Essay on Smoking Policy in Work Places

Smoking in the workplace in the contemporary United States has stimulated more discussions on whether employers should employ smokers or not. Those who argue that smokers should not be employed posit that smokers make the companies incur high premiums from insurance covers because of their risky health behaviors. Besides, employees argue that employees take more breaks from work demanding for their relief which affects their performance. All these issues are positions by the proponents of the policy that smokers should not be hired in any company. Therefore, this paper will discuss whether companies should hire smokers or not.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Healthcare Act is aware of the increment in health costs linked to smoking workers and therefore allows the insurance companies to hike insurance policy premiums by half over that raised by non-smokers. Smokers account for 20% of the United States population yet their monthly insurance premiums contribute to 40% of the total insurance (Valdez, Vadiveloo, & Dias, 2014). This is because healthcare costs are higher for bad behavior insurance company clients. Considering the risk smoking impacts on the smokers, the companies take the precaution of charging them high because the insurable risk is likely to occur. The smokers are more apt to suffer from cancer among other health conditions which mean the insurance companies will have to compensate them. This is the reason why most employees charge smokers higher premiums to help them quit smoking and save money while avoiding halt problems. However, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) shuns discrimination against people based on their health conditions although the Act allows the insurance and employees to hike premiums for smoker employees. Furthermore, there are state laws that protect smoker employees from being sacked but allows the companies to charge them higher premiums.

Furthermore, 29 states in the United States have enacted non-discriminatory lifestyle legislations to protect smokers. These legislations have elevated smoker employees to a protected class. However, many states have regulated workplace smoking to some extent. Therefore smoking legislations vary from one federal state to the other. Some states permit smoking in the workplace although in designated places while other states have completely banned smoking in the workplace. This is considered by the influence smoking has on non-smoking employees and the environment in general.

Moreover, there is no any substantial research evidencing the adverse effect smoking has on employee performance at the workplace. However, from observation, smoking affects the performance of the employee considering the time they take in smoking breaks. Research indicates that an average smoker taking 40 minutes breaks each day misses one month working hours per year as compared to a non-smoker employee. This means that the productivity of the employee is a threat to organizational performance. Similarly, smoker employees make more hospital visits compared to a non-smoker. All these aspects relate to organizational performance.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) assures employees of the right to a hazard-free and safe working environment. The Act provides for a standard indoors quality which must be adhered to by the organizations. It is argued that tobacco does not exceed the limits provided by OSHA. However, in case the limits are exceeded, the employer is required by law to organize for a remedy to the extreme circumstances (Ghushchyan, Kolian, & Manukyan, 2016). Employers are free to employ whichever employee they desire though they have restrictions. The employees can decide to hire a non-smoker or smoker based on their qualifications and ability to handle the job. However, the state and federal laws outlaw discriminating against any employee based on their behavioral features. Besides, it is legal for the employer to ask a candidate whether they are smokers or not. Furthermore, it is within the authority of the employer to decide whether to hire a smoker or a non-smoker. It is illegal for an employer not to hire someone simply because they smoke tobacco. However, employers have the option of not adhering to the anti-discrimination laws in conditions where the job qualifications do not require smokers. For instance, if the job is in an advocacy to combat tobacco smoking, the organization will need to employ nonsmokers because smokers will be a bad influence in the advocacy.

Finally, companies in Texas charge smokers 10 dollars every month in a bid to encourage them to smoke outside working hours. Besides, other airline companies in customer relationship usually hire non-smokers on the reception because of appearance. This means that the smokers are mostly involved in the back office duties so that they do not interact with clients. Therefore, discrimination against smokers is on the rise in the United States because of the effects of the smoking behavior.

In conclusion, employers have the jurisdiction to employ whoever they want based on the suitability of the candidate to perform the functions in the organization in line with the organization's visions. However, in hiring, the organizations have to adhere to the federal and state laws that provide a framework upon which the employers should adhere to regarding smoking in the workplace. From the discussion above, it is clear that employees have to consider the elements discussed to conclude whether to hire a smoker or a nonsmoker.

References

Ghushchyan, V., Kolian, S., & Manukyan, S. (2016). The cost of chronic conditions for employees and employers in the United States. Value In Health, 19(3), A270-A271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.870

Valdez, E., Vadiveloo, J., & Dias, U. (2014). Life insurance policy termination and survivorship. Insurance: Mathematics And Economics, 58, 138-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2014.06.011