Smoke-free workplace or job discrimination?
It started with hospitals and medical businesses. As more and more states adopted strict policies about smoking, state courts began to bump up against a vexing question—the legal system is being called upon to adjudicate the legality of refusing to hire smokers.
The issue has split the anti-smoking world into two camps, and shines light on the fundamental question: Is it legal to discriminate against tobacco consumers, usually known as smokers, for the use of a lawful product? Will courts uphold cases where employees have been fired for “smelling of smoke”?
20% of Americans continue to smoke. As the New York Times puts it, a shift from “smoke-free” to “smoker-free” workplaces reflects the general feeling that “softer efforts—like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers—have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.”
Join Together reports that under new “tobacco-free” hiring policies, “applicants can be turned away for smoking, or if they are caught smoking after hire. Policies differ by company, but some require applicants to take urine tests for nicotine.”
The chief executive of St. Francis Medical center in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which recently stopped hiring smokers, said that it was “unfair for employees who maintained healthy lifestyles to have to subsidize those who do not. Essentially that’s what happens.”
The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not hire smokers. However, the American Legacy Group, an anti-smoking advocacy organization that does hire tobacco users, argues that “smokers are not the enemy.” In the words of Ellen Vargyas, the group’s chief counsel, “the best thing we can do is help them quit, not condition employment on whether they quit.”
As Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health told the New York Times: “Unemployment is also bad for health.”
The issue has broader implications, as yet imperfectly explored. Will it become legal to discriminate against alcohol and drug users in general? How about junk food? Should a company be forced to saddle itself with the likely health costs associated with a junk food junkie?
And so on. This one bears watching.
These articles might interest you :
In the last post I expressed my health concerns and I am very fortunate to say that the tests came back conclusive. It's not a new cancer! Read moreBy Hippofatamus
A couple of weeks ago The New York Times reported that an astronomer from the University of Nebraska, Dr. Martin Gaskell, is suing the University of Kentucky... Read moreBy Shrinkingthecamel
I came across this video earlier while perusing the Canoe Kayak Magazine website. The short film chronicles a group of friends who set out to kayak from... Read moreBy Kungfujedi
A lot of people are depressed that life is about nothing. That we are nothing more than flesh and bone. Random electrical messages disguised as our thoughts.... Read moreBy Stoffbyrd
DATING, LOVE & SEX, RELATIONSHIPS
Oh dear, dear sticking to their religious beliefs put a pair of hotel proprietors on the wrong side of the law yesterday when judgment was given in the Bristol... Read moreBy Judithmiddleton
DIVORCE, FAMILY, LEGAL
For many reasons I keep coming back to this observation of Gabriel Josipovici (from his Preface to The Lessons of Modernism and other essays, originally... Read moreBy Jaac
I have been deliberating over this for WEEKS. I have a total of seven earring holes (four in one ear in random places, three in the other in a line) and I’m... Read moreBy Claire
MOST POPULAR FROM HEALTH
- Combination Therapy in CLL by Bkoffman
- Does the Low-Carb Effect Last? by Dietdoctor
- Copycat Herb Roasted Chicken Dig Inn Market Bowl (paleo) by Fitfulfocus
- 10 Healthy Baby Food Ideas for Daycare by Hemapriya Natesan