Non Smokers In The Workplace
A hospital's decision to only hire non-smokers affects almost everyone. It disturbs potential hires, the company, customers and family members. By riding smokers from the workplace, a company is riding talent which is highly needed in a hospital. Not only does this discriminate a potential employee, but it causes the company to suffer. Having a no smoking policy would give the organization a bad reputation. Obviously, smokers would not want to apply, but nonsmokers may not want to work for the company either. Knowing the company discriminates and is conducting questionable legal practices, they might turn to another organization which values all types of talent. Not only is the company’s name ruined, but because they are not getting the high-quality
…show more content…
In turn, may cause the company to suffer layoffs furthering its negative reputation. Looking at both sides of the spectrum, I can understand why a company would want to forbid smokers from joining their workforce. They cost the company in health care expenses, they have higher absenteeism, decrease in productivity due to breaks and their smoking residues may discomfort patients (Noe et al., 191). Though these are all valid reason to rid smoking from the organization, I don’t believe having a policy which forbids these individuals to work will provide the greatest good. This policy blocks talent and ability from entering the company. These workers with special abilities are the ones who can save lives and make a breakthrough in clinical research. Having this type of skill on board helps the most people and this should be what companies look at. Yes, saving money is important, but if they want to save money they can do this through other means and not put patients health at risk. A company could save money developing a policy which states no breaks can be taken for smoking, or better yet, they could ban smoking at the …show more content…
When hiring someone for a position, the hiring manager can not discriminate in any way. This is exactly what hospitals are doing when they refuse smokers. If it’s illegal not to hire someone based on genetics or health issue, it should be illegal to segregate smokers. Besides this, smoking is not the only unhealthy habit people partake in. What about the overweight, or the binge drinkers, or the adrenaline junkies(jumping off mountains, or skydiving), wouldn’t these individuals pose just as much risk and cost to health insurance, perhaps even more? Needless to say, you don’t see other companies discriminating against these individuals. Smokers are just as costly to the company as other individuals. Furthermore, it’s just as unfair to make them pay more in health insurance and provide them less pay. If this is the policy a company wants to pursue, then this should be the case for all risky personnel as mentioned previously. Likewise, if the employer views smoking as a drug, this is still not a valid excuse for exclusion. A number of other employees are prescribed medication or take over the counter medication. Because the drug does not affect their performance, this is not a common discrimination factor. However, smokers (inhaling nicotine) are still fully functioning, therefore this argument is invalid. Yes, smokers often take breaks which affect their performance. However as
In turn, may cause the company to suffer layoffs furthering its negative reputation. Looking at both sides of the spectrum, I can understand why a company would want to forbid smokers from joining their workforce. They cost the company in health care expenses, they have higher absenteeism, decrease in productivity due to breaks and their smoking residues may discomfort patients (Noe et al., 191). Though these are all valid reason to rid smoking from the organization, I don’t believe having a policy which forbids these individuals to work will provide the greatest good. This policy blocks talent and ability from entering the company. These workers with special abilities are the ones who can save lives and make a breakthrough in clinical research. Having this type of skill on board helps the most people and this should be what companies look at. Yes, saving money is important, but if they want to save money they can do this through other means and not put patients health at risk. A company could save money developing a policy which states no breaks can be taken for smoking, or better yet, they could ban smoking at the …show more content…
When hiring someone for a position, the hiring manager can not discriminate in any way. This is exactly what hospitals are doing when they refuse smokers. If it’s illegal not to hire someone based on genetics or health issue, it should be illegal to segregate smokers. Besides this, smoking is not the only unhealthy habit people partake in. What about the overweight, or the binge drinkers, or the adrenaline junkies(jumping off mountains, or skydiving), wouldn’t these individuals pose just as much risk and cost to health insurance, perhaps even more? Needless to say, you don’t see other companies discriminating against these individuals. Smokers are just as costly to the company as other individuals. Furthermore, it’s just as unfair to make them pay more in health insurance and provide them less pay. If this is the policy a company wants to pursue, then this should be the case for all risky personnel as mentioned previously. Likewise, if the employer views smoking as a drug, this is still not a valid excuse for exclusion. A number of other employees are prescribed medication or take over the counter medication. Because the drug does not affect their performance, this is not a common discrimination factor. However, smokers (inhaling nicotine) are still fully functioning, therefore this argument is invalid. Yes, smokers often take breaks which affect their performance. However as