Two stories recently piqued my attention. The first a couple of days ago via the Devil’s Kitchen was this little gem:
The World Health Organisation has decided not to hire anybody who smokes.
This is hot on the heels of a similar ban by the North Wales Police. Okay, make that three stories (and no mention of the Spanish Inquisition). The second (third) was this one from Germany.
A German company has sacked one of its employees for smoking at home after hiring a detective to catch him in the act. Sandro Beier was dismissed from his £19,000-a-year job with a Berlin printing company after being photographed smoking in his back garden. The company, Laserline, which runs a rigorous health and fitness programme for its 100 staff, said Mr Beier, 42, had "defrauded" it by lying about his smoking habits.
Okay, so Herr Beier lied and in so doing obtained a bonus to which he was not entitled. What bothers me, though, is the company’s belief that it can impose its attitudes on an employee’s private life. I’m reminded of Ford during the early years of the 20th Century who used to send inspectors to employees’ houses to check that they were indulging in a clean living lifestyle according to Henry Ford. This is intrusion way beyond that which an employee should reasonably expect. Sure, some roles require minimum levels of medical fitness and sobriety. My own industry; rail; carries out spot testing on employees under its drugs and alcohol policy. Intrusive, maybe, but justified given the safety critical nature of the work. Outside of that, providing the employer is not brought into disrepute, it is none of the employer’s business what employees get up to. Certainly any attempt by an employer to enroll me on a fitness programme or to divulge whether I smoke or not, would be met with blunt refusal, because it is none of their business. The contract of employment constitutes an exchange of expertise and time for remuneration. It does not confer ownership of one’s life and lifestyle to the employer. Smoking is a legal habit. Health damaging and unwise, maybe, but it is legal and there is no reason why someone should be excluded from employment for smoking in their own home in their own time. Going back the question posed by DK in his piece:
So how is it legal to discriminate against smokers?
Because, it seems, nothing specifically says that they can’t – and, didn’t you realise that smokers are evil?
I also find it irritating that smokers are increasingly demonised, and I’m not a smoker.
But I don’t like the idea that it should be illegal for employers to discriminate against smokers. They’re the ones handing over the money so they should be at liberty to decide who they hand it over to using any criteria they see fit.
Similarly, I would avoid entering into a contract that required my employer to poke his nose into my personal life. But that’s not the same as saying that such contracts can’t exist.
”’Longrider replies: The libertarian in me agrees with you. However, once employers are allowed to discriminate it will just get worse. I’ve already had to take on an employer who thought it acceptable to tell me to cut my hair. It does tend to colour one’s view, being on the receiving end of discrimination.”’
”’The way I see it, an employer should have no right to enquire into an employee’s personal life where it has no direct effect on the employer’s business – therefore, if someone smokes at home, the employer is none the wiser.”’