Companies Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban An increasing number of companies are

Question

Companies Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban An increasing number of companies are using smoking as a reason to turn away job applicants. Employers argue that such policies increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs, and encourage healthier lifestyles. They raise the ante on earlier and less effective efforts, such as no-smoking work environments, cessation programs, and higher health care premiums for smokers Tobacco-free hiring" often requires applicants to submit to a urine test for nicotine, and violations by new hires are cause for termination. The shift from "smoke-free" to "smoker-free" workplaces has prompted sharp debate about employers intruding into employees' private lives and regulating legal behaviors Some state courts have upheld the legality of refusing to employ smokers. For example, hospitals in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas, among others, stopped hiring smokers. Some justified the new policies as ways to reduce health care costs and to advance their institutional missions of promoting personal well-being Supporters of these policies note that smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death. About 17 percent of U.S. adults still smoke,97 and smokers cost approximately $5,800 per person per year in lost productivity and additional health care expenses Moreover, smokers are not recognized as a protected class, which means they typically are not covered by anti-discrimination laws. Opponents argue that such policies are a slippery slope. Some say that, legality aside, implementing anti-smoker policies is in principle the same as discriminating on the basis of gender, race, or disease (alcoholism). Furthermore, successful nonsmoker policies may lead to limits on other legal employee behaviors, like drinking alcohol, eating fast food, and participating in dangerous sports 98 Page 121 Many companies add their own wrinkle to the smoking ban and even forbid nicotine patches and other forms of tobacco consumption. And while most companies apply the rules only to new employees, grandfathering existing employees, a few have eventually mandated that existing employees must quit smoking or lose their jobs Managing Emotions While Managing a Smoking Problem 1. Legality aside, do you agree in principle that forbidding smokers is discriminatory? Explain. re the em ee representative on the ex board a know the vice president smoker ban to begin June 1 for all new hires and the following January for all 2. Assume ompan of huma rces plans to propo 3. Now assume you have permission to share the information. You know employees' responses are likely to be 4. More generally, under what circumstances do companies have the right to consider and ban legal employee 5. What is your position regarding policy changes (like a smoker ban) and applying them to existing employees who existing employees. However, you've been asked to keep the plans quiet. What would you do and why? emotional (some positive and some negative). How would you present the information to them? behaviors during the hiring process, as many are doing now with tobacco consumption? Explain. were hired under different guidelines? Explain your position

Explanation / Answer

Definitely forbidden smoking for the work places is discriminatory. Organisation has right to jump into a personal life of any employee. If any employee smokes then it's his personal life and organisations does not have any authority to discriminate them by taking smoking as a tool for basic discrimination and to reduce the overall benefits they get inside the organisation.

In this specific situation I would definitely talk to the executive board regarding providing this is specific information to the Employees and taking their feedback on the same particular option. If the organisation is compatible with the change then this type of change can be implemented otherwise this would be discriminative to ban the smoking in the organisation.

I would provide information by up a proper presentation of benefits of leaving the smoking as it is one of the best things inside an organisation. smoke-free generally a good idea which can be implemented in to the organisation and most of the people would be happy to be part of the same approach.

If a company is strictly dealing in such environment where the specific habit can be disastrous such as a company which is making medicines regarding nicotine de addiction then this type of approach would be appropriate to be implemented in to the organisation as it would directly affect the company's brand image if any of the employee smokes for a company which manufactures anti smoking drugs.

If an employee is hired at different guideline and later implemented with anti smoking policy it is definitely discrimination. This type of approach should require proper interviewing of the employee and compatibility understanding which should be done by the organisation towards the employees. Strong code of ethics as well as proper assessment of the problem and projecting it towards green plywood to be more productive and implementing non smoking plan inside the organisation by explaining its benefits to the Employees and providing compensation.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.