For six years, KVCC has had a policy that smokers can not be hired for any job at the college. The article can be found here:
http://www.insidehighered.com/workplace/2005/01/31/kalamazoo1_31
This seemed outrageous to me when I first read it. However, my mom, a professor at the school, explained it to me much better. KVCC was able to show that workers who smoke call in sick at a much higher rate than workers who don't smoke. Not to mention the health care costs for smoking workers is drastically larger than the costs for non-smokers. Should an organization be able to do this? They aren't discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. They are simply hiring healthier and more cost efficient workers. I personally don't see a problem with this.
Many people then ask the question, "Will they not hire people with diabetes or other chronic illnesses because it may cost them more in health care costs?" I believe this would be unacceptable discrimination. The difference is that smoking is simply an addictive and unhealthy habit, not a condition that someone is born with or develops and cannot cure.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting way to go about reducing health care costs. I personally don't see a problem with hiring healthier and more cost efficient workers, especially during a time when school budgets are constrained. However, there are two issues that I do have with this article. The first is it says current employees who smoke will not be fired. That simply isn't fair to potential employees because it is making exceptions that go against why they have implemented this policy to begin with. The second issue that I have with this policy deals with the other unhealthy habits that the article brought up, for example fast food. Where and how can you draw this line? Is there a way to compare two completely different unhealthy habits in order to justify health care costs?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this new rule would definitely lower costs for the company. And in my opinion, it would possibly help those who work there who do not smoke, but have breathing issues like asthma because of the decrease of smoke around. Another factor, nothing to do with cost, is help morale and other emotional factors that go into any job. Let's face it...one thing a non-smoker hates the most is someone blowing smoke in their face. Yet, this issue does pose the other factors of when it is OK to became prejudice for job positions over bad habits. It is tough to say, but I do not really thing couch potato is a habit like smoking. Couch potato seems to be more of laziness and lack of self-motivation than an addiction to nicotine. The general idea to lowering health care costs is a step in the right direction. Maybe there is a company that will only hire smokers or something, will non-smokers be offended then?
ReplyDeleteIf we are going by strict rules of efficiency, smokers are less productive at their jobs. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-14/living/cb.smokers_1_smoke-free-ban-smoking-smoking-cessation-programs?_s=PM:LIVING
ReplyDeleteUnlike most people with chronic diseases, smoking is a conscious choice. People participate in the habit, knowing all of the surgeon general's warnings. It seems right, that if a potential worker makes a choice with negative externalities imposed upon the employer, the employer should be able to make choices as well.
The externalties of second and even third degree smoke also have substantial health effects. Third degree smoke is the smoke that gets caught in the hair, clothing, etc of the smoker, causing health issues. Along with Ashley, smoking is a conscious choice, and innocent bystanders are harmed by second and third degree smoke.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.livestrong.com/article/259082-what-are-the-effects-of-third-hand-smoke/
I personally don't have a problem with this decision. I can see the following arguments being made. 1: It is a public institution, and 2: this is a slippery slope. I understand the rationale behind this decision, but are they going to discriminate against fat people next? (I dont mean those with thyroid conditions either.) That leads to health problems too. Asthma, diabetes, hypertension etc. Can they not hire people who might drink too much? Are they willing to pass over a high quality instructor in favor of a poor teacher simply because they smoke? I dont mind the stance that they have taken, but I think they would be better off banning smoking altogether. It sends a less inflammatory message that the school is holding EVERYONE to a higher standard. Otherwise it looks like they only care about money, and the staff members.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who does not smoke and is disgusted by second and third degree smoke, I think this smoking ban would be ideal in a work environment; however, to me, this ban seems to only work in theory. In reality, I do not think it would be fair to allow current employees to be able to smoke while new employees cannot; though, I do not think it would be fair to force current employees to stop smoking either. Also, what about those who drink alcohol on a regular basis? Alcohol-related illness can be as devastating as smoking; will people who drink alcohol regularly be banned from working at KVCC as well? What about frequent fast-food eaters, or people who like to take extreme risks like in extreme sports, or people who are unsafe drivers? When/how do you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteHow would KVCC even enforce this smoking ban? Employees could say they are non-smokers but go home and smoke up a storm. Or the employees who actually are non-smokers could live in a household with other smokers and still carry the third degree smoke on their clothes; would families of employees be forced to quit smoking as well to prevent this third degree smoke on KVCC employees? This is a little extreme, I know, but it addresses the point of when/how to draw the line. Also, what if KVCC finds the perfect candidate for a faculty member but this candidate refuses to quit smoking, so instead KVCC hires a worse-quality candidate because he/she would gladly quit smoking? Would KVCC sacrifice the quality of education that it provides its students just to save a few bucks?
This is great. Smoking is a choice, not a condition, in which the user decides to voluntarily harm themselves through repeated use. If you're not smart enough to make a decision that could improve your personal well-being, why should your employer have to cover the expenses of your lack of intelligence?
ReplyDeleteI find what Kaitlin said very interesting and would like to join her side playing devils advocate.. I really dislike smoking at ANY degree, but what if KVCC administrators opperated under the "dont ask, dont tell policy"?
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily buy into anything just because statistics say so, one can say anything if they divice the numbers or polls the right way.
people can develope a strong dependency on cigarettes, and I think it is unfair to claim that it is purely their choice. I've never had to quit smoking, but rumor has it that it is quite the difficult task.
I say if you can't tell they smoke (i.e. they don't come to work reeking) and they are just as productive as everyone else, what's the big deal?