Refusing to hire because you smoke.

[tigerspawn]

A number of employers, both health-related and not, have established policies of not hiring smokers, The New England Journal of Medicine reports today as part of a larger look at the ethics of such controversial measures. The New England Journal of Medicine article gave reasons why these policies are taking hold:

“Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 440,000 deaths in the United States each year — about one death out of every five. This number is more than the annual number of deaths caused by HIV infection, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined1 and more than the number of American servicemen who died during World War II.
A small but increasing number of employers…have established policies of no longer hiring tobacco users. These employers might justify such hiring policies in many ways — arguing, for instance, that they’re taking a stand against a habit that causes death and disability, that they’re sending an important message to young people and others within their communities about the harms of smoking, or that they’re reducing their future costs, given that smokers, on average, cost employers several thousand dollars more each year than nonsmokers in health care expenses and lost productivity.”

But in a companion piece, doctor and health policy expert Ezekiel Emanuel and others write that it’s “paradoxical,” and even wrong to single out smokers by refusing them employment:

“Yet it seems paradoxical for health care organizations that exist to care for the sick to refuse to employ smokers. Many patients are treated for illnesses to which their behavior has contributed, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes, and infections spread through unprotected sex or other voluntary activities. It is callous — and contradictory — for health care institutions devoted to caring for patients regardless of the causes of their illness to refuse to employ smokers. Just as they should treat people regardless of their degree of responsibility for their own ill health, they should not discriminate against qualified job candidates on the basis of health-related behavior.

The broader claim that it is fair to exclude smokers because they are responsible for raising health care costs is too simplistic. It ignores the fact that smoking is addictive and therefore not completely voluntary. Among adult daily smokers, 88% began smoking by the time they were 18, before society would consider them fully responsible for their actions. Much of this early smoking is subtly and not so subtly encouraged by cigarette companies. As many as 69% of smokers want to quit, but the addictive properties of tobacco make that exceedingly difficult: only 3 to 5% of unaided cessation attempts succeed. It is therefore wrong to treat smoking as something fully under an individual’s control.

In addition, all other diseases — and many healthful behaviors — also result in additional health care costs. People with cancer burden their fellow workers through higher health care costs and absenteeism. People who engage in risky sports may have accidents or experience trauma routinely and burden coworkers with additional costs. Having babies increases premiums for fellow employees who have none. Many of these costs result from seemingly innocent, everyday lifestyle choices; some choices, such as those regarding diet and exercise, may affect cancer incidence as well as rates of diabetes and heart disease.”

So, what should employers do? Emanuel, et al write:

“We believe that offering support for healthful behaviors is the best approach. Central in this regard is assisting employees by providing evidence-based smoking-cessation programs, removing cost barriers, facilitating access, and providing necessary psychological counseling and other support. For example, many employers, such as Walgreens, provide free nicotine-replacement therapy and smoking-cessation counseling to employees”

What do you think? Should it be legal for employers to refuse to hire because of smoking? The right to smoke is not a protected right. If we allow companies to discriminate against smokers where does it stop? Companies state they are refusing to hire for health reasons. Yet they do nothing to encourage current employees to stop smoking. Will they go after obese individuals next?

[Zoey101Fan]

I am a smoker, and I believe that private corporations should be able to do anything they want.

Yes, they can very well deny me a job because I smoke. The government should not be able to step in and make stuff like this "illegal"

[jasc]

Healthcare costs aside, smoke breaks kill productivity. Would you want to hire an employee who spends 10 minutes every hour smoking or an employee who can work the full 60?

[austinite]

True, Jasc. I cringe everytime I see staff smoking out back. Not only are they out there for 7 to 10 minutes... but it takes them that much time or more to get back in the groove and on track.

[tigerspawn]

I have never smoked. I just don’t understand purpose of this policy. I know it’s supposed to be because smokers cost the company more money. Policy doesn’t eliminate smokers working for that company. This policy by companies does not stop employees from smoking. Policy only keeps them from hiring people who test positive for nicotine. Once you are hired they have no policy to ensure that you don’t start smoking. Companies still allow employees to have smoke breaks. They can only put restrictions on where that employee can smoke.

[RaW InStiNcTz]

I agree with tiger here, although very good points have been made in regards to the annoyance one may have towards smokers. It shows that they are being proactive towards the tobacco industries but making the little guy pay. Same with companies firing employee's for stuff they post on fb, IG, or any social media fit that matter