foxy lady Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Why would someone who quit smoking be sacked? My previous post just said that anyone could apply and be accepted, smokers and non-smokers alike the only stipulation being that they all sign a waiver freeing the establishment from liability for any health problems related to smoking Perhaps it would be due to the fact that such a clause would contravene UK law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Sounds like something from Victorian times Give me another example where a worker has to sign that they accept any adverse heath effects from their workplace. I'm not sure even the Armed Forces have to do that. You have it in one. Interestingly it would be unlawful to advertise a job "smokers only", but it isn't unlawful to advertise a job "non smokers only". However if smokers were able to get smoking classed as a dissability it wouldn't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Perhaps it would be due to the fact that such a clause would contravene UK law. I don't think it would contravene UK law but, in any, case, laws can be changed - happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 You have it in one. Interestingly it would be unlawful to advertise a job "smokers only", but it isn't unlawful to advertise a job "non smokers only". However if smokers were able to get smoking classed as a dissability it wouldn't be a problem. If this is so, doesn't this prove the argument that smokers are discriminated against and the law should therefore, be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Don't worry, you can always pop round to the organgrinder's and share a fag. If the monkey's out he might even let you sit on his organ. LOL very good - I like that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Are you just obscessed by this or are you in the pay of thetobacco industry?The guy was asking for well thought out opinions and this was the best you could come up with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Yes Bloomdido, I am a smoker who doesn't want to stop, with or without a magic button. I'm sure I'm not the only smoker who doesn't want to stop. I have no other vices and exercise every day, but have enjoyed my fags for many years and hope to go on doing so for as long as possible I am a smoker who had to stop, having been hit with cancer of the larynx ten years ago and some pneumonia since. I haven't smoked one for several years now, but it would only take one to send me back to them, and I can't afford to pay nearly 90 dollars for a carton. Smokers need to show respect for non smokers wishes, but where an establishment is owned by a smoker and staffed by smokers, the non smoking public has no business sticking their noses in. They are free to stay away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 If this is so, doesn't this prove the argument that smokers are discriminated against and the law should therefore, be changed. The employment law states You can’t be discriminated against because of your: gender marriage or civil partnership gender reassignment pregnancy and maternity leave sexual orientation disability race colour ethnic background nationality religion or belief age You'll notice the lack of all addictions. So an employer can legally exclude smokers from a vacancy. Be interested to hear why you think 'addictions' should be added to the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Perhaps it would be due to the fact that such a clause would contravene UK law. I'm out of my depth then. Such agreements absolving establishments and sponsors of activities from legal action, even car insurance companies from further claims after a settlement is reached are legally binding in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 The employment law states You can’t be discriminated against because of your: gender marriage or civil partnership gender reassignment pregnancy and maternity leave sexual orientation disability race colour ethnic background nationality religion or belief age You'll notice the lack of all addictions. So an employer can legally exclude smokers from a vacancy. Be interested to hear why you think 'addictions' should be added to the list. I didn't say that addictions should be added to the list - I said that smokers were discriminated against. The fact that this list shows who CANNOT be discriminated against and smokers or other addicts are NOT on it, means that smokers CAN be discriminated against - and in fact ARE. So my statement was quite correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.