Smokers facing fag-end of job market

By AINSLEY THOMSON

Smoking is increasingly likely to hinder people's job prospects, thanks to a trend among employers to hire non-smokers who supposedly do more work.

Hamilton company Gallagher Group, which has 520 staff nationwide and is one of Waikato's biggest employers, said yesterday that it wanted to hire non-smokers because they took fewer breaks.

"From a hard-nosed business point of view, it's not fair on the others and they [smokers] are not pulling their weight," said chief executive Bill Gallagher.

Last November, South Island health agency Crown Public Health refused to include smokers in its 80-strong workforce.

The Human Rights Commission said there was no law to stop employers discriminating against smokers.

Commission spokesman Kallon Basham said the Human Rights Act stipulated 13 prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as age, sex and colour, but smoking was not among them.

But he said there was a "remote" possibility that smoking could fall under the ground of disability because it was an addiction - something which is untested before the Human Rights Tribunal or in court.

The director of anti-tobacco group Ash, Trish Fraser, said the shunning of smokers had started in organisations dealing with tobacco control and smoking cessation, but was spreading to other sectors.

Ash did not encourage the policy because it did not want to see smokers marginalised, she said.

Employers and Manufacturers Association spokesman Tony Ward said that as companies instigated smokefree workplaces, more would choose not to hire smokers.

"A person does not have a right to smoke at work and that is what is going against them.

"It is what the Smokefree Environment Act is all about - it gives the power to the non-smoker."

But Council for Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott said Gallagher Group, which deals in animal management and business security systems, was using a draconian approach.

"It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, really."

He was concerned that such a stance could set a precedent to discriminate against other lifestyle choices.

Mr Gallagher would be better off counselling smokers to join quit programmes, said Mr Bott.

"That would be a positive way of doing it."

Mr Gallagher said the company's policy was that it preferred to hire non-smokers, but they would tolerate a smoker who was a capable worker.

"There is no right to smoke. In fact, there is some responsibility to provide a smokefree atmosphere for the rest of the staff."

The Smokefree Environments Amendment Act, which will come into force next December, bans smoking in schools, bars and other workplaces.

Last October, a survey by recruitment company Kelly Services found that workers' cigarette breaks were causing division in offices and warehouses.

Non-smokers believed their smoking counterparts were less productive.

The survey, of more than 900 workers, found that 12 per cent admitted taking time out for a cigarette. Of those, 85 per cent took smoking breaks one to three times a day.

A further 13 per cent went four to six times a day, and 2 per cent took more than six daily breaks.

Over half (55 per cent) of non-smokers believed smoking breaks decreased productivity.