Hiring Discrimination: How Far It Can Go

Posted on | February 9, 2010 | Author: | DanS | 1 Comment

Smoking, in general, is a habit, activity, hazard and/or stress reliever that can provoke discussion and disagreement across the diverse cornucopia of world cultures. Don’t think so? We couldn’t get out of the first half of the first sentence without providing the variety of qualifying adjectives that describe it. You will no doubt have some qualifiers of your own.

In the workplace, though, smoking has devolved into more than just the core issue for breathing clean air. Designated outdoor areas safe enough for a fag break dot workplaces throughout Britain, partakers in the activity willing more than ever to put on a jacket to, as Dr. Jeffrey Wigand once famously put it, ‘get your fix’. There remains fuss over the pubs and clubs ban, as many smokers still lay claim to having the right to practice a perfectly legal activity. Discrimination seemed to be going on here, and you could hear the echoes.

But we breathe relatively cleaner air in part because of these measures, and with that the majority seems to have spoken. Personally, I’ve found the smokers’ rights campaign traceable to a sort of combination of conciliatory agreement and the White House view of the Vietnam Conflict: once one generation of smokers gave up their rights in one functioning area of society, the dominoes began to fall.

We here in the UK have no clue what the last domino to fall will be. I was reminded of this recently upon reading some advice from a jobs coach based in Seattle.

Rita Ashley is the author of Smokeless in Seattle, an article that uses The Washington Clean Indoor Air Act of 1985 (RCW 70.160) and its December 2005 revision as inspiration for her advice on smoking rights around the workplace that, in my humble opinion, can be described at best as “shoddy”. Worth noting during reading is that it is reasonable to surmise Ashley’s article is intended mainly for the consumption of Washington State readers or those other American states currently legislating smoking in the workplace.

Ashley quotes from RCW 70.160: “…The new comprehensive law prohibits smoking in all indoor public places, including restaurants, bars, taverns, bowling alleys, skating rinks, non-tribal casinos, and in all places of employment (any place employees must pass through during the course of employment).  In addition, it prohibits smoking within 25 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve indoor public places or places of employment.”

When we think of diversity in employment, we simply boil it down to the melting pot way of thinking – that all of the cultures, backgrounds, nationalities and other marks of ethnic distinction are, in fact, representative of diversity as a whole. This is erroneous behaviour, because diversity goes so far beyond that. This applicant is 53 years old; that one is 35. This applicant is disabled. That one is not. Sexual orientation. Child-bearing age. UK born or in need of specific working permits. All of these factors and more create a diverse collection of contractors, temps and employees any traveller might find in any workplace.

Many regulations that opened doors for so many of our diverse populace closed the same door when it came to drug users. Then came a crackdown on alcohol consumers. Followed by the aforementioned dominoes that fell on the fag break brigade. Which raises some concerning questions:

1. If the workplace and public houses are becoming less tolerant of all types of drug behaviour, why shouldn’t this lead to a revamped, unedited discussion of what constitutes an illegal drug?
2. How unreasonable is it to hypothesize that caffeine is next on the agenda?
3. Would the UK consider doing things so Draconian as not hire smokers?

According to Ashley’s piece, its heading that way Stateside. She cites one Michigan-based medical benefit provider that I would describe as nothing short of totalitarian in its anti-smoking furor. Weyco, she writes, “banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed are not fired; however, they can’t get medical insurance through the company. Some companies have such a strong no-smoking policy for employees, new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they are tobacco-free. Is this the wave of the future for smokers?”

Her advice, though, is a tad condescending and wholly unprofessional. While Ashley tries not to encourage you to quit, her advice seems impossible to follow to great success without quitting smoking. Things like separating your new job search clothes from the rest of your wardrobe so the smell won’t rub off. Or going as far as to turn down an invite to a dinner and interview as a means to “protect yourself from your own urge to smoke”.

Erm, if it’s banned in restaurants in most states anyway, doesn’t that settle matters to begin with?

How does all of this work without quitting smoking?

Are there nicotine gums proven to be 100 per cent effective within 24 hours?

When hired after hiding your smoking habit effectively, are you really going to find it reasonable to wear that same outfit to the office every day you work there? 

Will you find it necessary to pull a Marge Simpson and alter it every night to avoid suspicion?

Moreover, are you going to kick the habit that easily before a second interview? Let alone if you accept the job and have to avoid your addiction cold turkey? Not exactly the time to be undertaking such measures, considering you want to make a good first impression with your team.

Should the out-of-work Washington State smokers who read this advice column before applying for a job this morning just give up the search and move to bordering Canada?

Needless to say, Ashley’s inconsiderate fear-mongering against smokers that she calls “advice” left me unimpressed and appalled. No jobs adviser should ever tell their clients its a good idea to put on a charade and pretend to be something they’re not. And though Ashley knows this, she also knows that her audience will tune out if she even suggests they should quit. Put between a rock and a hard place, she somehow landed safely – in a vat of Axis chemicals.

Harsh? Perhaps. But before we wrap, let me point out a comment left on the article’s webpage Tuesday by a “Casey”. Casey revealed, in praise of Ashley’s piece, that while an intern with a CFO group in Seattle, “the group was discussing healthcare costs and how to reduce the expenditure. (sic) A insurance consultant said hiring managers should smell candidates when they come in for an interview. Don’t hire them if they smoke.”

Maybe smokers aren’t being discriminated against in the workplace. But if an interviewer walked into your comfort zone and smelled you on the basis of anti-smoking fears and expenditure, what is to keep you – who came by their invitation as an applicant for the job - from levying harassment charges? Britons may not be as litigious as Yanks, but you’d better believe I’d be in your corner on this one.

Leave a comment and be a part of our Freedom of Speech February, each week we will be giving away free project management methodology software licences to readers who provide comments, view, opinions or just other resources that other readers will find useful and interesting.

Related posts:

1. One Day in Aberdeen: Preview of the CV Workshop
2. Support Service Isn’t Just For The Established
3. Social Media Survey Needs Your Input
4. Arras People Interviews Earth PM Co-Founders
5. The Survey For Project Managers To Close Wednesday

Comments

One Response to “Hiring Discrimination: How Far It Can Go”

1. Rita Ashley
   February 10th, 2010 @ 1:30 am

   Thank you for presenting sections of my post on smoking. Unfortunately, the Seattle employment scene is littered with executives who smoke. The simple reality is there is little a smoker can do to overcome the discrimination.

   While my suggestions appear to be light, they are effective. As for the dining/smoking issue; it is not fear of lighting up that is an issue, it is the anxiety and preoccupation not smoking generates that is to be avoided.

   My own feeling is if people could quit smoking, they would. I don’t believe their employability should be affected and can be managed with just a few steps. Thus my post. This is not subterfuge or misrepresentation; it is simply disallowing smoking to become an issue.
   Rita Ashley, Job Search Coach

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website

Comments

You can add a link to follow you on twitter if you put your username in this box.
Only needs to be added once (unless you change your username). No http or @
Twitter