Airlines hiring smokers???

[Midnight Flyer]

Nicotine by itself is not carcinogenic. What if I simply wear "the patch" and use no tobacco? Will that prevent me from being hired? "Oooooh, you're a NICOTINE ADDICT! Can't have your 'type' on our property! Why can't you simply get drunk on layovers like a normal guy?"

Sure, both are legal. However, smokers affect me more than drinkers. Here's why.

I don't like flying with smokers who start getting touchy & grumpy towards the end of our 3 hour flight because he needs his fix.
Instead of thinking about his approach to minimums, he's worrying if he'll get his next cigarette in time. It's worse on days you're running late, and have a quick turn where there's no time for these yahoos to run and go smoke. I am affected by this because the pilot is irratible, pi$$y and grumpy. Why should I have to be submitted to this. Not to mention, after they do have a smoke, they trail in that crappy cigarette odor and it's on their breath and all over their cloths. Almost worse are these cowboys who dip snuff. I don't know what's worse; the yellow teeth, bad breath in your face in the cockpit or the constant spitting in the cup. Disgusting. Like you mentioned in your quote, if the nicotine addicts would wear the patch and not use tobacco, then all the power to you. I'd fly with you any day, as long as you don't run out of patches .

Drinkers don't affect me personally because what they do in their rooms on an overnight (drinking) is their own business. The only time it becomes my business or the passengers business is when they show up intoxicated in the cockpit, or if they've had a drink within the preceeding 10 hours of block out time. (my company's policy).
It's not dangerous to me in the least because if the other pilot shows up drunk, I simply give him the choice to either call in sick, or I don't go. It's his choice weather the company gets involved. I don't know why more pilots don't step up to the plate and do that.

...yet there seems to be a microscope pointed at nicotine in these cases, when alcohol use by pilots is FAR more destructive and dangerous to pax as well as the individual.

I've heard that doctors say a glass or two of wine per day is healthy for you. Because so many people took that out of context, some smarty pants came out and started telling people that you will get the same healthful benefit from just 2 glasses of grape juice. As a result, further studies were done, and it was re-proven that a couple of glasses of wine a day is beneficial to the body because of the alcohol.

There is no good coming from nicotine use in any form.
I have both drinkers and smokers in my extended family, and numerous family member have died from lung cancer because they smoked their entire lives.

In my opinion, smokers should not be hired because it adversly affects everybody around them except for other smokers. People forget that you're up in each others faces all day in these cockpits.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Midnight, I actually agree with some of what you say. Nobody wants to work with a stinky smelly person or have someone like that representing your company to the public.

However, all that can fall under hygene standards for employees on the job. Just like some employers ban strong cologne or perfume. No problem there. They don't tell you to never wear the stuff... just not on the job.

I can see a ban on smelling like an ashtray, I can see banning smoking on the clock.

Isn't it another thing all together to ban it round the clock, at home, on vacation?

 

[Midnight Flyer]

Midnight, I actually agree with some of what you say. Nobody wants to work with a stinky smelly person or have someone like that representing your company to the public.

However, all that can fall under hygene standards for employees on the job. Just like some employers ban strong cologne or perfume. No problem there. They don't tell you to never wear the stuff... just not on the job.

I can see a ban on smelling like an ashtray, I can see banning smoking on the clock.

Isn't it another thing all together to ban it round the clock, at home, on vacation?

Yes I agree with you, too, but the smell is only a portion of the problem as I see it. Sure, I'm not the one to decide and I'm not to judge society, so this is ONLY my insignificant opinion, but I know that smoking is and has been on it's way out. Restaurants, certain buildings and certain parts of cities are banning smoking. I'm a firm believer that smoking has alot to do with socioeconomic upbringing and intelligence. For example, go to a blue collar automobile assembly plant's breakroom and see how many hourly wage earners smoke, then go to an equally large gathering of higher paid workers such as airline pilots or doctors or lawyers and notice how many of them don't smoke.

In my opinion, I can't see how management can simply ban smoking while the smoker is on duty. That's different from telling someone to limit the amount of perfume or cologne they wear, because some smokers may suffer physiologically when denied cigarettes while on duty for 16 hours. This will adversly affect his/her performance in the cockpit and affect the people he/she flies with.

The airline should make it easy on themselves and just not hire a smoker. If I owned a business, I would not hire a person I know smokes. Why would I want my employees hovering around the front doors to my business (degrading my corporate image) and making customers walk through a wall of smoke to get inside.

 

[qmaster3]

For example, go to a blue collar automobile assembly plant's breakroom and see how many hourly wage earners smoke, then go to an equally large gathering of higher paid workers such as airline pilots or doctors or lawyers and notice how many of them don't smoke.

That's funny. What are UAW members making these days?

 

[Gorilla]

No one is arguing that a "glass or two of wine" is a problem. Six or 10 glasses of wine IS a problem, and despite the argument that we, as pilots, like to say is a bogus cliche, excess alcohol consumption is a problem. You can't honestly say some guy jonesing for a smoke is more dangerous than a dude who is hung over, dehydrated, and generally a wreck, despite the fact that his BAC might entirely be within limit.

I'm looking at this purely from a philosophical view. The question remains: just how much can an employer control the personal choices employees make?

You guys tend to base your arguments on your personal dislike of smoking, and are letting that cloud the issue. You don't like smoking. Fine, I don't like it when the guy next to me doesn't change his stinky shirt with the yellow pit stains, or farts all day, or worse, some guy who is mentally batty from spouse troubles and can't stop talking about it. None of these should be grounds for termination.

No defender of the no-nicotine position has yet addressed this perfect parallel - can we fire fat, ticking coronary time bombs who grab a super-sized big mac meal at every stop on a 3 leg day? If so, why not? I guarantee guys with a cholesterol load like that are far more likely to die suddenly, and quite young, compared to even a heavy smoker.

Fine, check for nicotine. While you're at it, do random HDL/LDL, blood sugar, artery blockage, PSA, blood pressure, and everything else that causes health issues.

 

[Koot]

I wish they'd just outlaw smoking already. All I can say is thank god for lung cancer and lets hope they never find a cure.

 

[744]

On a personal level I can not tolerate being around smokers, despise the tobacco companies and hope to see the day that the last cancer stick rolls down the production line.

However. There is a bigger issue here, which this thread keeps drifting off of, in that companies are claiming the right to control their employee's private lives in order to control costs. I have a brother in law who works for a company that prohibits motorcycle riding, to cite an example other than smoking.

Turning this country into a bunch of cowardly couch potatoes in not in the national interest. We need people who embrace risks, take on new challenges and push themselves. The same principle that Alaska is using to ban smokers, if left unchecked, will be used by companies to control every aspect of their work unit's lives.

 

[Gorilla]

However. There is a bigger issue here, which this thread keeps drifting off of, in that companies are claiming the right to control their employee's private lives in order to control costs.

Thank you 744. This has been my focus from the start. It wasn't an attack on Alaska, it's an excellent company. We've already found several other companies with far harsher "standards".

Understanding what the rules are before hiring is one thing. I'm tending to side with the corporations on that one. But changing the rules under social "mother hen" pressures AFTER someone is hired is wrong. Like your bro... motorcycles might be an important part of his life. He puts 20 years of loyalty and sweat into his company, only to have his motorcycle taken away from him (or else) like mommy taking my Schwinn away because I was a bad boy.

For the record: I do not smoke. I support smoke-free environments at work, and acknowledge that second-hand smoke is a major irritant. But TERMINATION for firing up a Cohiba? Uhhh, no.

Substitute for a moment your less-than-healthy substance/activity, and I'd be surprised if you don't feel a bit of outrage.

 

[Gorilla]

I wish they'd just outlaw smoking already. All I can say is thank god for lung cancer and lets hope they never find a cure.

Lovely statement Koot! Wow, a real zinger.

A significant percentage of lung cancer is specifically caused by Radon gas. I genuinely hope you live in a Radon state, and it's leaching into your house as you surf FI. When you get lung cancer, you can reflect upon your post here.

 

[mar]

Political correctness; Market Economies and The Real World

Wow.

I've been ignoring this thread until now. But it's actually pretty interesting to me.

Not that anyone asked, but here's the way I see it (as a lifelong non-smoker):

Right now, smoking is politically incorrect.

And right now, in the labor market, it's a buyer's market (the employers are the buyers; the workers are the sellers).

The combination of those two forces doesn't bode well for the personal rights crowd (of which I consider myself a member).

I'm for maximum personal freedom, however, given the dynamics of modern living I just don't think this fight will ever be fought.

There are less and less smokers every year.
And that's just a fact. We gotta pick our fights and there are more important issues that need to be addressed.