Stub out or be left out
‘‘Non-smokers are preferred by a country mile.’’
Daniel Dalkie, Booths Transport
Not being willing to stub out can snuff out job opportunities for smokers, employers say.
Recruitment agencies Employsure and Action Personnel have both reported clients asking to weed smokers from the hiring pool.
And between nine and 15 organisations explicitly advertised for non-smokers only or said they were preferred candidates on Seek.co.nz each day this week.
The advertisements included jobs in the trades, transport, community services and the education sectors.
Some Palmerston North businesses were cracking down, and Silver Scissors and Spectra Hair owner Gabrielle Bundycooke didn’t make it easy for smokers, but didn’t write them off either. A lot of hairdressers smoked, she said.
‘‘We’re social beings, that’s part of why we became hairdressers. So we do like to stand at a bar, with a drink and cigarette, and have a chat. And we’ll smoke a bit more when we’re stressed.’’
So she came up with a compromise.
Her staff are asked to put on a coat, and walk down the street when they want a smoke. When they’re done, they have to doff the coat out back, wash their hands, spray on some perfume or deodorant, and brush their teeth before they take their next client.
‘‘Most got tired of having to do all that, every time, pretty quick. But I do have one employee that still smokes.’’
Hairdresser Jean Sturm said it was a hassle, especially having to wear an outer layer even in summer, but she didn’t mind.
‘‘When I started smoking 20 years ao, it was cool. Everybody did it. Now, smokers are social pariahs.’’
She said it was clear why her boss asked for it. Hairdressers had to work close in to their clients, so had to be clean, and avoid smelling unpleasant.
Sturm didn’t hide her smoking, but avoided smoking in front of people, or in the middle of the street, and was very clean about it – brushing her teeth had been her addition to the smokebreak ritual, she said.
She added she had never had a client complain about her smelling of smoke, even before the extra conditions were added.
Action Personnel Palmerston North manager Sue Wells said the non-smoking request was mainly tied to office and administration jobs, and anything that required food handling. Smoking was generally raised as a problem at the interview stage.
It could cost a candidate the job if they didn’t make it clear they were willing, or already trying, to quit, she said.
Employsure employment relations expert Vanessa Bainbridge said while only a handful of companies actively advertised for non-smokers only, more wanted to but were unsure if they could, legally.
Bainbridge said it wasn’t common yet, but it was a polarising topic. While human rights laws forbade discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation, they did not explicitly protect smokers, she said.
‘‘So while the job adverts might seem to be discrimination against smokers, it’s likely that, under the law, it actually isn’t.’’
Beauty and hair salon Studio 31 owner Wendy Newth said she didn’t particularly care if it was discrimination or not, she wouldn’t employ smokers.
The public had become less tolerant of smoking in the past 10 years, agreeing with her antismoking stance. Clients would complain, or never come back, she said.
‘‘It affects our business. Even if they don’t smoke at work, [regular] smokers always smell of it ... and people find it unpleasant.’’
Booths Transport operations manager Daniel Dalkie said accommodating smokers could cause friction in the transport and logistics industry.
‘‘Non-smokers are preferred by a country mile.’’
Dalkie said smokers caused shift scheduling problems – if a smoker was paired up with a nonsmoker for consecutive shifts in the same truck, the non-smoker was likely to complain about the smell left in the cabin and resentment could build up. So Booths tried to avoid that.
Despite that, being a smoker wouldn’t hurt applicants’ job prospects at Booths – as long as they were willing to avoid lighting up at work, he said.