Negative Consequences of Employees Smoking in the Workplace
Many companies across the United States are making it more difficult for smokers to get jobs in the workplace. Those who smoke are having a hard time getting hired for jobs because of their habit. Secondly, those who choose to smoke may also risk losing their present job. Employers are viewing smoking employees as a risk to have in their work environment. There is an increased risk of accidents in the workplace, loss of productivity, and higher healthcare costs because of employees who smoke.
In the article, "Why Business Should Get Serious About Smoking," Howard Weyers states, "The fact is, federal and state laws prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of age, sex, race, weight, national origin, and other attributes and smoking is not a civil right. It's just a poor personal choice." Weyers believes this along with many others at Weyco, INC., a company, which started a policy, which promotes healthier lifestyles. Weyers points out that, "The CDC reports that smoking costs $75 billion a year in excess medical bills and $82 billion in lost productivity. In Michigan alone, tobacco kills 16,000 people annually more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined." The goal of this program is to encourage employees to become healthier, and to increase their ability to accomplish more in their personal and professional lives. The author of this article also speaks about how employment is not a right, but it is something a person has to work and strive for. Therefore, if an employer does not want to hire someone because they smoke, they do not necessarily have to. Smoking is a person's choice and if they really want...
... middle of paper ...
...lly cut back and quit.
In conclusion, There is an increased risk of accidents in the workplace, loss of productivity, and higher healthcare costs because of employees who smoke. Times are changing and long past are the days when Joe Camel ruled our nation and smoking was considered fashionable and the social norm. I would not be surprised to see smoking ban completely in the years to come. Smoking has been proven to be detrimental to peoples health not only to the smoker but of the people who are surrounded by it and this is perhaps the keystone factor of why or should be banned in the workplace. With some many states and businesses banning smoking in public places and the work place, one would ask why do you smoke at all and most common rebuttal is "it's a bad habit". Is a habit that is so highly discouraged in today's society really worth losing your job over?
Cigarette business has now sprung from a small shop to a very large corperation. Cigarette businesses are not just a business now, it is considered to be a money machine. It is a huge industrial business around the world providing many jobs and creating massive revenue. So many people are put at risk to these businesses directly and indirectly. The owners and workers of the tobacco companies both take this as their source of primary income. They can easily support their family through this business if the businesses aren 't hoarding all revenue for themselves. Producing cigarettes has become one of the most profitable business, not to mention one of the biggest industries in the whole world. The government receives huge amounts of money from cigarette companies from the taxes they pay alone. Cigarette use is in the workplace of many people around the world. Though many people can be benefited through this business it is not worth what comes from cigarette use. The government is getting huge sums of money from the sale and distribution of cigarettes. So, making the same and manufacturing of cigarettes illegal will definitely hurt the government and add pressures to many people who are in need of a job or looking for one. As a result, through this business, it creates a source of income for the workers and owners of companies big and small. But some people may argue that the physical health risks from smoking, financial as well as social risks occur along with this. A person, who smokes on a regular basis also may spend a majority of his money on buying cigarette or other tobacco products. The average pack of cigarettes costs the consumer four dollars per pack. Annually , that would cost a person an average of 1500 dollars at least for cigarettes . When the person is hospitalized due to use of cigarettes, his medical expenses
Employers have the responsibility to safeguard employees and clients. Smoking is an unhealthy habit and can affect individuals that do not smoke. In order to create a policy on smoking that protects the welfare of all individuals within and out of the organization can be tricky. Depending on the organizations, employers should have the right to prohibit or designate smoking. If smoking is affecting job performance, employees should be reprimanded for their low productivity, not smoking. However, when smoking imposes health issues on non-smokers, employers have the right to abolish smoking at the workplace
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
Health insurance premiums have been on the rise for years. I was self-employed for over 20 years and the price I paid for health care was astronomical. My cousin has her Master’s Degree in Actuarial Studies and review statistics for state health insurance pools and for major health insurance companies. This topic has come up many times in conversation with her, and she has informed me that Americans would be extremely frustrated to know that their insurance premium increases are a direct reflection from smokers and health complications associated herewith. Furthermore, many company’s health insurance premiums are approximately 25% higher due to smokers within the company. Currently, even though applications ask the “smoker” question, numerous individuals
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
It has been suggested that we consider refusing to hire smokers to help reduce these costs. Other companies such as Weyco, The Cleveland Clinic, and the Massachusetts Hospital Association have already implemented such a policy. Statistics show that smokers cause increased health care costs and lower productivity, due to increased absenteeism and more breaks, if smoking is allowed on the premises.
3. Jamrozik's calculations said about 700 people die from lung cancer, heart disease or stroke because of passive smoking at work. Another 3,600 people die as a result of second-hand smoke at home. "In the absence of a direct observational study, I feel this research is the best evidence we have in this country to show the effects of passive smoking in the workplace," Jamrozik's told the BBC.
Should you be able to smoke? Smoking should be banned all around the the United States. Smoking causes more deaths per year than anything else. It causes twice as many deaths as HIV/Aids ,illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injury and firearm-related incidents combined. Estimates show that smoking increases the risk of coronary heart disease by 3 to 5 times a year. Smoking also causes 85% of lung cancer, by damaging your airways and the small air sacs found in your lungs. Other diseases are COPD, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Smoking is a serious public health concern in the United States. It is responsible for at least 30% of all cancer deaths, causes
In recent years, following the Affordable Care Act becoming law, business has taken a blow at the hands of the government. As the Act continues to be slowly implemented, many companies have adopted new practices in an attempt to cut the costs of healthcare, while still maintaining the benefits already set in place for employees. Among these practices is refusing employment to smokers. Although this practice is not entirely new to companies, it is becoming a more popular option for those looking to save on premiums wherever possible. So this begs the question, is it socially responsible to discriminate against potential employees based on their use of cigarettes? This is a question
Brewis, J. & Grey, C., 2008, ‘The Regulation of smoking at work, ‘ Human Relations, Volume 61(7), pp.965-987.
Most people are aware of the risks associated with smoking and many people who do not smoke are concerned about the risks of secondhand smoke. Even employees in restaurants have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general public (Buckley, 2002, p. 63). Also, Harvard researchers found that women who were regularly exposed to other people?s smoke at home or at work were 91 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those who weren?t exposed (Will You Pay, 1998, p.
Cigarette smoking is a danger to our life and health. It is the leading known cause of lung cancer. Each year more than 30,000 people will die of lung cancer and 4 out of 5 of them will get it because of cigarette smoke.
The smoker creates arbetens occasions for them multinational tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies. They are the only argument to suggest that smoking is good (it creates jobs ) .
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.