We don't need a refresher on how over the last 20 years or so, smokers have been pushed steadily out of the workplace. Those of you who smoke dread the oven-temps of summer and the bone-chilling winds of winter. And yet the rest of us drive by or look out the window with mixed emotions of pity that you're forced outside and a sense of justice that the rest of us aren't exposed to what you're offering.
What prompts me to write about this today is news that a small outfit, the Massachusetts Hospital Association, announced last month that it will no-longer hire people who smoke. As their workforce rotates, they wont have to deal with the higher rate of health issues and higher cost of health insurance for those employees. Not to mention all the cigarette breaks.
Before posting this, I looked for other examples of firms with similar hiring practices. The Cleveland Clinic, Alaska Airlines and Union Pacific are just three that came up immediately. None of which are small operations. What seemed natural was the policy change in health related organizations.
Let me say that frankly, I'm puzzled by the number of doctors and nurses that accumulate outside of the Kingston & Benedictine hospitals as well as the health clinics around the county. Astonishing is the daily collective on the sidewalk outside of the Reuner Cancer Support House on Mary's Avenue. All should know better.
Supporters of the 'hire-no-smokers' policy say it will provide smoke-free work environments and help employers control their health-care costs. But critics argue it's a form of discrimination that intrudes into the private lifestyle choices of prospective employees.
Banning the hiring of smokers appears to be spreading rapidly through the entire private sector especially as health-care costs continue to soar."
That source points out that the average smoker costs companies more than $12,000 a year in health and disability related costs on top of the four 15-minute breaks a day which also affects productivity.
When I mentioned this policy shift to a nurse friend of mine, she said, who's next? Overweight people? She was referring to the "Slippery Slope" concept. For the record, there is an awareness campaign going on right now focused on nutrition and exercise, but I don't see that influencing hiring practices anymore than it already does. Don't kid yourself, employers are already factoring your appearance into the equation at the interview.
There are a number of smoker's rights websources out there to argue the opposite point. Some even tout the findings of the US Chamber of Commerce that says there is no connection between smoking and absenteeism. Of course we have recent evidence that tons of money comes to the Chamber from big business. Business like R.J.Reynolds and Phillip Morris. So I'm supposed to trust their findings?
If you think it's just allot of threatening chatter, I pulled this paragraph from the ABC Report that came out last month: The Cleveland Clinic, which has some 40,000 employees, stopped hiring smokers in 2007. Since then, it has turned over 30 percent of its workforce, and none of those new workers are believed to be smokers.
All new hires are tested for tobacco use, and if they test positive the job offer is rescinded. So far, 250 people have lost out on jobs there because of tobacco use.
Now, I'm not saying we should ban the sale of tobacco, matter-of-fact, I advocate the legalization and taxation of Marijuana, but employers should have the right to weed out their smoking workforce if they want to.
