quote:

---

Qualifications
# Post-secondary degree, preferably in journalism or communications
# Seven years experience in communications, public affairs, or media relations, preferably in a research-based or health setting
# Demonstrated interest in health research, and the ability to explain scientific research in everyday language
# Excellent writing and editing skills for print and web-based mediums
# Superior verbal and presentation abilities
# Ability to manage multi-dimensional creative projects and teams
# Experience in budget management
# Flexibility as well as capacity to produce quality results under pressure and to often changing deadlines
# Commitment to excellent customer service
# Knowledge of the NCIC, the Canadian Cancer Society and cancer research an asset
# Bilingualism an asset
# Non-smoker

---

Now, I understand the logic behind this. But I don't think it's okay.

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

Or maybe it's a really small office and the current employees all hate the smell of tobacco smoke...

I still think it's not appropriate for an employer to tell an employee what s/he can't do during his/her non working hours.

quote:

---

If it's a health-promoting type position, I guess they just don't want to be seen as hypocritical?

---

I've seen this elsewhere, and have also seen a vegetarian restaurant advertising for staff who were vegetarian.

And wasn't there something a few years ago about the Sally Ann insisting that street workers be non-drinkers? (I don't mean the obvious requirement of not drinking on the job).

quote:

---

I've seen this elsewhere, and have also seen a vegetarian restaurant advertising for staff who were vegetarian.

---

Soo-kin Lee was, for a while at least, not allowed to do a porny, or perhaps "artistic" movie, because she has a wholesome show on CBC Radio.

Police officers may not solicit funds from citizens, even on their own time. That is because there is a potential for misuse of their authority to extract funds. The police department could be brought into disrepute.

It is also usually assumed that, even after work, employees may not "dis" their employer publicly.
So Audra could not write an article in the Star saying: "I work for Rabble.ca, but I like Freedominion better."

That said, this cancer society requirement seems extreme to me; I doubt they have research showing that a worker's smoking habits impact on the job performance of that person. And it does have the potential for employer control of one's every movement, even after work.

SO I think the best rule is one which places a high value on personal freedom, but which recognises there may be some reasonable rules about free time behaviour which could be applicable.

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: jeff house ]

But when I was talking to the pastor about a lesbian friend who might be interested in joining the church (also blissfully unaware that he might object), I was shocked when he didn't support the idea. I said to him, "But I'm the church administrator, and I was living with someone when I was hired!" He then told me that if he had known that at the time of my hiring, he would have tried to stop the committee from hiring me.

I was shocked, especially when I found out that soon after I was hired, and he discovered that I was living with my boyfriend, that he called up the head of the executive committee and asked him if he knew about it, which he didn't since he and I weren't close. I told my pastor that I didn't keep it a secret from anyone, and it certainly wasn't my intention to mislead anyone. He didn't tell me much else about it, but I'm willing to bet now that there were some discussions behind the scenes to try and figure out whether or not they could let me go after they found out.

Discrimination is part of looking for an employee. I.e. we can disciminate against people who don't have certain educational qualifications. Also, bus companies can discriminate against the blind.

I think the Canadian Cancer Society is a fairly public organization and their public face is important. So, I could see why they shouldn't allow people who smoke, or drive, or eat crap food, or...

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: FPTP ]

quote:

---

I.e. we can disciminate against people who don't have certain educational qualifications. Also, bus companies can discriminate against the blind.

---

I'm as glad as you that blind people don't drive city buses, but that's clearly and directly related to the job at hand. Smoking, while I'm no cheerleader for it, clearly doesn't affect one's ability to do research. To use Michelle's example, living with a partner doesn't affect one's ability to perform clerical duties. And to use Lagatta's example, eating meat doesn't affect one's ability to prepare a meal without meat in it.

quote:

---

I guess only people who have attained perfection and lives without sin can type up the church bulletin.

---

Heaven's no! They use fountain pens -- never anything as sinful as a typewriter or *gasp* a computer.

quote:

---

A burger joint isn't an advocacy organization

---

I agree that there's a degree of inconsistency and a double standard is being applied, but such is life (inconsistent, that is).

There's a difference between Cigarette companies/burger joints and Charities, which I am sure you can see Magoo. Few would care about a vegetarian chef (and those that do would be considered wackos, I imagine), but I can see people who have supported the Cancer Society getting into an uppidy about a smoker in their ranks.

I'm not saying someone doesn't have a case, but I think it would be a tough one to win. Also imagine how someone may look in the media for suing the Cancer Society for his right to smoke?

Also, it is somewhat frustrating for me that the Cancer Society because it seems to me that they focus so much on cigarettes, and say little about other types of pollution (please correct me if I am wrong). So, if they say no-smokers, to be consistent the Cancer Society could also say no car drivers, or at least pay for their staff's bus pases! ("!" does not always mean shouting. It could mean amazement!)

I wonder if Imperial tobacco fires people if they quit smoking?

I can actualy see your organizations mesage being compromised if you act in a way that is directly oppposite on your personal time. For edxample, giving a Kick the Nic presentation to a group of High school kids, then going out for a butt on your break.

Clothing stores in malls expect their (grossly) underpaid sales staff to wear their products. Car salesmen are generally expected to drive cars reflecting their brand name.

I think excluding smokers from a Cancer society position would actually be justified. Much like excluding people with suicidal tendencies, or perhaps narcolepsy, from jobs as airline pilots.

I agree that they should also prohibit SUV ownership in their employees. I know my wife had some difficulty getting any traction on the idea that car usage is related to lung disease at her old job.

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

A server is expected to recommend, and perhaps even endorse, daily specials and menu items. How can they do this if they're opposed to eating burgers?

---

Magoo, my god, this doesn't prove your point. You always do this. Making suggestions to customers doesn't make a burger joing an advocacy organization. You're being silly.

A judge could reasobly rule that the Cancer Society is a different organization than a burger joint, with different needs and expectations, and so can have different standards of discrimination. (making this difference is necessary for a law to be consistent).

quote:

---

Also imagine how someone may look in the media for suing the Cancer Society for his right to smoke?

---

Hehe. Of course that's exactly the way it would be portrayed, when in fact he already has the right to smoke. He'd really be fighting for the right to have a job despite it.

quote:

---

There's a difference between Cigarette companies/burger joints and Charities, which I am sure you can see Magoo.

---

Yes. Two make money, and the third is non-profit. Other than that, no. I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference sufficient to permit an organization, non- or for-profit, to tell its employees what they can or cannot do when they're not in the workplace. It's moral thought police. Obviously a smoker in this job couldn't smoke at their desk, and likewise a meat-eating cook at a vegetarian restaurant couldn't eat ribs while preparing the day's specials. But at home, on their own time? That's going a bit too far... unless the employer wanted to pay the employee for a 168-hour workweek.

The Cancer Society does deal with many issues other than smoking. In Halifax, back when I was involved, they were very involved in dealing with smokestacks that were burning medical waste in an unclean way; they have dealt with the cancer rates from the tar ponds in Cape Breton as well as lots of preventative issues, and treatment issues. It's been a few years since I was involved but they always struck a good balance, but smoking is always the sexiest issue in terms of "getting attention" so that's what they, (and the Lung Association who I'm involved with now) tend to be most associated with.

If the Cancer Society staff had people who smoked and drove big SUVs and had shares in Greenhouse gas inc. they would be ridiculed. Credibility is an essential requirement for a job with their firm, I would judge.

quote:

---

Magoo, my god, this doesn't prove your point. You always do this. Making suggestions to customers doesn't make a burger joing an advocacy
organization. You're being silly.

---

You haven't demonstrated yet that the difference between my (hypothetical) burger restaurant and the National Cancer Institute are categorical differences. In other words, while you say there's a difference (and there are many), you certainly haven't demonstrated why this difference is sufficient to permit one organization to be the moral police of it's off-duty employees, but not the other.

It's not enough that a burger joint and a Cancer Institute are "different" — of course they're different if they're not the same thing! — but how do these differences put one in a different class from the other? On what objective grounds is their advocacy of their beliefs any different from the other's advocacy of theirs?

To simply point out that they're "different", and so therefore this is OK is not enough.

quote:

---

Credibility is an essential requirement for a job with their firm, I would judge.

---

quote:

---

You haven't demonstrated yet that the difference between my (hypothetical) burger restaurant and the National Cancer Institute are categorical differences.

---

Here's the difference as I see it. And I do believe it to be a categorical difference.

One is a not-for-profit organization that depends on donation dollars for the administration of most of their activities. Their primary function is advocacy and awareness-raising about the causes and preventions of cancer, and raising money for research for cures for cancer. Their dependence on donations from the public for their very existence puts them in a different category, and makes it reasonable for them to protect and uphold their public "image" and responsibilities in this manner, IMO.

The other is a for-profit company/corporation that sells burgers and fries (or cigarettes etc.). Their primary function is to sell cigarettes, something that people will do or not do depending primarily on their individual preferences (or addictions, in some cases). You of all people, Magoo, should understand that what the burger/smokes peddler does or does not instruct its employers to do is of little consequence to the consumer who just wants his lunch and a smoke after.

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

I say they are clearly different and so could discriminate differently. Why? Look again.

But like I said, it's subjective (i.e. the case could be made either way fairly persuasively).

I hate to spell it all out, but different firms require different sorts of credibility. That's why firms discriminate on past experience or education or for other reasons.

I don't think it doesn't matters to a cigarette company if someone smokes or doesn't. Do you forsee massive drop in their revenue if an executive is cought not smoking? But I could see the Canadian Cancer Society being seriously hurt financially if a staff member was cought smoking.

The main reasons:
1) Cigarette companies are fairly private and executives don't have a high public profile. Really, cigarette companies don't want to draw attention to their actual firm. And they have many employees, and a non-smoker in their midst will hardly be noticed.

2) The Candian Cancer Society is very public, and they must have a high profile, they want attention. Attention to their firm is everything.

3) Cigarette company's product isn't the company it's the cigarette. The Candian Cancer Society must "sell itself" it has no product. Their image is its product. That's what they trade in and that's how they get their money.

Smokers rarely think, "hmmm, I wonder if the firm is honest and has a noble cause" before they give money to the Cigarette company in exchange for a pack of cigarettes (via the QuickyMart).
But doners do think about the "credibility" and "honesty" of the firm before giving them money.

Again, this is subjective, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: FPTP ]

quote:

---

You just don't agree with what I said.

---

Not entirely, but L.B. has a point, so I'll leave it be.

quote:

---

But I could see the Canadian Cancer Society being seriously hurt financially if a staff member was cought smoking.

---

Well, two things: First, this isn't the Canadian Cancer Society, it's the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Their mandate, according to their website, is to promote research, specifically:

- to initiate and support cancer research through grants and other mechanisms

- to offer a program for the training, development and support of personnel in cancer research

- to provide information related to cancer research and cancer control

- to facilitate and actively participate in the coordination of activities sponsored by related agencies, both national and international

- to act in concert with our partner, the Canadian Cancer Society

I'm not sure that this really counts as advocacy. The words 'advocacy' and 'smoking' are never mentioned in their History and Mission statement. This, to me, would be the same as the difference between PETA, and some organization that offers research grants to nutritionists.

Second, if it's necessary for some employees to live the morals of their employer outside of the 40 hour work week, is it then unreasonable to demand that the employee be paid for their contributions to the employer's image during their off hours? If you want me to basically be 'at work' 168 hours per week, shouldn't you pay me for that?

But like I said, I can see the argument that this is could be seen as unfair discrimination. I can see the case. It's fairly obvious. How many times do I have to say that.
I've admited it's subjective and it's a double standard and that it's only because they're a organization who is fighting cancer that they can get away with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Clothing stores in malls expect their (grossly) underpaid sales staff to wear their products. Car salesmen are generally expected to drive cars reflecting their brand name.

---

Point of nigletization.

Don't car dealers often get cars with dealer plates, which obviates the need to actually purchase a brand-new vehicle merely to show brand loyalty?

[ 04 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

There's a slightly stronger argument for allowing employer meddling in employee's lives outside of work, here, because the employers are the major providers of health insurance and these sorts of policies against employee drug, alcohol or tobacco use will tend to reduce the employer's health insurance premiums. Whether or not you agree with the broader social policy ramifications of this is an entirely different question.

The above being said, a number of states have stepped in and passed laws to prevent employers from engaging in this kind of wide-ranging intrusiveness. I thought I would pass along this quote from my Employment Law professor, though, that "more U.S. states now have laws preventing employers from discriminating against smokers, than have laws preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation." Food for thought.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]