business

Japanese company advertises jobs online: 'We do not employ smokers'

161 Comments
By Philip Kendall

As public perception of smoking becomes increasingly negative, and with the number of smoking areas in restaurants and cafes in Japan becoming fewer and fewer each year, it’s fair to say that those little white sticks that once brought so much pleasure to so many are perhaps on their way out.

As people find themselves becoming more and more irritated by cigarette smoke as they walk though crowded streets, and residents grow sick of sweeping up discarded cigarette butts in their neighborhoods, smoking anywhere outside of specially designated "kitsuen" (smoking) zones has become a punishable offense in many urban areas of Japan.

The times, they are a-changing.

But even with so many turning their backs of tobacco and labeling it as uncool, few could have predicted that a company as large as Hoshino Resorts would actively advertise the fact that they no longer accept job applications from smokers.

With its emphasis on “rediscovering the beauty of Japan,” it perhaps stands to reason that the resort operator might want to pursue a cleaner, more environmentally friendly image.

But is this the right way to go about it?

Entering the company’s recruitment page, the soothing background music that plays in every other area of the site suddenly cuts out, and a screen featuring a lush forest background asks applicants a simple question.

▼ ”Before applying to our company, one question: Do you smoke?”

From there, users are asked to choose “Yes” or “No”. There’s no “sometimes” or “well, if I’ve had a few drinks and a friend offers me one…”.

Clicking the “No” button takes users to the next screen where they are given a cheery greeting.

▼ ”Welcome! You’ve just taken your first step towards working with us!”

But by clicking the “Yes” button to signify that they smoke, users are taken to an altogether different place. A land of sobriety and dark backgrounds with lots of small text apologising, but making it quite clear, that smokers’ applications are not welcome at the group.

▼ ”We’re sorry, but the Hoshino Resort Group does not employ smokers.”

The long, detailed blocks of text go on to explain that the company refuses applications from smokers for reasons including cigarettes’ negative effect on “workers’ efficiency,” “the efficiency of facility itself” and “the overall working environment.”

This may seem a little harsh at first, but the company goes on to fully explain its decisions, outlining how, for example, those with a nicotine dependence often suffer from a lack of ability to concentrate when the time comes for their next cig. As well as this, smokers often feel the need to take breaks simply to smoke, which, in turn, requires the company to provide areas for them to do so without disturbing others. Hoshino Resorts argues that such practice, not to mention the segregation of staff and the need to invest capital in building a smoking area, has a negative effect on business, and one that they wish to avoid entirely by not employing smokers.

It’s not listed on Hoshino Resorts’ website, but this writer at least can’t help but feel that workers simply not wanting to sit next to a smoker after they return from a cigarette break might also be a legitimate reason for the move. That certainly made my working life quite unpleasant for several years in a previous job, anyway.

But how did Japan’s Internet masses respond to the news that there are companies out there who actively shun smokers and deny them employment?

Overall, pretty positively:

  • “One can only hope that this way of thinking spreads to other companies…”

  • “So long as people obey the rules and only smoke where they’re permitted, I don’t have a problem with smoking. But when people pop off for a cigarette break during work and don’t come back for 10 minutes it kind of pisses me off.”

  • “I’d love this to become the norm. I know that the tax levied on cigarettes goes back into the community, but after money is spent on healthcare and helping those with smoking-related diseases and illnesses, we’re still losing money.”

  • “Makes good sense to me. People in this industry have to work closely with customers. If they stink it hardly makes a good impression…”

  • “We can talk about ‘freedom of choice’ until we’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it’s non smokers who have to put up with smokers’ stink. I’m all for this new movement.”

Boom! The (non-smoking) people have spoken!

Hoshino Resorts stresses that smokers are, in fact, welcome to apply for positions at the company, but that - should they be successful in their application - they must sign a written pledge to kick the habit from then on. Perhaps someone ought to tell Hoshino Resorts that a smoker looking forward to their next cigarette is probably a lot more productive than one who’s attempting to go cold-turkey.

Of course, one or two Internet users suggest that Hoshino Resorts’ anti-smoking system might be a little discriminatory, but, as many commenters state, “if they want the job badly enough they’ll quit. If not, there are plenty of other positions out there…”

What do you think of this radical new policy? Would you like to see similar measures taken in your workplace or is this a step too far? Let us know in the comments section below.

Source: Yahoo! Japan News

© RocketNews24

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


161 Comments
Login to comment

Backed

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Next time, I'll put "I don't smoke" in my resume.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Wow - pure win! Stick it to JT!!!!

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Makes perfect sense to me. State-sanctioned drugs like tobacco and alcohol have received too much tolerance from societies for too long. And it's often those who refrain from using the substances that pay the price! The company gives some sensible reasons (reduced worker efficiency and wasted capital) and one of the quotations also expresses the very valid point that the public's tax money goes into health-care.

A more small-scale example of similarly accepted double-standards can be found at the office party. Maybe your company goes out for dinner a few times each year and maybe everyone pays 4000-5000 yen for the meal plan and all-you-can-drink. You don't need a calculator to figure out that the teetotallers with their two glasses of oolong tea are paying the difference for those who are out to down 6 mugs of frosty barley pops.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Great news! I can't really identify that this is discriminatory. It's an optional lifestyle choice which you can give up (albeit with difficulty). It stinks, repulses others, and directly affects your work method and how often you need to "step out for a puff".

I view it as something akin to uniforms. Your employer can decide how you should look and act. Smoking/stinking should be part of that while you're on the job, too.

Great news!!!

7 ( +14 / -8 )

The only thing I dont like about this is that is opens up too many other potentials. For example we don't hire people that eat fast food, we don't hire people who drink, we don't hire people who swear. On a base level is becomes discrimination.

They should still hire people who smoke like any one else, BUT they should quite clearly tell all employees that they don't get smoke breaks. If you are caught leaving the building not on your lunch and you are smoking, your gone.

Otherwise these sorts of things get well out of hand. Furthermore it shouldn't be up to a company to discourage smoking, there needs to be more government help. Taxes, plain packaging etc.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Sounds like a GREAT plan to me! They go out to the smoking shed where I work. Want a smoke, take a break. I barely take my morning and PM break and not always get a chance. However the smoker takes the time off and coming back stinky. They look at you "what"??

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

Global Dining had this question on their website Jobs section a few years ago, which was the first time I'd seen it anywhere.

One thing I really miss about smoking is that since I've quit, I'm no longer "in-the-loop". The smoking area was the only place in the company where I'd have regular interaction with Finance, Sales, Operations, etc.. And now that I think about it, all the department heads are still smokers.

Oh well, I'm happy to sacrifice promotion prospects, for the sake of not stinking. ;-)

Anyone thinking of quiting, here's a secret, it not as hard to quit as they would have you believe. (they being the industries that profit from your being too scared to try to quit).

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Illegal you can't discriminate against someone that smokes!

-15 ( +11 / -23 )

Of course smoking should be banned in the office and should only be allowed in break times, but rabid anti-smokers annoy me more than smokers by a mile. Personally, I'd prefer a policy which refuses to employ the intolerant.

-2 ( +11 / -12 )

Great news for anti-smokers like me. I sincerely hope that other companies will follow suit.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

gogogoNov. 16, 2012 - 09:38AM JST

Illegal you can't discriminate against someone that smokes!

Nope, not illegal by any laws of Japan.

I wish this company good luck, they are taking a huge step in the right direction. Smoking in Japan is the single largest cause of preventable death (130000 people in 2009), more than suicide (~30000), vehicle accidents (~6000), and even radiation (~10). No reason not to ban it, since it doesn't even make sense economically (excess burden on the healthcare system is many hundred times more than Ministry of Finance gets from taxes, dividends, and other payouts)

11 ( +14 / -5 )

Where do I sign up?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

JimizoNov. 16, 2012 - 09:56AM JST

Of course smoking should be banned in the office and should only be allowed in break times

Breaks, what breaks? Most jobs give you only lunch time off UNLESS you smoke, and that's a lot of wasted time.

but rabid anti-smokers annoy me more than smokers by a mile.

When you see people close to you die from second hand smoke you'll regret your insensitive comments. Non-smokers have zero protections under the law from smokers. While they can go kill themselves if they want to, they sure as hell don't have the right to take others down with them.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Fantastic news for the allergy-plagued people like myself!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@basroil Well, if you don't have breaks, you can't smoke. Smoking should be banned in all public places and no one should be in a situation where they are forced to breathe second-hand smoke. Let the smokers go outside for a smoke and leave them in peace.

0 ( +5 / -4 )

it is not discrimination.

Just stop smoking. I did.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

You do know there are some jobs that can't be done by smokers; like working in a clean room. Particles from smoking are present in smokers breath for hours. Smokers are like Pigpen from Peanuts but nastier.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

gogogo smokers do not have legal rights to smoke and have a job. We have a group of them where I work, more often smoking instead of working. The non smokers have to take up the slack. Smokers have no right to work in the USA, why would they in Japan?

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

I am not a smoker and I hate smokers as much as anyone else but you can't base a job around smoking or not smoking, it's like saying "we don't hire X people because they smell"...or "we don't hire coffee drinkers"...

Smoking has nothing to do with a persons ability to work... Assuming you don't take a smoke break ever 5 mins then there is nothing wrong with that person ability to do their job.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

JimizoNov. 16, 2012 - 10:27AM JST

Let the smokers go outside for a smoke and leave them in peace.

Where outside? Most of them smoke either next to the door (no better than smoking inside) or even under the air intakes! (yes, I've seen them do it, being stupid and practically smoking indoors).

Smoking should be banned in all public places and no one should be in a situation where they are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

You do know that outdoors IS A PUBLIC SPACE. There's no lower limit for harm too, so any spoke will harm you. That said, the level is acceptable if they are further than 30-50 meters from any building, that's about the furthest I can smell them from, and smelling something means you've already crossed the threshold where your mucous membranes absorb it (and damage can be done).

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Good policy. More companies should follow.

1 ( +4 / -4 )

we don't hire people that eat fast food, we don't hire people who drink, we don't hire people who swear.

While on the job? Sounds reasonable.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

As I said this is in the USA, what rights do smokers have in Japan? Really it is up to the companies and they do not want smokers. There are no laws saying you have to hire anyone in Japan.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Public places are already non-smoking, most restaurants have a non-smoking area, streets in Tokyo are non-smoking, most offices are non-smoking - what more do the smoker hater want? I assume they don't live in cities as otherwise they would start asking for pedestrian only streets - who likes the smell of car exhausts? who like car exhausts effects on the health? Whether this company's policy is discriminatory or not, I don't know. Telling people what to do or not to do on their private time is definitely wrong.

Non-smokers working harder than smokers is also complete absurdity. As for bad breath, I'd say half of our office - non smokers - have nothing to envy to smoker's... :-)

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

i don't smoke btw, but upon reading this article it sounds so wrong!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

While on the job? Sounds reasonable.

Just to clarify, Cleo, does that stand for fast food, swearing, and smoking?Do you mean, "on your own time do what you like, just don't do it here?"

I'm fine with that.

I do think that we are heading toward similar employment discrimination against the plump. The 2008 "Metabo Law" requires employees over 40 to have their waists measured annually and the company is on the line the employee's girth is beyond a certain size. Employees face fines if employees don't attend counselling and monitoring. IF this continues as originally announced, large people may band together with smokers to fight employment discrimination.

They'd have a good chance of winning, relying on based on Article 27 of the Consititution.

All people shall have the right and the obligation to work.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Smoking should be banned in all public places and no one should be in a situation where they are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

Easy answer: install adequate ventilation.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

tajNov. 16, 2012 - 01:23PM JST

They'd have a good chance of winning, relying on based on Article 27 of the Consititution.

Courts have already weighed in on that several times, saying it doesn't refer to specific jobs. In other words, the government can't do it, but businesses can.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well they do state that nicotine addiction causes lack of concentration and irritability and so forth. If the company forbade workers from taking smoking breaks, then would that affect the smoking workers' abilities? Possibly.

But then again, the same could be said for just about anything. They could ban caffeine addicts. Maybe the keyword here is "addiction". Is it legitimate to not hire alcohol/nicotine/caffeine addicts?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

People like to down vote me, I am not defending smoking, I am defending human rights, you can only hire people based on their ability and skill to do a job?

Would you hire a person in a wheelchair? A person with no hair? A coffee drinker? A person with a sex change? A fat person? Of course you would. You and me might not like it but smoking is no different.

-5 ( +7 / -13 )

Maybe banning smokers outright is going a bit too far. IF the smoker causes problems in your company, then sure, fire him/her. But just don't let them smoke inside your own company.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I for one would hire someone who smoked if he was more productive than someone who didn't , but I agree with the companies right to employ as they see fit. If they don't want to make allowances for smokers then they should not have to. Of course it opens the gates for whatever else they don't want.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Do you mean, "on your own time do what you like, just don't do it here?

More or less; taking time off work to go outside and light up means you're doing less work than your non-smoking colleagues; drinking on the job (specially if it's for ten minutes every hour, a la mode de smoker) means you're not at your best, and swearing creates a bad atmosphere and upsets customers. But drinking and smoking on your own time isn't acceptable either if it means you're coming into work inebriated and stinking like a smokestack. If you're discreet enough that the people you work with/for don't even realise that you smoke/drink/swear etc., then fine, do want you like in your own time.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

i foresee all these going up in smoke...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

gogogoNov. 16, 2012 - 01:38PM JST

People like to down vote me, I am not defending smoking, I am defending human rights, you can only hire people based on their ability and skill to do a job?

Do you have a human right to point a gun in someone's face? (entirely pertinent to this discussion as it's one of Japan's anti-workplace smoking ads)

Smoking is NOT a right. It is no different than owning a gun or driving a car. It can be dangerous to yourself and others, and why it is restricted. Currently the only restriction is age and airplanes, but it should be expanded to all non-private buildings at minimum, and a significant distance around public ones too. Restricting smoking in the workplace only works if nobody has to breath it going into the building, so stopping people from smoking during the workday is not only fine, but necessary.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

so stopping people from smoking during the workday is not only fine, but necessary.

Basroil , What would you think if everyone in the office smoked ?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"We do not employ people who smoke" will be followed by others, "We do not employ people who drink", "We do not employ people who are fat", "We do not employ people older than 30" a slippery slope...

8 ( +11 / -4 )

I'm with Cleo on this - fast food, swearing... on company hours? Nope.

Smokers, many of whom don't want to admit it, cost companies more - more in terms of time as many of them are ducking out "for a quick one" a few times a day which costs time and money and when it comes to days off due to illness. Why would anyone want to hire someone who wastes company time and money? I wouldn't.

It isn't discrimination. You make the choice to smoke. You don't make the choice when it comes to gender, skin colour...

http://businessknowledgesource.com/health/how_much_money_do_smokers_costs_employers_028945.html

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Smoking has nothing to do with a persons ability to work... Assuming you don't take a smoke break ever 5 mins then there is nothing wrong with that person ability to do their job.

Yes, it does. You can't do your job when you're home battling a cold or lung infection a smoker is more likely to have than a non-smoker.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I absolutely hate the smoke. I can't imagine why anyone would smoke other than because of their nicotine addiction.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

tmarie

Are we talking about productivity here ? What if the smoker was a better worker ? What if he could do twice the amount of work in less time than his non-smoking counterparts?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tmarie what if the smoker is more productive than the non-smokers in the office ?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@tmarie I fully agree with you about smokers taking more days off due to illness but would you apply the same principle to the overweight and obese? Obesity has overtaken smoking in some countries as the largest health risk. Would you be comfortable with advertisements for jobs barring people whose BMI didn't make the grade?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tmarie what if the smoker is more productive than the non-smokers in the office ?

Indeed some are. Some aren't though and regardless of how productive someone is, they could be even more productive if they were healthier and taking less breaks to go out and possibly give themselves cancer.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

"We do not employ people who smoke" will be followed by others, "We do not employ people who drink", "We do not employ people who are fat", "We do not employ people older than 30" a slippery slope...

I agree.

2 ( +8 / -7 )

tmarie

It isn't discrimination. You make the choice to smoke. You don't make the choice when it comes to gender, skin colour...

It is discrimination. Just because you have a choice to smoke doesn't make it any less so.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

tmarie

Smokers, many of whom don't want to admit it, cost companies more - more in terms of time as many of them are ducking out "for a quick one" a few times a day which costs time and money and when it comes to days off due to illness. Why would anyone want to hire someone who wastes company time and money? I wouldn't.

I would. Anecdotal evidence I know, but my smoker friends hardly have any days off - and they are not smoking related.

Actually, many smokers perform very well and one reason is constant contact with other people in the organization from totally different areas. I have seen many times (not me - I don't smoke) how this interaction has helped the company.

As taj points out:

One thing I really miss about smoking is that since I've quit, I'm no longer "in-the-loop". The smoking area was the only place in the company where I'd have regular interaction with Finance, Sales, Operations, etc.. And now that I think about it, all the department heads are still smokers.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@tmarie Ok so that's smokers and fatties out. If you continue with barring people more likely to miss work through illness or injury we could have one hell of a long list.....

Moderator: This story is only about smokers. Please stay on topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what if the smoker is more productive than the non-smokers in the office ?

Hardly likely if they're sneaking off every hour for a fag. And seeing one person getting preferential treatment because of their addiction isn't going to do much for office morale - so having a smoker in the workplace could make other workers less productive.

my smoker friends hardly have any days off

How many times a day do they pop out for a quick drag?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

so i googled http://global.hoshinoresort.com/faq to have a look see and here is what i got:

General FAQ

General Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Do you have non-smoking villas? A: We do not have any non-smoking villas.

and

Q: Do you have a non-smoking room? A: 6 of our Superior Rooms and 1 View Bath Suites are non-smoking. Non-smoking rooms are not available for all other room types.

aw, c'mon.. LOL MAKE THEM ALL NON SMOKING!!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Look, you could be eating magic mushrooms and if you were still able to do your job (creative types?, ALTs?) it wouldn`t bother me as much as stinky smokers. It can really stay on their clothes, hair and breath for hours, some people literally effervesce the stank from their pores.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Actually, many smokers perform very well and one reason is constant contact with other people in the organization from totally different areas. I have seen many times (not me - I don't smoke) how this interaction has helped the company.

Maybe in your experience but research has shown otherwise. A simple search comes up with pages of studies that show how smokers cost companies time and money and how smokers take more sick days than non-smoker. not sure why folks are arguing with such studies...

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

all4fajNov. 16, 2012 - 01:55PM JST

What would you think if everyone in the office smoked ?

Unless you are working for Japan Tobacco test center, not a statistically relevant question. Less than 30% of Japanese people regularly smoke, so for any reasonably large office you will have non-smokers. Even if your office doesn't, what about the one next door in the same building, or clients and professionals that come in? Will you ask them "would you like some cancer with your coffee?"

While people should be free to smoke in their homes if they want to (and do not live in apartments), they should not be allowed to smoke on job, during breaks, or immediately before going to work. The issue is that most smokers are already highly addicted, and simply cannot wait until their day is over to smoke. Along with the horrible side effects of the smoke itself, they also simply smell horrible, which companies can fire you for (like not bathing regularly).

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@cleo

lol, "hardly likely." I'm a smoker and I run out to have a smoke every couple hours. Course I have more IT knowledge than the whole shop I'm working in. I have to work my own trouble tickets, on top of that I end up helping others with theirs.

The next person behind me doesn't smoke, is as productive, and he runs out to take care of his family all the time. The two of us combined can close out as many tickets as the other 8 in the shop.

Is this the norm? Half the time, yes. I see it all the time. Caring enough to learn your job and do a good job isn't going to change, just cause you take a smoke break every hour or two. That or no breaks.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

It's not just the smoke, it's the utter STENCH smokers carry around with themselves. Many times I've had to get off a (nonsmoking) bus because a (nonsmoking) smoker has got on and I'm bearly able to pevent myself vomiting.

.... or they even sit there playing with roll-up tabacco spraying tabacco particles into the surrounding air.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

cleo

my smoker friends hardly have any days off

How many times a day do they pop out for a quick drag?

They go to one of the smoking rooms. Don't know and don't care. They are professionals and judged on their work performance not how many hours they work. Sometimes they stay late sometimes they leave early. Smoking breaks doesn't affect their work (except in a beneficial way as I mentioned before).

Actually, many smokers perform very well and one reason is constant contact with other people in the organization from totally different areas. I have seen many times (not me - I don't smoke) how this interaction has helped the company.

Maybe in your experience but research has shown otherwise. A simple search comes up with pages of studies that show how smokers cost companies time and money and how smokers take more sick days than non-smoker. not sure why folks are arguing with such studies...

The research only covers sick days. I'm talking about increased networking. And that is very real. It also happens for drinkers in the company at the local after work. (Which I do do.)

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

2020hindsightsNov. 16, 2012 - 04:20PM JST

I'm talking about increased networking. And that is very real. .

No such thing actually, the only group they interact with is other smokers. Also no research has shown that this "networking" is beneficial in any way, probably because they aren't as likely to discuss important things in a 5 minute break than they would at a 30min/2hr drink. As that pool becomes smaller every year (smoking among younger generations is getting lower than older generations at the same age), their "networking" decreases anyway.

And of course, networking does nothing to help businesses if it's intra-group anyway, they might as well just talk during work.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"Is this the norm? Half the time, yes. I see it all the time. Caring enough to learn your job and do a good job isn't going to change, just cause you take a smoke break every hour or two. That or no breaks."

Every hour or two?! Thanks for proving my point about costing companies time and money. Why should non-smokers stay and work while you enjoy a paid break? Perhaps you're the most productive person ever to live but not all smokers are and then they take more breaks on top if that? Nope.

I worked with a smoker who went out every hour for at least five minutes. I told my boss I was going to start leaving an hour earlier if he didn't put a stop to it. It was bad enough that she took these breaks but the. She would come back reeking of small. Small office and there was no way to avoid the stench. Why should non smokers have to put up with that?!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

And drinking is AFTER work. You aren't being paid to be there. I 100% understanding the networking thing but how is that fair to nonsmokers?! Or non drinkers?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

basroil

No such thing actually, the only group they interact with is other smokers.

Which is remarkably large. And it's cross divisional - that's the key. So, yes, such thing actually.

Also no research has shown that this "networking" is beneficial in any way,

Well that's because there has been no research on it.

probably because they aren't as likely to discuss important things in a 5 minute break than they would at a 30min/2hr drink.

You would be surprised actually. I've seen it happen many times. It's usually just the start of how they can help each other and gets more formal from there.

And of course, networking does nothing to help businesses if it's intra-group anyway, they might as well just talk during work.

But that's what I'm saying: it's cross divisional.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If you have a policy based on irrelevant criteria for the actual job (i.e. smoking) you cut out potential superstars that will hurt your company.

I learnt this during our company's diversity training. Diversity in companies isn't about being PC. It's about having access to the most talent.

Not employing smokers cuts a large (in Japan) section of the talent pool out of your search. Dumb.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

If you have a policy based on irrelevant criteria for the actual job (i.e. smoking) you cut out potential superstars that will hurt your company.

I meant cutting them from your search will hurt your company - the superstars won't. ;-)

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What's that saying about "The lady doth protest too much"... Yeah, change lady for gentleman...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

They go to one of the smoking rooms

Why should companies have to provide special rooms just for smokers? How much does that cost the company? Couldn't the room be put to better use if it could be used equally by all the workers, not set aside for those with a self-imposed addiction?

Not employing smokers cuts a large (in Japan) section of the talent pool out of your search. Dumb.

What's dumb is starting smoking in the first place - knowingly laying yourself open to increased risk of cancer, heart attack, stroke, atherosclerosis, miscarriage in women and cot death in your babies. Not to mention earlier and deeper wrinkles - and that smell. Ugh. Really dumb.

A person who thinks smoking is a good idea isn't likely to have any good ideas in the work place.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Why should companies have to provide special rooms just for smokers?

It doesn't have to; it's a progressive company and it benefits the company with the informal networking.

Couldn't the room be put to better use if it could be used equally by all the workers...

Who cares? Many benefits the company offers doesn't go to everybody. Like day care...

Not employing smokers cuts a large (in Japan) section of the talent pool out of your search. Dumb.

What's dumb is starting smoking in the first place - knowingly laying yourself open to increased risk of cancer, heart attack, stroke, atherosclerosis, miscarriage in women and cot death in your babies. Not to mention earlier and deeper wrinkles - and that smell. Ugh. Really dumb.

Sure. Each to their own. It may be stupid, but I don't feel the need to judge people on their choices. And your comment isn't a reply to mine. It's dumb for a company not to embrace diversity.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

This is awesome and very bold of Hoshino Resorts. Every business that is in the service industry should ban smoking for its employees so that none of its clients or customers would have to suffer from interacting with them.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Over lunch I ran into an old friend who works for another company (now a client) in the same building. We got to know each other years years back when the smoking moved to a shared space outside. I'd forgotten that I (a non-sales person) had actually brought in new business through friends made while smoking place.

Still not worth the smell and I wouldn't take it up again.

That said, I'm not any more productive now than I was when I used to take smoke breaks throughout the day. (I spend less money and presumably smell better, though).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"And of course, networking does nothing to help businesses if it's intra-group anyway, they might as well just talk during work."

True. But in my case, it doesn't happen in my case. There are 80 people just in my department. Do you work in a small office with a single "water-cooler", that you imagine people mix naturally?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

(Just wanted to mention before saying this, I am a former smoker)

I think, in a company like this, it is entirely their right to make this call. I mean, assuming Hoshino resorts are all non smoking and all, Its well within the companies right to do things like this. And also assuming that no current workers at this resort are smokers.

My personal opinion, being a former smoker, is that actually the person I am now, and the person I was when I smoked are exactly the same, minus a few health risks and plus a few yen. That aside, I am able to do my job exactly the same, my IQ is the same, and I still have human qualities (I work with the elderly, so that includes being friendly, caring, professional and kind) which attracted my employer to me in the first place.

My own personal concern about starting things like this to "screen" staff, is while it is fine for things like a resort company, but if it goes all the way up to the top and becomes a common practice it could have some very sad implications.

Lets imagine, we have 2 doctors, one is excellent and smokes, the other averagely qualified and a non-smoker, but the employer automatically exempts the smoker - It seems we could be prospectively missing out on a massive percentage of the work force, just because of their personal habits. The hypothetical scenarios could go on and on.

I agree - lets ban smoking on the job, and try to curb the ciggy brakes which can take the pi.... . I agree that people who work with customers, patients, the public, children etc should NOT stink of smoke. Thats common sense. BUT I think that there are much more important qualities in a prospective employee than whether they smoke or not. Such broad criteria to select new staff is very sad indeed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I would like to thank Hoshino Resorts for publicizing their discriminatory employment practices. This will save me from ever spending a dime at any of their hotels.

As for all the outrage from JT readers who are offended by "dirty, stinky smokers" around them in their daily lives .... sadly the site rules prohibit me from replying with the succinct phrases those pathetic comments deserve. It is interesting to note that any article that is posted on JT regarding the use of loophole drugs and so-called legal herbs is met with dozens of posts calling for the legalization of marijuana, yet any article about smoking tobacco receives the opposite response from readers. Pretty basic contradiction in logic there if you ask me.

Let's face it, smokers are the only group in the world against which discrimination is encouraged and applauded. It seems to make people feel good to rail against smokers. I wonder why this is considering .....

Smoking tobacco has been a part of human culture for as long as we have records. In many cultures tobacco was used for medicinal and religious purposes. Even ASH ( a particularly nasty anti-smoking group) recognizes this in their publications.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_741.pdf

In many parts of the world growing tobacco has been an important component of the economy for hundreds if not thousands of years. Today, tobacco is grown in around 120 countries around the world. In fact, it's the most widely grown non-food crop. It grows in a variety of climates and in soils with low fertility, unsuitable for other plants. There are millions of tobacco farmers worldwide and millions more reliant on its cultivation and sale for their livelihood.

http://www.jti.com/7-0-stories/helping-tobacco-grow/

Tax revenue from the sale of various forms of tobacco is an important source of income in ALL first world countries. Even rabidly anti-smoking countries (like Canada) are pleased to take in the billions of dollars (not including GST and PST) that smokers generate. Actually this is the single biggest reason for a smoker to quit smoking .... they are contributing far more taxes to the system than non-smokers and receiving nothing in return for those taxes. Refer to the following link to see the totals of taxes generated by Canadian smokers. For those too lazy (or too comfortable in their prejudices) to click on the link ..... Canada realizes about $7 billion in tax revenue EVERY YEAR from smokers.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

Smoking does not cause an undue burden on the healthcare system when one factors in the tax revenue generated over the lifetime of a smoker. This has been proven again and again and the research is out there for anyone who cares enough to investigate the issue. Humans get sick and die from a variety of genetic, environmental and lifestyle choices. This is a fact of life. Pinning a death solely to smoking is in most cases a specious conclusion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Most of the so-called "green, healthy" choices we see companies like the Hoshino Group making have nothing whatsoever to do with health or the environment and everything to do with profit. Of course its going to be cheaper to run a hotel if one can eliminate all costs associated with properly cleaning the facility. Its the same principle that has hotels telling us to re-use our towels "to save the environment". And the same principle that caused all public garbage cans to disappear from Japan in the wake of the AUM sarin gas attack in 1995. Use the ignorance of the public to save yourself money, time and manpower and spin it to make your corporation look like a socially responsible entity.

The only reasonable point made in this article is the one concerning the amount of breaks smokers take vs the breaks enjoyed by non-smokers. It is obvious that a person addicted to nicotine is more likely to be nipping out for a smoke while a non-smoking co-worker would be at his/her desk. The only problem with this is that it assumes a person sitting at his/her desk is actually working - and by that I mean being productive. Simply put, there is no way to prove that a person who refrains from taking breaks is more productive - unless you work in assembly. On the other hand, periodic breaks would seem to be something that the human body requires. Even the five minutes (the time it takes to smoke a cigarette) away from ones desk could result in the person tackling his/her work with a renewed vigor. This is to say nothing of the fact that nicotine is proven to improve the synaptic function of the brain temporarily - so much so that it used as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease. So maybe those smokers are actually coming back to their desks and doing a better job than their non-smoking co-workers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22796985

Bottom line - the only time a non-smoker's "rights" should supersede those of a smoker is in a closed environment such as an airplane. And the Hoshino Group is but the latest in a growing list of companies to take advantage of the social acceptability of discrimination against smokers to further their own interests.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

I assume they don't live in cities as otherwise they would start asking for pedestrian only streets - who likes the smell of car exhausts? who like car exhausts effects on the health?

I'd be 100% in favor of automobile-free streets. Keep the cars on the big streets and leave the smaller ones for human beings.

Fortunately there are some streets like this, typically thinner ones and ones in historic districts. No one wants that disgusting black soot -- which resembles cigarette residue -- seeping into the outer walls of beautiful old buildings.

My company used to have an indoor smoking room. When we moved out, we got to see the striking effect of many years of exposure to cigarette smoke: the walls were still basically white when furniture had been blocking them, but everywhere else, the walls had turned a sickening yellow color and when you touched certain surfaces, your finger came away covered in black soot. It looked very much like what will happen to a white bicycle if you ride it on the streets and expose it to car exhaust for a long time.

Human beings shouldn't have to breathe in stuff like car exhaust and cigarette smoke, ever. If some people want to damage their lungs and pollute the air, let them do it in their own, private, non-public spaces, where it doesn't affect anyone else.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If the resort itself was 100%non-smoking, I would be more sympathetic. But it isn't.

Instead of a ban on smokers, how about just a ban on smoking at work? That would be much more reasonable.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Name one good thing that comes from smoking.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I wish all restaurants would prohibit smoking.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@unequivocallyobservingjapan

Name one good thing that comes from smoking

You don't have to suffer from depression and anxiety after seeing your family member die from aging, because you'll die first! Isn't that wonderful?

For other benefits type in "benefits of smoking cigarette" on google

7 ( +10 / -3 )

I'm with "Hidingout " on this one. I don't care about non-smokers, anti-smoker just give me the willies.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Hoshino Resorts way to go!! I think you`re great. Why should you pay smokers to have their break just for their cigarettes? More companies should be doing this.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

hidingoutNov. 16, 2012 - 09:24PM JST

Tax revenue from the sale of various forms of tobacco is an important source of income in ALL first world countries.

I've already explained elsewhere that it's entirely incorrect. All the taxes on cigarettes everywhere in the world cover only the healthcare costs of the US and Canada FOR SMOKERS ALONE. They don't even come close to covering second hand smoke costs, let alone ever make up for their direct cost on tax money. British columbia alone loses about a billion dollars a year in difference between tobacco related illness and tax collection from cigarettes.

Smoking does not cause an undue burden on the healthcare system when one factors in the tax revenue generated over the lifetime of a smoker.

It does, since every year there is a deficit as stated above. That deficit NEVER disappears because that's not how math works. Perhaps ALL the tax from a smoker can cover it, but not the taxes on smoking itself.

It is obvious that a person addicted to nicotine is more likely to be nipping out for a smoke while a non-smoking co-worker would be at his/her desk. The only problem with this is that it assumes a person sitting at his/her desk is actually working

Actually, research shows that any break that takes you away from your desk slows you down for more than 30 min. It's actually far worse in a hotel environment, where a smoker can slow down everyone simply by being out when they should be working.

And of course cigarette smoke is millions of times worse than car exhaust simply due to the use of filters in cars and the distance from the source.

Smokers have no right to complain about laws to protect those who don't want to be smoked on. This company should be praised for being proactive in the fight against one of man's most preventable tools of death.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Lets imagine, we have 2 doctors, one is excellent and smokes, the other averagely qualified and a non-smoker, but the employer automatically exempts the smoker

A doctor who smokes??? Like his medical advice is going to carry any weight?

In many cultures tobacco was used for medicinal and religious purposes.

Your link mentions just 2, both in the Americas. Two is not 'many', and we all know that ancient peoples did some dubious things thinking they were healthy, and also had some weird religious practices. Hopefully we've moved on.

Thank you also for the link that says smoking is a "custome lothesome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black and stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless". Couldn't have put it better myself.

In many parts of the world growing tobacco has been an important component of the economy for hundreds if not thousands of years.

There's that 'many' again. Your link mentions one part of the world (the Americas) where tobacco was used in rituals. One is not many, and ritual use is not 'an important component of the economy' in a culture basically lacking an economy.

Tax revenue from the sale of various forms of tobacco is an important source of income in ALL first world countries.

Don't care. I'd much rather my Mum, Dad and brother were still in the world paying ordinary taxes instead of dying horrible, early deaths thanks to their lethal habit. Heck, I'd pay their taxes for them if they were still here.

Smoking does not cause an undue burden on the healthcare system

You do realise your link points out that it's because smokers die?

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

This is great! My kocho sensei smokes like a king in front of kids, the smokers of that school are going for a fag in every opportunity. It is about time to our society to grow up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The only difference between this company saying it will not hire smokers and another company that has no written policy is honesty.

Every company who hires will discriminate against potential employees, but this company makes it clear for you. I think that's great whether you smoke or not. If you don't, then no worries. If you do, then all you have to do is NOT smoke while you're at work. Simple.

It's the same thing as having a dress code. Try showing up to work with a t-shirt and grungy shorts in an office setting and see how far that takes you. (unless that IS the dress code of your office).

Do you think if you show up to an interview at another company, with no such policy, stinking of cigarette breath that you will land the job because you smoke? If the interviewer happens to abhor smoking, you've just lost your interview. The only difference is, they won't say it's because you smoke. They don't even need to give you a reason.

I know, because that's exactly what happened at my company. We interviewed this fellow and during a short break he went outside to smoke. Both my boss and I were not so keen on him after that because we then spent another 30 minutes in a closed room while he reeked of smoke. Discriminatory? You bet. We also would have rated him down if he showed up in shabby attire, or if he drenched himself in cologne.

In our office, we're not even allowed to eat during office hours as clients walk in all the time, so that's pretty much the same sort of thing, in my opinion.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It's not like a dress code at all, jonobugs. The dress code at a company applies only to what you wear AT work, not what you wear in your free time. The company here is trying to impose on what their employees do in their off hours. It's particularly ridiculous because the company wants to ban employees from using a legal product in a legal manner.

If the resort wants to be a smoke free workplace, that's one thing. But to refuse to hire an employee because of what they choose to do before/after work is just plain dumb.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Vast, while I understand what you're saying, this habit has an impact at work - as mentioned, the smell, the breaks, the dick days. Someone could easily not smoke before work, not smoke during work and smoke all they like as long as they don't reek of it at work. The thing is, every smoker I know smells of smoke and its gross. I've now started to comment to my students that they smell of smoke. I don't ask if they smoke but they should know they stink of it. After sharing an office with a smoker, I never want to do it again.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

While I certainly agree that smoking is not the same as a dress code, that was just an analogy that I felt was the closest. The problem is smoking is not something you can wear and take off like clothes. It follows you wherever you go. There are very few smokers that are able to not smoke for 8 hours straight. What you're saying is that as long as they don't smoke at work or during work hours, it's okay, but how are they going to stop smoking for 8 whole hours? Breaktime? I've seen people who smoke for 5-10 minutes for a break, but I have never seen a smoker come back who didn't reek of cigarette smoke. I had a roommate who religiously brushed her teeth after every smoke she had, but her clothes and hair still smelled awful.

Sorry, I still have to go with the company on this one. Of course they can't dictate what you do on your own time, but if it affects how you are at work, then I think they are allowed to have some say whether they will hire you or not. This is not about productivity, it's about image and the kind of relationship they will have with their co-workers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The problem I have with smoking is that anyone in the area around the smoker is forced to smoke as well through the smoke that is exhaled.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I think it is entirely reasonable for a company to completely ban smoking from its premises, and to make it an employment issue if staff bring cigarettes into the work place, or even turn up to work smelling of tobacco.

However, I don't think it is fair for a company to not accept staff who smoke in their free time for as long as it remains an entirely legal activity. That is crossing the line from employer into social regulator. If they want to be social regulators then they should refuse to accept customers who smoke as well.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Im sure if a smoker isnt prepared to take on a job that doesnt allow smoking breaks, theres plenty of people who will take the job in there place. being a smoker these days only makes yourself less employable, hint: dont refuse to quit because you dont like being told what to do, quit because its better for your health and the people around you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"with the number of smoking areas in restaurants and cafes in Japan becoming fewer and fewer each year"

Oh really? Maybe things are improving slowly, but Japan still seems like a smoker's paradise to me.

Sittibg outside at my local Starbucks, surrounded by smoke! Sitting on the train in the morning, overcome by smoke from smoker6¥7s area on the platform and the stink of the smoker next to me....

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They're going to have a REAL hard time finding Japanese workers... At least people that will admit to smoking, though the economy if crappy enough people will conceal the fact that they smoke just to get the job...

Housewives and students are about the only two demographics in Japan that don't smoke.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It seems the argument is now coming down to "smokers smell bad". Well, so do people who eat curry every day. Is that also a good enough reason to ban them from eating curry, which (like tobacco) is a legal product?

If the problem is that smokers take too many smoke breaks during the day, then that can be solved through simply enforcing work hours. Smoke during officially scheduled rest periods only, or face disciplinary action.

Alternately, the company can simply ban smoking on its premises altogether. However, doing so for employees but not for customers seems a tad hypocritical.

It all seems very Japanese to me. Instead of having common sense workplace rules that may require a little supervision and enforcement, they go for a blanket ban. Kind of like the "no tattoos" policies that are so common.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It seems the argument is now coming down to "smokers smell bad". Well, so do people who eat curry every day. Is that also a good enough reason to ban them from eating curry, which (like tobacco) is a legal product?

No, that is not the argument. If you drink alcohol next to me, I am not force to ingest the ingredients with you. If you eat curry, I am not forced to ingest the ingredients. If you smoke, I am.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It seems the argument is now coming down to "smokers smell bad"

Maybe because a pile of posts pointing out the fact that smoking is a stupid thing to do and smokers are stupid for doing it, have been removed overnight. The argument is NOT that 'smokers smell bad'.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

cleoNOV. 16, 2012 - 11:55PM JST Lets imagine, we have 2 doctors, one is excellent and smokes, the other averagely qualified and a non-smoker, but the employer automatically exempts the smoker A doctor who smokes??? Like his medical advice is going to carry any weight?

Thats like saying to an English teacher who is using slang on his day off, and "well ... how can your English teaching carry any weight?" We all know work and private is different.

Many, many medical professionals in Japan do smoke, probably because of all the stress they are under. Many probably drink alcohol too, despite the obvious health risks. As long as they don't do it at work, or in a way that affects work, its really none of my (or anyone elses) business.

Cleo, how do you know your doctor doesn't smoke? Or your dentist? or Gyno? or kids ped?

Thats the point Im making - It does NOT matter, as long as they are able to do their job appropriately, and are not taking breaks in the middle of work.

And Im going to put money on the fact that probably one of the medical staff mentioned above in your life DOES smoke. Mine too. Just they are professional enough that you (and I) don't know about it.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

kimuzukashii -

Thats like saying to an English teacher who is using slang on his day off, and "well ... how can your English teaching carry any weight?" We all know work and private is different.

No, because use of slang is a legitimate use of a language, and separating language use between public and private is easy and poses no contradictions. A teacher who uses slang or even another language altogether in his private life is still perfectly capable of using and teaching standard grammar, indeed his ability to use a wide range of language may make him a better teacher. A doctor who smokes and tells patients to stop smoking for the sake of their health is a hypocrite. A doctor who smokes and doesn't tell patients to stop smoking for the sake of their health is a lousy doctor, regardless of what qualifications he may have.

how do you know your doctor doesn't smoke? Or your dentist? or Gyno? or kids ped?

Let me see - they don't stink? They don't have yellow fingers and teeth? They don't cough a lot? They don't have wrinkly skin around the lips and eyes? They don't keep disappearing for a quick drag?

If you can't tell the difference between the 'excellent' doctor who smokes and the mediocre doctor who doesn't, then the 'excellent' doctor isn't allowing his addiction to affect his job and maybe it hasn't yet developed from a habit to an addiction (in which case all the more fool him for not quitting when he can). The point of smoking being a factor in a job interview is surely that the smoking is obvious. If a doctor or other medical/health professional makes it clear to me that he thinks smoking is OK, then I'll take my business elsewhere. I don't want to be treated by an obvious fool.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Slumdog;

We aren't talking about smoking IN the workplace or the possible dangers of second hand smoke. I think there are very few places where smoking is allowed indoors, in common areas. I agree that companies have the right to regulate their employees' behavior when they are at work. If that means no smoking anywhere on premisis, that is up to the employer. And if some smokers can't handle it, too bad for them.

We ARE talking about companies discrimnating based on private, legal behavior. If the person next to you is a smoker, but doesn't smoke at work (except perhaps on their break, and not near you), then the issue boils down to one of hygiene and odor.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Vast,

The company is basing its hiring choices on the actions of its applicants.

legal behavior

I have no problem with making this behavior illegal. It should be illegal to force others to ingest toxins. I also think it is reasonable to question the character of those that would do this in this day and age and refrain from hiring them.

Smoking is a selfish habit that forces those around the smoker to share in the habit. I see no reason to continue to protect this.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Slumdog

I have no problem with making this behavior illegal. It should be illegal to force others to ingest toxins.

Did you miss the part where VRWC said "private" behavior? If smoker's are in private or with other smokers, then no one is forcing anyone to ingest toxins. The last thing this world needs is to criminalize more things.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hoshino Resorts argues that such practice, not to mention the segregation of staff and the need to invest capital in building a smoking area, has a negative effect on business, and one that they wish to avoid entirely by not employing smokers.

What about their clients/customers? Is this resort a no smoking place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe because a pile of posts pointing out the fact that smoking is a stupid thing to do and smokers are stupid for doing it, have been removed overnight. The argument is NOT that 'smokers smell bad'.

I don't want to be treated by an obvious fool.

Gee cleo, maybe those posts were deleted for a reason .... like, I dunno, maybe they are offensive, insulting and bigoted generalizations that you simply can't back up with any facts. I would have thought you might have taken the hint and not repeated your posts ... I guess not. Now we will both get deleted again.

And yes, kimuzukashiiii has nailed it when s/he says that the argument is now down to smokers smell bad. Not content with allowing smokers to exercise their rights far far away from your delicate lungs, you and others are now complaining about the way they smell (supposedly) hours after they have had a cigarette. As kimuzukashiiii correctly points out, many people smell for various reasons. Like poor grooming, body odor, drinking alcohol, eating curry, wearing too much perfume, working in a smelly environment etc etc. Some people need to get a grip and realize that the world doesn't revolve around their delicate sensibilities.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Did you miss the part where VRWC said "private" behavior? If smoker's are in private or with other smokers, then no one is forcing anyone to ingest toxins.

If I am breathing it, it ain't private anymore. Unless you can guarantee smoker's smoke will not reach my lungs, I can't agree that it is private. It isn't.

The last thing this world needs is to criminalize more things.

I can't think of anything better to criminalize than endangering other people's health. Smoking is one of the most self-centered and selfish habits that also endangers others, many times without them even realizing it, such as when it is done around children.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Not content with allowing smokers to exercise their rights far far away from your delicate lungs

That is the point, it is not far away from delicate lungs. It is everwhere. I smell it on almost a daily basis and I cannot get away from it. Even in a non-smoking section, the smoke wafts right on over. Why should I be forced to deal with a health issue like that just because people cannot control an addiction?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

you simply can't back up with any facts

It's a fact that smokers statistically are more prone to a myriad of unpleasant conditions often leading to early death.

It's a fact that cigarettes contain more than 4400 toxic substances that are inhaled with every puff.

It's a fact that the number of people under the age of 70 who die from smoking-related diseases exceeds the total number of deaths caused by breast cancer, AIDs, traffic accidents and other drug addictions combined.

It's a fact that smokers tend to develop coronary thrombosis 10 years earlier than non-smokers, and account for 9 out of 10 heart bypass operations.

It's a fact that 90% of lung cancer cases are due to smoking; only 0.5% of people who have never smoked develop lung cancer.

It's a fact that smoking is the cause of over 80% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cases, the final stage of which is death from slow and progressive breathlessness.

It's a fact that smoking increases the risk of ED by about 50% for men in their 30s and 40s.

It's a fact that babies born to mothers who smoke during pregnancy are twice as likely to be born prematurely and with a low birth weight.

It's a fact that children who grow up in a home where one or both parents smoke have twice the risk of getting asthma and asthmatic bronchitis, and a higher risk of developing allergies.

How many more facts do you need?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

If I am breathing it, it ain't private anymore.

Well, assuming you don't accept an invitation to a smoker's house, then his point still stands and you are just arguing to argue.

I can't think of anything better to criminalize

You probably can't. I'm not at all surprised. Regardless, we shouldn't be criminalizing every little thing people want to whine about.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

only 0.5% of people who have never smoked develop lung cancer.

That sounds like a lot.

Don't you mean ”only 0.5% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We do not employ smokers"

Cripes, if my company suddenly decided the same thing, they'd have to fire close to a third of their workers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, assuming you don't accept an invitation to a smoker's house, then his point still stands and you are just arguing to argue.

My response to that is right up there. That is the point, it is not far away from delicate lungs. It is everwhere. I smell it on almost a daily basis and I cannot get away from it. Even in a non-smoking section, the smoke wafts right on over. Why should I be forced to deal with a health issue like that just because people cannot control an addiction? Also, for the record, I do not go to smoker's houses. However, I do like to go out eat a meal, take a walk, etc. I like breathing air, not smoke.

Regardless, we shouldn't be criminalizing every little thing people want to whine about.

Being forced to breath someone else's smoke is not a little thing to me. It is a health issue. One I should not be forced to face just because people cannot control their addiction. Why should I? Answer me that, why should I endanger my health so someone else can endanger theirs? What exactly is in it for me or for society? Why do I have to take a chance on my life to let someone satsify their addiction?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

While on the job? Sounds reasonable.

Exactly my point cleo.... you obviously didn't get that from my post?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Smoking should be banned in public areas all over the world .

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SerranoNov. 18, 2012 - 06:53PM JST : "We do not employ smokers" Cripes, if my company suddenly decided the same thing, they'd have to fire close to a third of their workers.

Some hospitals in the USA won't hire smokers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The non-smoking crowd loves to exaggerate.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

hidingout

Gee cleo, maybe those posts were deleted for a reason .... like, I dunno, maybe they are offensive, insulting and bigoted generalizations that you simply can't back up with any facts.

cleo

It's a fact... ...etc. etc. on the dangers of smoking.

Cleo, you didn't answer the question. What you can't back up with any facts is that smokers are stupid. People make decisions based on many different factors, emotional and logical and deciding to smoke is almost never made on a rational basis. In fact almost all peoples' decisions are made on far less on a logical basis than we would be lead to believe. Things like believing in god, becoming a vegetarian, taking drugs etc. are often made by very smart people even though the logical evidence would argue against it. In fact a recent study links drug experimentation with higher IQ's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The non-smoking crowd loves to exaggerate.

Health risks are not an exaggeration.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The anti-smoking crowd is getting as extreme as the anti-whaling crowd. Slowly, slowly the rhetoric gets amped up. Before long there will be anti-smoking vigilante groups performing 'direct action' against smokers.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Being concerned about one's health is not an extremist view. My rhetoric is not amped up at all. I don't advocate any violence against smokers. Howeve, why is mentioning the fact that smokers force non-smokers around them to ingest poison considered 'rhetoric'? It is a fact. You still have not answered my questions above. Why should I be forced to ingest toxins because of a smoker's addiction?

I think this company is doing a service for society.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think this company is doing a service for society.

By discriminating against people based on their private, legal behavior. A further erosion of personal freedom in the name of safety. It's clearly a disservice, in my opinion.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I understand what you are saying, especially since it is legal. However, there should be some limits on freedom with freedom has a negative effect on society as a whole. I realize you do not think this is reasonable, but having dealt with the effects, I do.

By discriminating against people based on their private, legal behavior

If you were inappropriate attire, while legal, to an interview, you risk not getting the job. If you act in an anti-social manner, you also risk not getting the job. Legally, in Japan, this company seems to be within their rights to make this decision.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sure, limits are perfectly reasonable, like the ones that already exist in the form of designated smoking areas. Discriminating against someone for their own private, legal behavior seems neither reasonable nor legal to me.

And, it begs the question, What if someone is hired then starts smoking? (at home or whatever, on their off time) Does the company have the right to fire them then? What kind of Pandora's box is going to be opened then if someone's personal, private, legal behavior can be used as justification for firing them just because the boss disapproves?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

like the ones that already exist in the form of designated smoking areas.

Unless those areas exist in a vacuum, I am going to be forced to breath that air. I am forced to breath that air. I should not have to breath that air. I understand smokers want to smoke and they are free to do so as long as I do not have to breath it at all.

What if someone is hired then starts smoking?

They broke the promise they made when they interviewed, so I assume they would be fired.

What kind of Pandora's box is going to be opened then if someone's personal, private, legal behavior can be used as justification for firing them just because the boss disapproves?

I think the box was opened a long time ago. Many legal things, such as attire and use of language can be used to decide whether a candidate should be hired. I do understand what you are saying about the right to privacy. In this particular case, I am not too upset about the result though. I realize it is hypocritical. But, that is how I feel.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unless those areas exist in a vacuum, I am going to be forced to breath that air. I am forced to breath that air. I should not have to breath that air.

More pointless exaggeration. Smoking areas do not have to exist in a vacuum. A certain distance is enough for the smoke to dissipate.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

slumdog, as usual you are using an inaccurate analogy with your "wearing inappropriate clothes to an interview" story.

A more appropriate analogy would be a company not allowing its employees to wear inappropriate clothing when they are not at work, on their free time.

Smoking in one's own time is not "anti-social behavior".

If you are calling for a larger, general ban on tobacco, then good luck. As a non-smoker myself, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. If you think the negative effect on society as a whole warrants a total elimination of tobacco, then that is a noble goal.

However, until that time, smoking is a legal activity. Companies can enforce what happens at work, but not outside of work. Would you be OK with a company that banned its employees from drinking alcohol in their private time? Banned them from watching dirty movies? Banned them from playing pachinko? These are all similar legal and adult activities.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Smoking in one's own time is not "anti-social behavior".

Sure it is the minute it infringes on my right to breathe fresh air, it is anti-social.

A more appropriate analogy would be a company not allowing its employees to wear inappropriate clothing when they are not at work, on their free time.

Okay, companies frequently avoid hiring people based on what they do in their free time.

Companies can enforce what happens at work, but not outside of work.

In Japan, this action appears to be legal.

These are all similar legal and adult activities.

None of these are unhealthy for people that do not participate. Smoking is. Big difference.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A certain distance is enough for the smoke to dissipate.

Really? Then why is it I always end up inhaling it as I walk near by a smoking area or when I sit in a restaurant? I am not entering the smoking area. I never do, unless I have to to use the restroom (why do they often put the smoking area where the restroom doors are?)

More pointless exaggeration.

Only because you are not reading what I write. I have answered your above questions with my posts above. You do not have to be in the smoking section to be forced to breathe the smoke from the smoking section. Until this is dealt with so that non-smokers do not have to have any contact with the smoke, the situation is not satisfactorily resolved to my satisfaction.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Really? Then why is it I always end up inhaling it as I walk near by a smoking area

You are too close?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You are too close?

So, your 'certain distance' seems to include non-smoking areas then. Sorry, that is my problem with porous smoking areas. That is probably one of the problems the company has with smoking and smokers. I should not have to avoid walking anywhere in a non-smoking area in order to avoid smoke. It is the smoker's smoke that should not be in the non-smoking space. Yet, it is on a daily basis. Vacuum seal them or get rid of them and require people smoke at home. No reason I should have to have anything to do with it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

as you seemed to be laboring under the delusion that smoke does not, in fact, dissipate in air.

If the smoke is able to be inhaled outside the smoking area, it is a problem. A non-smoking area should be completely non-smoking. The smoke is poisonous and should not be able to be inhaled outside the smoking area. This is probably one of the reasons the company would like to avoid having employees with this habit.I think they are correct in this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There could powerful exhaust fans sucking the smoke straight out of the smoking area, but something tells me the anti-smoking crowd would still complain.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Slumdog, please explain to me how a person who smokes in the privacy of their own home, but does not smoke in the (your) workplace, could possibly have any effect on you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

but something tells me the anti-smoking crowd would still complain.

Those fans don't seem to exist as I can breathe the smoke from smoking sections. By the way, I have better names for the two groups: pro-health and anti-health. The anti-health side should figure a way that no non-smoking pro-health person needs to be affected by their smoking habit. If not, stay sealed in your home and smoke there. This company is working to protect my health. I support pro-health company's such as this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

please explain to me how a person who smokes in the privacy of their own home, but does not smoke in the (your) workplace, could possibly have any effect on you.

Already answered this above. I do not visit smoker's homes. Yet, I am bombarded by their smoke at restaurants, shopping malls and other venues. If they stay sealed in their homes, it would be fine for me. However, they do not just smoke at home as anyone who goes out of their homes would know. Also, workers do sneak out for a smoke on the sly quite often at many workplaces. six Japanese teachers were recently docked pay for doing just that. They just could not wait until they get home to light up. This company is probably worried about that and wants to prevent it from even being a problem by only hiring people who will not smoke. It will certainly go a long way to making the world breathe easier if more companies in Japan did the same. Maybe it will encourage more to quit, too. That would be great, too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SD: what happens in restaurants etc. is irrelevant to the topic of discussion here. Again, how does a person who smokes at home, but not at (your) workplace affect you?

ALso, can't you see the hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency, at work in the company in the story? They allow their customers to smoke, but not their workers. It's beyond any sense of reason.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those fans don't seem to exist as I can breathe the smoke from smoking sections.

So, adequate ventilation doesn't exist anywhere, and there is no distance far enough from a smoking section that you would consider adequate. That's what I'm getting from you here. This is just your subjective view. I find it quite extreme and very biased. It's not any kind of objective standard. There could be standards set for exhaust fans above smoking areas. There could rules about the distances smoking areas must be from whatever. But, the reality is that some anti-smokers will just never be satisfied with any limits. They seek a total ban and criminalization of tobacco. This is, in my opinion, an extreme position.

If we are just going on subjective, biased opinions, I could just as easily say that whatever miniscule amount of smoke that escapes from smoking sections is completely unnoticeable by me personally in the non-smoking sections of resaurants, so they must be sufficient. There you go. Problem solved.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think people have the right to smoke, just be considerate to other's who don't. I personally don't smoke. but as long as the people who work for me do their job. I don't have a gripe, what they do on their own time, smoke, smoke marijuana, drink, drink cocaine, whatever...as long as they are productive, clean, and on time....I feel that as long as my employee's are happy, all goes well ...and furthermore what's to keep them from lying to the company, and keeping their smoking and drinking at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, the reality is that some anti-smokers will just never be satisfied with any limits.

No, I will be satisfied when I never have to ingest any of it. I should not have to,either. You cannot give me one reason why I should. It is the non-smoker's rights that should take precedence, not the smoker's. You cannot claim the smoke does not affect me or others. It does. This company is working so I do not have to be affected. More power to them. Yes, as I said before, I know it is hypocritical. In this case, I do not care. I am kind of glad the company does not either.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, I will be satisfied when I never have to ingest any of it.

Then, you will likely never be satisfied. That works for me.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Then, you will likely never be satisfied.

I will be satisfied when it is banned from all public places, as it should be.

That works for me.

Why would you want another person to be sick just being in a public place? Smoke on your home, all sealed up, and leave other people alone. I hope this company starts a trend and that it keeps pressuring smokers to quit all together or at the least stay sealed up at home where others are never forced to ingest their poisons.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why would you want another person to be sick just being in a public place?

I wouldn't, but it's clear to me that you are being overly sensitive and exaggerating. You will never be satisfied, because smoking will never be completely banned from all public places. There are limits placed on smoking in public and whether those limits need to be adjusted or not is a debate you will be rightly left out of. Most people, non-smokers included, don't see things in such an extreme manner as you. Just reread the posts in this thread for evidence of that.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Stranger_in_a_Strange_LandNov. 20, 2012 - 09:44AM JST

Just reread the posts in this thread for evidence of that.

Clearly you haven't, plenty of people against smoking . Sure you don't see an effect most of the time, but every once in a while your actions will cause someone injury or death. You probably will never know the person, but you still caused someone to lose their life over your selfish actions they wanted no part of. This company recognizes those people and is being progressive to solve the issue.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There could powerful exhaust fans sucking the smoke straight out of the smoking area, but something tells me the anti-smoking crowd would still complain.

And where would those powerful fans be sucking the smoke to? Just some other place where it also isn't wanted. Darn right people complain.

please explain to me how a person who smokes in the privacy of their own home, but does not smoke in the (your) workplace, could possibly have any effect on you.

Assuming that it is not a person who I care about and whose health and well-being is of concern to me, none at all. If the person is a non-smoker at work and in public, and his addiction is mild enough not to be apparent, then fine. Let him lie on his job application form, he won't be found out. If the person is dear to me, then I do not want him or her to die a slow, painful, early death simply on account of their making a poor and stupid choice.

it's clear to me that you are being overly sensitive and exaggerating.

It's clear to me you have never watched a child go through an asthmatic attack brought on by second-hand smoke, nor suffered such an attack yourself, nor lost time off work due to someone else's selfish puffing. Slumdog is certainly not being overly sensitive, or exaggerating.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This company understands one thing:

Smoking is like shooting a gun into the air. Reckless, and eventually someone will die from your reckless actions.

In fact, the JAPANESE ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGN is the one that states this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/JTI_Cigarettes_are_lethal.jpg)

More companies should follow in their footsteps, and media should praise their efforts, not try to silence it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Clearly you haven't

Oh, but I have. I haven't done a head count, but it seems to me most people have no problem with people smoking in designated smoking areas. I never said they weren't "against smoking". You have misread my comment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Most people, non-smokers included, don't see things in such an extreme manner as you.

I'm not really that concerned with that. I am much more concerned with my health and having laws that prevent me from being forced to inhale or ingest poison. This company is definitely on the right track.

but it seems to me most people have no problem with people smoking in designated smoking areas.

Most areas are not closed in and as such the smoke wafts into other non-smoking areas. I am perfectly in my rights to not like that.

you are being overly sensitive and exaggerating.

Being caused to be sick is not the result of being overly sensitive or exaggerating. It is the result of someone else's addiction that should have nothing at all to do with me, yet it does every day.

because smoking will never be completely banned from all public places.

I think it will and it should be. This company's policy is a step in that direction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm glad this company is doing this because it is obvious that many cannot police themselves and cannot even imagine that their smoke is a problem for others. I support this company's decision 100%.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Personally, I've never had a problem. I guess I have a strong constitution. The much more plentiful smoke from traffic, factories, etc... must be nearly killing you. Perhaps you should carry an oxygen tank with you when you go out.

So because you've never had a problem, people who do must be at fault? Society should be geared only to those with a 'strong constitution'? I choose to live in the countryside in order to avoid the smoke from traffic and factories. I don't see that I should be obliged to carry an oxygen tank around because a bunch of selfish people see nothing wrong in puffing their toxins into the air I breathe.

many cannot police themselves and cannot even imagine that their smoke is a problem for others.

As has been amply illustrated on this thread. I think the smokers genuinely do not believe that their smoke is really a problem. It's truly amazing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I do see the difference. I was referring to both indoor and out. But, you are opposed to both right? Deadly "wafting" takes place from both, right? So, in your eyes there is no difference.

Just because I am opposed to both does not mean I think there is no difference. This company is opposed to both and I'm glad they are. At least they are sensitive to the health of society.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think the smokers genuinely do not believe that their smoke is really a problem. It's truly amazing.

This is really the amazing part. I'm glad this company sees things differently.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Readers, you are going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Glad they are setting a great precedence and about time. If you do not like it, then go somewhere else. Smoking is intrusive on others and just so inconsiderate. I hate it when people light up during a meal. I was thinking about purchasing a mini-fan to blow away the smoke back in their face.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

basroil

Clearly you haven't, plenty of people against smoking . Sure you don't see an effect most of the time, but every once in a while your actions will cause someone injury or death.

Smoking is like shooting a gun into the air. Reckless, and eventually someone will die from your reckless actions.

The danger of “passive smoking” is pretty much a hoax, with dodgy statistics manipulated and exaggerated with the express intention of stigmatising smokers and scaring the hell out of everyone.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The danger of “passive smoking” is pretty much a hoax

So feeling lousy and out of breath, taking time off work and losing money, going to the doctor, taking up his valuable time, coughing and wheezing all over his surgery, paying for expensive treatment....it was all a hoax? Who was I deceiving? And to what end? To stigmatise some smoker or smokers unknown who neither know nor care what they did to me, and, apparently, wouldn't believe it was their fault anyway but my own for not having a 'stronger constitution'?

Yeah, right.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo

So feeling lousy and out of breath, taking time off work and losing money, going to the doctor, taking up his valuable time, coughing and wheezing all over his surgery, paying for expensive treatment....it was all a hoax?

Well, I expect you weren't making a hoax personally, but your feeling lousy and out of breath wasn't due to passive smoking.

But the hoax is coming from anti-smoking groups. For instance, the California smoking ban - the one that got the ball rolling - was based on a study by the Environmental Protection Agency which was such a travesty of science that it was declared invalid and thrown out by a Federal Court.

The biggest and most scientifically credible studies to date are the 10-year European one by the World Health Organisation (published in 1998) and the 39-year Californian one by Profs. Enstrom and Kabat (published by the British Medical Journal in 2003). Both failed to find any real danger from passive smoking (to be more precise: the WHO admitted its results were not statistically significant, then buried them and stopped talking about them; Enstrom and Kabat concluded that some risk from passive smoking could not be ruled out but was essentially too small to measure).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

but your feeling lousy and out of breath wasn't due to passive smoking.

How do you know that? I have personally felt both sick and out of breath from it. I did not before encountering the cigarette smoke.

This discussion shows why Hoshino Resorts' decision to not hire smokers is a wonderful idea. Smokers are not even aware of how much damage they cause to others and even many non-smokers seem not to be aware of it.

I would absolutely love someone to explain to me how smoking is bad for people, but how being in a smoke-filled room with the same smoke is not bad at all.

I would especially love to know if there is a study that has not been funded with tabacco industry money like the Enstrom and Kabat study was.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

slumdog

How do you know that? I have personally felt both sick and out of breath from it.

Sure, I'll admit you could experience some short term nausea, but hardly something to go to the doctor for. If you feel out of breath definitely go to the doctor. It won't be second hand smoke, but maybe you have some other illness.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Readers, you are going around in circles. From here on, posts that are repetitive or do not focus on Hoshino Resorts' hiring policy regarding smokers will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

^ finally.

Bottom line is all the non-smokers gripes go away when you consider the facts of the Hoshino Group's actions. They are not saying "we won't provide a smoking area for our staff" - which would be within their rights. They are not saying " we will not tolerate smoking by staff members anywhere on company property" - which would also be within their rights. They are saying "we will not hire people who choose to smoke on their own time and off company property" - which is clear discrimination of the sort that would not be tolerated were it directed against any other group of people.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Hoshino Group's action's? They are setting them selve's up for possible lawsuit's. Once you start taking away the freedom of people right's and start discriminating you become a tyrant. What if someone in their employment gets cancer from some other mean's and need's to smoke medical marijuana just to feel alright and be able to eat, would they then be dismissed? Just like you have to make access for handicapped, you should also make smoking and non-smoking area's. I employ all type's of people in construction, I don't tell them how to live their live's nor do I need to know what they do in their off hour's. They work hard and do a good job, and most of them smoke. I do not. However I don't mind. Everybody has the right to do with their own body what they will. In fact, I have a good mind to employ only handicapped smoker's, and inform people that I only hire smokers and toker's....... and joker's.........anommosity againts smoker's is a waist of time...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hoshino resorts should have the right to employ as they see fit, if they miss out on great talent because they smoke then so be it, Just as you tmarie have the right not to smoke and not to drink , but if networking happens between drinkers and smokers after work when they are not being paid , you don't really have the right to complain about that.

Moderator: Drinking is not relevant to this discussion.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! I’m just looking forward to the day when Japan finally catches up to the rest of the modern world and bans smoking in all restaurants and bars.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

all4faj

Hoshino resorts should have the right to employ as they see fit,

And if they don't want to employ women? Would that be OK. Or what about nobody over 40? All legal in Japan but not in the enlightened West.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites