School fires Smoker! FINALLY, a student's needs are valued over an employee's needs!
Suzanne Lidster was fired for smelling like smoke. That is freaking AWESOME!!! She was hired in to help one child and that child has issues with smoking and its lingering after-effects. For once a child was thought of rather than some union employee.
Before the pro-smoking folks get all up in arms, please remember that smoking leaves residue on your clothes. Hours later you can make a person with an allergy ill from your habit. My son has this issue and the judge ordered my ex to take a shower and wear clothes that were free of cigarette residue before he can see him.
While she may not have wanted to hurt the child - she was. She needs to accept that and move on with her life. She says later in the article that she will quit smoking on "her own terms". That's nice. I hope she just expects the same consideration from employers - she will work for them on their terms (not hers.)
Comments
You know it really annoys me that this woman is crying. She acts they have done something to her when she was the one doing something to the student.
If she wants to smoke - then she has to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
I smoked for a couple of years. I do know its a hard addiction for some people to quit. However, I don't like people who try to hold a smokers' pity party with the words "I will quit on my own terms" attached to it.
If she was really that upset about the job, she would have quit smoking or at least tried to quit.
I understand the allergy problem, my oldest has a lot of allergies, but the thing is when something like this happens where does it end? Soaps, Laundry detergent, hairspray, perfumes, all leave residue on your clothing. My oldest daughter is allergic to several different kinds of them. Should i get her teachers fired because my daughters allergic to their soap or perfume? Im almost positive we all at one time have been around a woman or man who wears so much cologne or perfume that it makes your eyes water and nearly takes your breath, do they deserve to be fired because of that?
Does your child have a teacher that was specifically hired to work only with him? That is the reason this woman was hired. The child was allergic and the woman made it clear that she would quit smoking only on "her terms".
The district had every right to let her go.
It's funny because alot of people claim that smoking calms them down when in fact it chemically does the opposite. It's the nicotin addiction taking them over and fooling their brains. I hate smoking. I do not hate smokers per se. But, my great grandmother died of lung cancer, she smoked with her oxygen tank and she even drove with it on, haha... funny to me. My mom has emphema and my close friend of the family has severe emphesma. When I was 12 I smoked for about a year. It felt good... in an odd sort of way. I do not like people who make excuses for it either. Just admit the issues. It will be so much easier then fooling yourself. Okay, my rant had no point other then to rant, haha.
I can understand firing her given her position. If it hadn't been that I would say it was overkill.
Amen to firing people for stinking!
Regardless this whole thing is poor work ethics. You dont call someone and leave them a voicemail telling them they are fired. You dont fire someone without giving them a warning and giving them a chance to rectify the situation. This woman possibly could of been supporting a family, so now her family goes hungry because a school didnt care or didnt bother to find out if the teacher and child matched up in the first place. If the childs allergies are that serious they should of been on record at the school, i know all of my daughters are. The school is at fault because they should of checked for complications due to health risks ahead of time. They also should of had the common decency to at least discuss the issue with the woman and see what her response was. This was not a woman who knowingly intentionally did something to hurt a child. She had no ideal about the allergy, how could she? the school never told her.
Its unbelievable to me that people are crucifying a woman and applauding the loss of her livelyhood, who didnt intentionally hurt anyone.
The woman was fired in a probationary period. She had been there less than 3 weeks. She was not a contract worker, she was an at-will employee. People need to wake up and realize that "at-will" means that the employer can fire you for any reason they feel like firing them for. Does it suck? Yes. However, its life.
This woman intentionally got the press involved. She has no thoughts of quitting smoiking because if she did, she would have told the reporter that. She would have said, "I quit smoking so I could keep this job." However, she didn't. Her actions and words speak volumes. She wants people to be outraged at the attack on her "rights". She acts like she was making a sacrifice by not smoking on campus (in most states smoking on campus is against the law). She wants people to call and force the district to give her the job back. She wants the job without quitting smoking. Sorry, but I simply cannot feel sorry for her.
As for the child's allergies. Most people don't realize how the residue from smoking cigarettes can cause allergic reactions. So when they are filling out health forms and emrgency cards at school - they don't list cigarettes. Parents don't expect cigarettes to be an issue at school.
I don't applaud her loss of livelihood. I applaud the district for siding with a child for once. If that woman had done an interview stressing how she had quit smoking and just wanted her job back - then I would feel bad for her...
That is great to see! Smoking is a disgusting and toxic habit. I work in Winston Salem, NC (where "Winston" and "Salem" cigarettes come from) and it seems like everyone here smokes. I also see a fair number of "Tobacco pays my bills" bumper stickers. Its a sad an distorted world when we still "let" people smoke at all, with what we know about its harmful effects.
If I whacked myself on the head with a hammer 20 or so times a day, I'd be hospitalized for doing so.
Its nice to know you read minds, considering you seem to know exactly what the woman was thinking and feeling. You also seem to know a lot that wasnt even mentioned in the article. Sure this is all some cold blooded calculated move to get her job back. I guess thats why only one media outlet has the story, thats why no lawsuits at all have been mentioned. Thats why she isnt screaming at the top of her lungs her rights were violated. Thats why she was crying her eyes out over the whole issue. The woman clearly said she didnt realize but because she is a smoker based on your perspective she might as well be a leper or a child molester. Your all for employers mistreating a smoker, whats next branding their forheads with a S?
IF the woman had refused to quit smoking after being asked i would support her being fired, IF the woman had been treated with common decency like being told in person she was fired or been asked to quit smoking or even given the option of quitting work on her own before they fired her, i would support the decision, my whole issue with this is the way the school callously treated that woman. She went to work for them on good faith, the least they could of did was have the decency to face her when they let her go. Because they fired her, it goes on her record, making it harder for her to find another job.
Regardless im finished with this conversation, i have little patience for people who applaud seeing someone lose their job in such a callous and harsh way. And you call yourself a democrat??? Democrats are suppose to be all about treating workers like people, workers rights, ect....
Many schools in Australia have a ban on peanuts because of the risk of allergic reaction. Perhaps schools need to also make rules that they only hire non-smokers if it's that big a risk to children. It means that about 20% of teachers (by Australian smoking statistics) will lose their jobs, and will dramatically effect the standards of teaching, but if people are going to be sacked over the issue then it has to be a job requirement.
She at least deserved a chance to quit smoking before being fired. If she countered that she wasn't going to quit (as she did later), and obviously that put the child at risk, then the school would have no choice but to suspend her, find her another child to look after, or sack her. Simply sacking her on the assumption that she wasn't going to quit is a pretty low act.
Why is it unfair to fire someone because they are smoker of tobacco? If someone fails a 'random' drug test, would one expect the employer to politely ask the drug user to stop puffin' herb or they might get canned? Not too likely.. I've seen people walked out of the building for failing one drug test. Of course, the employee would have signed an agreement to that action as a condition of employment.
So, perhaps we simply need to put 'non-smoker' as a condition of employment on jobs where people interact with children or the public. And, you don't even need a fancy drug test to detect it! "You smell like a*s - you're fired!"
You cant reasonably compare an illegal activity with a legal one. If cigarettes were illegal, id agree with an employee being treated just like any other illegal drug user, but its not. Although i still think they should of at least told her in person. People who get fired over drug use dont get informed of it in a voice-mail.
Id agree with EvilWombatQueen and you, it should be a condition of employment in certain job categories although also like EvilWombatQueen mentions, even in the states, as desperate as we are for good teachers now days, can we really afford to do that?
I do agree that the vociemail bit was harsh. I should make that clear here.
I am just happy that in our society that allows the teachers unions and employees unions to screw the kids so that poor teachers can keep their jobs, the kid was finally put first.