employee learns that his supervisor is a smoker, but that he only smokes outside of work hours. If the employee wishes to quit, may he, or should the employer be allowed to require the employee to continue working where he does not wish to? Few would say the employee could be forced to continue his employment if he wanted to quit. Yet we seem to have a problem when a private employer wants the same rights.
This is not to say I agree with the policy, except to the extent the employer provides health care coverage. Otherwise, I support the right of an employer OR an employee to terminate the employment for any reason or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason (i.e, race, sex, religion, age). Even stupid reasons should be allowed to cause an employer or an employee to terminate the employment, at least in the private employment setting.
I know just having some fun. Perhaps Shaharizad??
Remember Omar and Fatima, in this scenario, only make "tents" they don't necessarily wear them.
I on the other hand do shop at "The Casual Male".
You said, in part: But I would agree that a partnership or sole proprietorship could fire you for any reason it chose. But a corporation, either a privately or publicly held one, is a creature of the State, and is thus subject to whatever limitations the State might choose to apply to it. Of course the State is a pretty stupid beast as well, and may (will!) exercise it's powers unwisely. But it does have those powers over corporations.
***
A state could impose restrictions on job discrmination even on sole proprietorships and partnerships, if it were so inclined. While I agree that coporations are state created, but they are owned and run by individuals, and as such, should not be treated differently than other employers.
Good choice, although I'd hate to spend A thousand and one nights at the seamstress' place. I know I'm hard to fit, but ....
Well its doesn't matter anyway, since there is already meddling.
However, you can't tell a boss who they can and can't fire, and be on firmer ground than when you say they should be abled to hire or not hire whoever they want.
Reality is, GOD gives you life, the rest is up to you.
It is not an inalienable right than an employer provide you with a job, today, or tommorrow. You wish a job for life, you should have been in China 40 years ago when they had the Golden Rice bowl... but even in Communist countries this is not the case anymore.
I understand you don't think its fair to be fired because of what you do outside of the workplace.. but reality is, you either have freedom of association or you don't. And your freedom of association, doesn't trump your employers. Yes you have a right to shoot firearms in your free time, and associate with others who do... but your employer by all rights should have the same right to say I don't want to associate with folks who do that.... and be free to seperate from folks who do. You can't have it both ways.
You get canned because you do something off hours, that your employer doesn't agree with, go find a job or employer that won't fire you for it, or better yet, even encourage folks to do it... or even better go found your own business and not worry about anyone telling you what you can or can't do off hours.
Worse yet,....... I'm told at her age, that she's a Helen Thomas look-alike.
But they already are. Mostly preferentially.
So harsh is their disgust for SMOKING/SMOKERS that they will rationalize what they will to fit THEIR image of what a healthy lifestyle is: secondhand smoke kills, smoking causes higher health premiums, jogging in rush hour traffic is good, blah blah blah.....
Yet, they still persist in striving for that "American Dream" for their children that in many cases leads to extensive drug use, perverse sexual experimentation, relenting to peer presure, etc.
Many years ago, I quit a job after 6 hours because everyone else in the office smoked and I didn't.
People who smoke don't realize how much they stink.
bump
Life insurance companies have higher rates for smokers.
I have never seen higher rates for drinkers.
If a drinker's been in rehab, you'll see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.