questions

3 'lhere is considerable evidence showing that smokers are less productive than non- . smokers. Costs to organizations, besides those \"land to medical care, health, and life insurance, include absenteeism and loss of on-the-job time. Estimates place time loss per day due to smoking at 35 minutes a day, or 18.2 lost days per year per employee who smokes. In addition, smokers are absent, on average,.three more days per year than other employees. Estimates place the cost of smoking to an employer at around $4500 per smoker per year.31 These data suggest that it is in an employer's best interests to hire only nonsmokers or to re smokers who cannot overcome their addiction. Would such policies, of hiring only nonsmokers and ring smokers, be acceptable under human rights legislation in your province or territory? Are smokers a \"protected\" group under human rights legislation? How would you defend these policies to an investigator from a human rights commission? 4. You may recall hearing about females being red from US. television news anchor positions because they were too old. Clearly, this practice would be contrary to all human rights codes in Canada. However, one area of discrimination that is less clear is \"lookism,\" in which a person is chosen for a job on the basis of his or her looks rather than his or her other qualifications. Individuals, particularly females who are overweight, tend to receive fewer job offers than others, even in cases where their appearance has no possible bearing on their work performance or where they are not involved in dealing with clients or customers. Can an employer in Canada, or in your jurisdiction, choose not to hire someone on the basis of their looks or for being overweight? Do job applicants so denied have protection under your provrnce or territory's human rights provisions