Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Latest Posts

Our Human Resources Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

HR: Barring Smokers from Employment

  | Share on Facebook Facebook | Submit to Digg digg it |  Add to delicious  delicious |  Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon |  Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn | Submit to Reddit reddit 

 In the past year, an increasing number of employers have implemented policy's that ban the hiring of people who smoke. Some companies have taken it a step further by making smoking by employees, outside the workplace a fireable offense.  This ban on hiring smokers seems to be an attempt by many companies to promote healthier lifestyles and to lower health insurance premiums. Historically, employers have taken a softer, more positive approach to encourage healthy employees, such as offering free programs to help with smoking cessation. With businesses struggling these days to find every avenue possible to cut health care costs, many fear that workplace bans will become even more popular.

One human resource question that needs to be asked about this hiring policy is - is it legal? Though individuals who smoke have no federal law protection, there are some states that prohibit discrimination based on legal, off duty activities. The state of Virginia is one of them. There are other states that explicitly grant smokers rights. Some others look at this issue in terms of contract law. An individual agrees to work for a company (job & income) and in exchange they do not smoke.

So what other questions should companies ask before implementing a non-smoker hiring policy?  Besides the legal question, the more serious question is- is it a smart policy? Yes, the cost of healthcare is a serious issue, but is this policy the best way to solve it? There are many behaviors and factors that contribute to a person's health needs and healthcare costs.  Trying to determine who is going to be a drain on your health care expenses is like playing the lottery. What's next - banning the hiring of employees because of their weight or high cholesterol levels because these are contributing factors to heart disease?

For simplicity sake, let's take out the "free society" debate on this policy.  Banning the hiring of smokers can also lead to recruiting problems.  If an industry is one that has many employees that smoke, implementing a ban could lead to increased difficulty in filling positions because of a more limited pool of applicants.  Companies might also have to turn down the "best" applicant because that individual smokes.

Maybe the smarter alternative for businesses is to establish a smoke free workplace and include a health care package that offers smoking cessation programs for employees who are interested? Or maybe another solution is charging employees who smoke higher health insurance premiums?  Either way creating policies that are designed to encourage vs discourage has to be a better approach? 


Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

Medical conditions caused by smoking cost this country 92 Billion dollars per year and the cost of second hand smoke costs this country 10 Billion dollars per year. Companies who begin firing smokers or requring smoking cessation classes start to see ROI within the first 5 months on the program.  
 
 
 
The top drivers of cost to health care both for employers and this country are Tobacco, Stress, Nutrition and Portion Size, and Physical Activity. 
 
 
 
-Dr. Michael F. Roizen

posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 3:16 PM by PY


Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics