Hi Bren-ga, and thanks for the very interesting question!
In recent years, there has been increasing debate over whether private
or public companies or agencies have the right to refuse to hire
smokers. A look into debate over one such proposed policy provides us
with the fundamental ethical arguments on both sides of the issue.
In 1999, the Secretary of State in Washington (State) began inquiring
as to whether state agencies could refuse to hire smokers. The
Christian Science Monitor's Tina Kelley wrote an article (1/26/99)
that raised questions about the ethics/constitutionality of such a
policy. (The article is available through ASH (Action on Smoking and
Health), "A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely
Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions" @
http://www.no-smoking.org/jan99/01-26-99-4.html )
From the article:
"The trend is one that raises numerous constitutional issues, as
critics accuse employers of "lifestyle discrimination" and meddling in
employees' private lives. Yet as the costs of tobacco-related
illnesses rise into the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, bold
ideas like the one here are being considered more seriously
nationwide.
Employers trying to reduce health-care costs have created a variety of
incentives to mold a fitter work force. In levying fees for tobacco
use, obesity, and other health concerns, and rewarding exercise with
lower health insurance and premiums, some firms have drawn fire from
activist groups.
Jerry Sheehan, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Washington, says these incentives pose many problems, "not
the least of which is a violation of the privacy protection clause of
the Washington constitution, which says government is not to involve
itself in a person's private affairs.... That's the short and sweet
bottom line of it."
The state Department of Personnel, however, is trying to find out
whether Washington can refuse to hire smokers. Dennis Karras, director
of the department, cites court cases in North Miami and Oklahoma City
that have supported municipal governments that discouraged smoking.
But Mr. Munro doesn't need to look far to find an example of a
government that puts a premium on nonsmokers. In Thurston County, home
to the state capital., Olympia, county auditor Sam Reed posts job
openings with the following proviso: "The Thurston County Auditor's
Office is a nonsmoking office. Hiring preference will be given to
nonsmokers."
In the 12 years since Mr. Reed began this policy, it has never been
challenged. Then again, he adds that he has never turned down a
finalist for a position or fired anyone because of smoking."
John Banzhaf, ASH's Executive Director and Law Professor write a
Letter to the Editor of the Monitor [01/28/99] in response to the
article:
( http://www.no-smoking.org/jan99/01-28-99-13.html )
"In response to the article, "Should state agencies refuse to hire
people who smoke?" (Jan. 26):
No constitutional issues are raised when businesses refuse to employ
smokers, since constitutions put limits on governmental bodies, not on
private corporations.
Several courts have held that there is no constitutional right to
smoke, and that even governments, therefore, are free not to hire
smokers.
Federal antidiscrimination statutes do not prohibit the practice since
smoking is a changeable behavior rather than "an immutable
characteristic," like race or gender. And saving as much as $ 5,000
per year per employee in medical care, disability, and other costs
clearly provides a "rational basis" for the policy."
The main argument for such hiring policies is the savings it affords
in health care and productivity/lost work costs. For specific
information/numbers:
"$72.7 Billion: Smoking's Annual Health Care Cost" By Patricia
McBroom, Public Affairs posted September 16, 1998 in UC Berkley's
paper
( http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html )
CDC Report, dated April 12, 2002, called "Annual Smoking-Attributable
Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs --- United
States, 1995--1999"
( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm )
The Missouri Dept. of Health and Senior Services 'Costs Due to Tobacco
Use Fact Sheet'
( http://www.health.state.mo.us/SmokingAndTobacco/COSTS.html )
'Young healthy smokers take significantly more days off work than
non-smokers'. Dec. 3, 2000, by the Center for the Advancement of
Health (http://www.cfah.org)
( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-12/CftA-Yhst-0312100.php
)
The last part of your question asks "what does morality require with
regards to corporate policies regarding smokers?"
Of course, morality is subjective, and that question is the very root
of debate over smoking-related policy, both in and out of the
corporate arena.
With that said, it seems fair to say that the clash comes at the
meeting of an individual's 'right' to the lifestyle of his/her choice
regarding his/her health, and a company's 'right' to hire who it wants
(outside of the limits of anti-discrimination law) and include hiring
practices in its cost management strategies.
Certainly, there is no consensus on the morality of smoking or rules
affecting smokers or non-smokers, but there are some interesting
resources on the question at the following site:
From Webster University's 'Contemporary Moral Problems' course,
'Recommended Readings on Smoking'
( http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/moral/contem )
I hope this answers your question! If I can be of any more help,
please feel free to request clarification!
Best,
Rebecca
I searched for lots of similar word combinations… here were the really
productive searches:
"non smoker hiring policy"
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22non+smoker+hiring+policy%22
)
smoking morality corporate
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=smoking+morality+corporate
)
smoking morality "corporate policy"
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=smoking+morality+%22corporate+policy%22
)
smoking and morality
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=smoking+and+morality
)
cost of smoking
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=cost+of+smoking )
lost productivity due to smoking
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=lost+productivity+due+to+smoking
)
lost corporate productivity due to smoking
(://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=lost+corporate+productivity+due+to+smoking
) |
