Running head: STOP SMOKING OR ELSE

Manuel Rivera Stop Smoking or Else: Can Your Employer Prohibit Your Smoking Siena Heights University BAM311: Business Ethics 11/30/2012

STOP SMOKING OR ELSE *Prohibiting Employees from Smoking Off-Duty

In 1991, Ford Meter Box Co., a small manufacturing firm in Indiana, prohibited employees from smoking both on the job and away from work. Janice Bone worked for Ford Meter Box, and when a routine urinalysis detected nicotine in her system, she was fired for violating company policy. Bone sued, arguing that her off-work activities were private and should not be the basis for employment decisions. Ford Meter is on a growing list of companies that are placing employment restrictions on smokers. The most obvious restriction is the prohibition of smoking on the job. A number of considerations have led companies to go further than this, leading to policies like Ford Meter's, which prohibits smoking altogether. Companies argue that increased health care and insurance costs associated with smoking justify these restrictions. Smokers use health care insurance more often, they have greater rates of absenteeism, and tend to retire earlier than other workers due to health issues such as emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease. In the opinion of many employers, these factors make smoking a job-relevant activity. Some companies, like Texas Instruments and U-Haul, require smokers to pay higher rates-an insurance surcharge--for health insurance. In 1994 a Lockheed plant in Georgia joined companies like Turner Broadcasting in refusing to hire people who smoke. In defending their policy, a Lockheed spokesperson referred to an American Lung Association study that showed companies pay up to $5000 per year in additional health care costs for employees who smoke. The Lockheed policy applied only to new employees. In response to Janice Bone's lawsuit, the state of Indiana passed a law protecting employees from dismissal because they smoke outside of the workplace. By 1993, 28 states had passed legislation protecting the rights of workers. --Is smoking an activity that is job relevant? Are all employee activities that can increase employer costs relevant for employment decisions? --Ford Meter Box conducted routine urinalysis tests to check for traces of nicotine. Is this means of enforcing the policy reasonable? --Should governments get involved in these issues, or should they be left to the individual bargaining between employers and employees? --Ford Meter fired a present employee for smoking. Lockheed refused to hire smokers, but left alone present employees. Texas Instruments and U-Haul placed additional conditions on employees who smoke. Are all of these policies justified? Some of these policies? None of them? Question: Does a company have the right to prohibit employees from smoking off the job?

STOP SMOKING OR ELSE

The war on smoking tends to be more of a hot topic for those who dont smoke than it is for those who actually do; that was until companies started to terminate employees for breaking non-smoking ban policies. These employees were not caught smoking on work time, but rather in their personal lives. Some may question how an employer can terminate employees for smoking on their personal time. To answer this, we need to look at both sides of the smoking ban argument to see if such a policy has any validity. Argument: The uses of tobacco products, from cigarettes, second-hand smoke, dip, etc., are serious health factors that employers take into account when making the smoking ban policies. Objection: Though medicine has linked tobacco usage to many health risks, tobacco usage may not be the only causes to the health risks in a persons life. Poor diet, lack of exercise, and bad genes can all contribute to the health risks mentioned. As obesity is a health epidemic in the United States today, it would be hard for a company to pinpoint what exactly are the health issues associated with smoking and which ones are associated with poor diet, drinking, or bad genes. Going further, if companies administer smoking tests to employees to insure they are not smoking, would an employer have the right to make every employee weigh-in weekly to insure they are not getting too fat? I know that there are laws that protect the obese minority from termination based on weight, but smokers currently do not have such protection. Argument: Nicotine is an addictive drug and if you stop cold turkey you can suffer physical side effects such as depression, nervousness, or anxiety. Objection: Ok, lets take this step-by-step. To say that stopping cold turkey is hard for smokers and they may/will suffer side effects such as depression, nervousness, or anxiety is just

STOP SMOKING OR ELSE

another benefit to quitting! By now, it is common knowledge that cigarettes have adverse affects on the body when you first quit, however that is small price to pay when you consider that cancer is far worse than nervousness or anxiety. Smokers I know have said that they only experience the affects for the first week or so and they are happy that they quit. Now, I am sure that upon quitting, smokers could experience higher stress levels, depression, nervousness, or anxiety, but these are not side affects that are exclusive to smoking. An addicted drinker (alcoholic) would suffer similar side affects if they quit cold turkey as well. Furthermore, obese people with a food addiction would also suffer much the same affects if they stopped eating as much or if they quit drinking sugary, caffeinated soft drinks like soda pop. We know that caffeine is an addictive drug as well and does have physical side affects for some if you quit them such as severe headaches caused from the withdrawal. To try and link smoking exclusively to aforementioned side affects to further an acceptance to smoke is negligible. Argument: (The Slippery Slope) If a company is successfully allowed to ban smoking in their employees private lives, where does it stop? A company could to ban sugary drinks, food made with white flour, high cholesterol foods, or alcohol consumption; all things that can and do lead to health risks and as such, could be deemed as inappropriate and warrant a ban. Objection: Though one could argue many of these factors are possible, none are probable. Obesity is a serious issue facing our nation today, however overeating and obesity only physically affect the individual. With smoking, a non-smoker is at risk as well to health problems, like cancer, because of the smokers choice to smoke. Because of this, smoking is much more dangerous because it can/does affect other people (not just the smoker) physically.

STOP SMOKING OR ELSE

I have found it interesting that the question being asked is whether a company has the right to prohibit employees from smoking off duty is one that not be answered. From the employers point of view, they should be asking whether they could terminate based on a violation of a companys smoking ban. Most people in opposition may argue the following: Argument: People have the right to privacy and neither an employer nor the government can infringe their right to privacy. Objection: Though I am sure that the courts have upheld citizens rights to privacy when it was contested, people actually to not inherently have the right to privacy, as it is commonly thought. Conclusion: As I previously mentioned, I dont think that it is a question of whether the employer has the right: to prohibit smoking in their employees private lives, as it is whether the employers have the right to terminate you for violating a smoking ban. Apparently, the answer is Yes.