Jerome

Excuse me for reigniting the whole smoking debate, but look where this could lead to. People being fired for smoking away from work. What happens if your spouse, for instance, smokes? If passive smoking is as bad as it's made out to be, wouldn't a smoking test reveal you to be a (albeit light) smoker?

The boss in question wants to move onto the overweight next. Fired for being a lard ****. Alcohol will probably be next on the agenda. Where will it end?

David Lock

Breathing without permission.......

paulr

Maybe they will demand all ugly people get plastic surgery?

Jerome

Now that would be a good thing!

SiDHEaD

They should sack fat women who try to dress like they aren't fat disgusting people. urrrrgh

jods

Next Step of course will be to analyse your DNA pre-birth - If you are predisposed to alcoholism, drug abuse, violence etc - Kaput - In the pan!

If you are going to be thick then a few hundred million will be permitted to live to serve the needs of the Master race.

Fourth Reich - Outrageous

This guy should've been put down at birth (I am aware of the irony!)

Scot123

It's already on the agenda, today I had to sit a pre-employment drugs and alcohol screening and sign a bit of paper which basically said I could be sacked if I couldn't turn out at work OUTSIDE normal working hours, if requested, without any warning, due to being under the influence of alcohol

Brendan Hughes

Scot, what's the job? That's harsh for a normal job, but less objectionable (still not acceptable) for a locum doctor or summat...

Brendan Hughes

In the USA???

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Have you seen the film GATTACA? pretty similar.

warrenm2

Scot - get another job mate, no employer should have that much say over your private life!

corradoboy

If justice prevails, they're gonna get a spanking in court. In this country, even heroin addicts can't be sacked. As long as they register their addiction with their GP it's classed as a disability, and you can't be sacked for being disabled.

Scot, as others have said, get another job. Preferably, secure another position and then fabricate a situation where your current employer requires your attendance outside of normal hours. Then have fun with them after they've dismissed you in court

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I can't see the problem! if this company has decided it only wants to employ non smokers then that is the perogative of the company and nobody else. How can they be infringing on civil or employee right if that is one of the rules of the company?

One of the rules of living in england is that you drive at 70 mph if you brake this rule you get punished, but it is not an infringement of your civil libities is it?

How far do you think you would get if you decided to sue the government becaue you broke the speed limit. Or if you took it to the court of human rights????

Rules are rules and if this company wants to only employ non smokers then that is their business and nobody elses.

Geezer

Hey? Are you serious?

Breaking the law of the land is one thing, but smokers are not breaking any laws. A company can tell you not to smoke on their premises, but what you do outside is your business.

Geezer

corradoboy

And what if a company only wants to promote men to senior positions ? What if your employer decides that he doesn't approve of employees driving recklessly fast cars with garish stickers all over them ? What if that disabled person can't have a job because it would cost too much to fit them a ramp to get in the door ? What if you decline a person because they're Jewish, or Muslim ? Where does it end ? What you do with your own body, in your own time is none of any employers concern. I am a non-smoker, and I would love to see it banned from public places, but I still respect the right of the individual to do it if they so please. I just wish they'd respect my right not to occasionally

Jerome

Did you read the story? This guy has fired existing members of staff. He has changed the rules of employment and is firing people for doing something perfectly legal in their own free time.

He is within his rights to only employ non-smokers, but he shouldn't be allowed to fire existing ones.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

He didn't fire them he gave them an ultimatum and they chose to leave of their own free will.

They are breaking the rules/law of his company and he is entighled to make the rules for his company and if one of those rules is that you do not smoke then so be it. If you don't like it then don't work for his company!

Jerome

I would class this as constructive dismissal. Why else would they have appointed lawyers?

This was a rule set retrospectively. What if your company made a new rule banning alcohol, even in your free time, and then tested you regularly? Fine if you were a new employee after the rule was in force, not so good if you already work there.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

But this is what governments do all the time, change and implement new rules! ie when you passed your test the speed limit on the A4 in london was 60 it is now 30, can we claim civil rights violations because of this change, or everytime they increase Tax, insurance etc etc. When you took out your first insurance policy on your car it was X then when you went to renew it a year later it was Y, this is a change made whilst you are a customer so surely his new rules to his existing employees is no different!!!

Vegescoob

It used to be known as Slavery. Your Master or Mistress, sorry Employer, dictating your behaviour outside of your work time.
The unholy alliance of New Labour, the health fascists and capitalists wanting a compliant workforce will see such ideas increasingly take hold here.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Corner

corradoboy

The law of the land is applicable to everyone, at all times and is dictated by our (supposed) elected representetives. An employer contracts your time and services for specified periods. Minor conditions may apply, such as presenting yourself in a suitable manner, being in a reasonable condition to work. To enforce draconian restrictions on people outside of the agreed hours is simply unacceptable, intollerable and has no possiblity of ever being upheld in a court of law where the actions in question cannot have any direct influence of the company. You can take your fascism, and stick it, mate

OllyK

But they will argue, smoking, drinking, drugs and any number of other things have long and short term health effects which may mean you take more sick time off work than those that do not partake. Sick time affects the business directly. If they pay health insurance it will increase the cost of that no doubt as well, but I suppose you could just exclude people from that perk!

Lum

I presume they are paying you fees for the time when you are on standby, that is the norm for that sort of arrangement. The company pays you extra to not be pissed while you're on call.

Usually there is a rota too.

My company couldn't be bothered paying me that and chose to chance it. I was frequently at the other end of the country, or pissed or both when things broke.. their problem, pay me to stay sober and I'll stay sober.

Scot123

No, this applied to your 'freetime' and was NOT a 'callout' period.

Lum

I'd be looking for another job then. I'm not sure that contract is even legal.

Scot123

No, you are probably right about the legality but this a contract from one of the large multinational engineering companies.They also make you sign a document which states you agree to work outside 'the working time directive' laws.

The thing is if you challenge it and win, you will never work in this industry again and, as this is a major player, it just isn't worth it sticking your head above the parapit.