The hiring smokers debate among employers is a hefty one, there are opponents on both sides of the fence. Healthcare employers are the biggest rival in the debate. According to the CDC smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. One in five people die from a smoking related death. Employers are looking at the statistics and taking pause. Is allowing smokers to work in the healthcare field detrimental to their job, their patients and their health? Are the questions healthcare employers asking viable? Yes! They have reliable, factual statistics and research that can prove the how, the why, and the what. Their next step banning smokers from employment. A lot of people question whether this is constitutional or within an employer’s rights.
Employers across all field have been joining public health initiatives in banning smoking on their premises and with their employees. In 2006, Ohio voters passed a legislation on a smoking ban in public places and places of employment. This ban according to the Ohio Department of Health protects the public from second hand smoke which can be as detrimental to one’s health as smoking itself. States across the United States have similar bans. There are also bans in various other countries with similar bans. Hospitals and Healthcare facilities across the nation quickly reacted to the public ban and made their facilities smoke free. Many adversaries have popped up in this fight on the smoking ban questioning its legality. Shortly after the smoking ban started, employers started banning the hiring of smokers. Claiming that cost and productive with its workers are directly affected by whether they smoke. Healthcare employers are the largest places of employment with smoking bans.
The question in this battle of banning smoking in place of employment especially in the healthcare setting becomes; should employers be allowed to ban smokers. The answer quite simple is, yes. Smoking not only effects one’s health it affects the environment, cost of health insurance, cost of maintenance and can be damaging to those around you as well. There will always be adversaries in this battle, but the facts and statistics are staggering and hard to argue against.
127 our experts are availableright now
Statistics on the effects of smoking and your health are staggering and scary. The US Department of Health and Human Services reports that “More than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United States.” The CDC reports that 480,000 deaths per year occur because of smoking, that is one in every five people. The JAMA says that 5.7 million deaths occur every year globally because of smoking and that smoking is the most preventable cause of mortality in the US. Smoking effects nearly every organ in your body.
Smoking can cause a wide range of diseases, from cancer to heart disease. The percent of deaths caused by smoking is astonishing. Statistics show that 90% of cancer related deaths are a result of smoking. That is 9 out of every 10 people. 80% of respiratory disease deaths are related to smoking or 8 out of 10 people. Not to mention all the other illnesses or health risks resulting from smoking. When faced with all the possible health issues and outcomes smoking can case there is no doubt why an employer would want to ban hiring smokers.
Not only does smoking affect the person smoking it also affects the people who do not smoke. Statistics show that between 1964-2014 2.5 billion people died from second hand smoke. There were 7330 deaths from lung cancer and 33,950 deaths from heart disease from exposure to second hand smoke. With statistics like that any argument against the ban seem fruitless. It shows that not only the smoker is affected but those around the smoker are also affected. Studies show that second hand exposure can cause all the same health risks as lighting up yourself. In an industry with millions of consumers and employees an employer really needs to take into consideration all the facts and statistics. Banning employees from smoking seems ideal. Healthcare is a multibillion dollar industry that needs to show consideration for all involved.
A recent study conducted by Ohio State University Professor Micah Berman, College of Public Health, OSU along with co-authors Rob Crane, College of Medicine, OSU, Eric Seiber, College of Public Health, OSU and Columbus Law Firm attorney Mehmet Mumur shows that the cost to employee a smoker ranges from 2,885 dollars to 10,125 per year with annual average of 6000 dollars. “Researchers say the study is the first to take a comprehensive look at the financial burden for companies that employ smokers” Absenteeism, lost productivity, smoke breaks and healthcare cost were calculated into their findings. With smoke breaks being the highest loss in productivity cost followed by healthcare cost. The study did not consider ethical or privacy issues its focus was mainly on the economics.
With implementation of new laws requiring employers to provide insurance to employees and the astounding cost of health insurance it is very easy to see why an employer would pause at hiring a smoker. The cost to insure a smoker on average is about 15-20 % higher in premiums than a non-smoker per month. On average a nonsmoker pays about 500 dollars a month and a smoker pay about 600 dollars a month with the same health and demographics. “The health insurance companies face a double-edged sword when it comes to insuring smokers. Not only will they typically pay more for health claims, but they also collect less in premium revenue since smokers have a higher mortality rate than non-smokers.” The healthcare industry employers usually assist employees with some of the cost of premiums paid for health insurance thus they are incurring an increase in premiums for the smokers they employee. The yearly cost for a smoker for a self-insured employer is 2056 dollars extra for a smoker.
The next largest expense in hiring smokers is related to productivity cost. There are many factors in examining cost loss associated with lost productivity. The amount of time smokers spend on break is one of the factors. On average a smoker takes between two and three smoke breaks a day, if not more, and the median time for these breaks last between ten and fifteen minutes. That is about thirty minutes of lost time per day, which equals out to about six days of lost work a year. The yearly cost per employee for smoke breaks cost an employer about 462 dollars. If an employer had ten employees who smoked that would cost them 4620 dollars a year just for smoke breaks alone. Nonsmokers tend to feel jilted when faced with these numbers and believe they are entitled to the same amount of time off as smokers get. This causes tension in the work place.
Absenteeism is another cost employers incur when employing smokers. Smokers tend to miss more days of work than nonsmokers and this is a big loss to employers. The cost of absenteeism in the workplace due to smoking is about 517 dollars per employee per year. Once again if employer employs 10 smokers this could cost them close to 5170 dollars a year in lost money. Basically, money is going up in smoke. There is no way for employers to recoup this money and a lot of employers are feeling the crunch.
Extra Maintenance cost is another added expense when employing a smoker. Companies must spend extra money cleaning air vents, walls and the grounds of the facility. Nicotine can stain paint and cause a nasty odor and most employers do not want their companies smelling or looking dirty it deters consumers, which can lead to a loss in revenue. The bottom line is smoking is affecting the bottom line.
Another mitigating factor in employing a smoker especially in the healthcare field is the smell of smoke. Thousands of people suffer from respiratory disease and the smell of smoke alone causes them problems. Thus, if employers employ someone who smokes they are subjecting their consumer to something that could cause them harm and that defeats the purpose of healthcare itself. The healthcare system is in place to promote health and wellness and cannot do so if they are not projecting a healthy image. Smoking being a leading cause of death does not promote their standards.
Many employers are seeing the added cost of employing smokers and are implementing bans on hiring smokers. This ban is costing them money also, but in the long run it is saving them added cost each year. Many employers who are banning smoking are adding expense to them self because they are offering current employees smoking cessation programs which cost them. Yet this added expense they believe will pay off in the end if they are not incurring the thousands of dollars in expense for employing smokers. The ban itself cost employers because they are testing prospective employees for nicotine, but a simple test will save them millions of dollars in the coming years. They will reap the benefits in the end with greater productivity, less absenteeism, less maintenance cost, and lower insurance premiums.
States and public health systems are passing laws to protect the health of the public by banning smoking in public places. Many employers are following suit. When they do however a whole new issue arises besides the cost and it is the ethical and privacy issues related to banning a smoker from employment. Many adversaries of the ban are in an uproar, how dare the government or an employer tell someone how they can or cannot live. They are fighting back claiming that there are ethical and privacy issues being violate banning smokers from doing something that by law is not illegal. It appears the health factor is of little to no importance to them they are more concerned with the violation of people’s rights to make choices for themselves. They believe the public should be able to live their life without someone telling them how it should be done.
According to the WHO tobacco use is the leading cause in preventable deaths in the world. Healthcare employers are looking at this and saying hey how can we advocate no smoking yet still hire smokers. We are not being good role models if we are advocating against something and then allowing our employees to do the very thing we are in opposition to. Imagine walking into the doctor’s office and on the way in the nurse is outside smoking, then comes in and tells the patient smoking is bad for your health don’t do it. How can one tell someone not to do the very thing someone just witnessed them doing? It makes one think about things. It’s like the old saying goes do as I say not as I do.
The antitobacco cause is fighting for the public health and believes that banning smoking is protecting those who do not smoke from the harmful effects of second hand smoke. Yet adversaries believe that banning smokers from employment is limiting the employment opportunities of the smoker and those exposed to smoking. The smoking test used for employment will pick up any hint of nicotine including those exposed to second hand smoke, and those using any nicotine replacement products. Those against the ban believe this is severely impacting potential employees who may be trying to quit or those who may have been exposed somehow to smoke. They are citing social injustice as a reason too. Statistics show that most smokers are from a lower socioeconomic class and are already faced with unemployment and job insecurity and banning smokers from employment is increases these factors.
Proponents of the ban believe potential employees will see the ban as incentive to quit for the opportunity at a more substantially lucrative employment opportunity. However, opponents believe that most potential employees cannot afford the cost of smoking cessation programs thus they are excluded from the opportunities afforded others. Plus, the chance of relapse and failure of quitting rates is staggeringly high.
Privacy issues with banning smokers has become a big deal. The ACLU believes that banning smokers from employment is stomping on our Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Especially the right to the sanctity of family. According to the ACLU, “private employers are using the power of the paycheck to tell their employees what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.” The ACLU believes that this violation has come about due to the staggering increase in the cost of healthcare and the inflation of its cost. Many people believe that allowing employers to prohibit one lifestyle choice will open the door to other policies prohibiting other choice and wander where the line will be drawn. The question being asked is what choices employers are going to ban next. How many of our rights can employers take away by refusing employment because of our lifestyle choices. The ACLU says that many of the activities we do daily pose some risks and if employers can put bans on these choices they are limiting job opportunities for millions of Americans.
Federal Law does prohibit discrimination in employment for several reasons, sex, race, and national origin, however smoking is not a covered right. Employers have the freedom to hire whomever they want if they do not violate the above-mentioned discrimination acts. Employers who are adopting the smoking ban on employment are looking at the protection of the rest of their employees and the public they serve. Public Health laws prohibit smoking in a public place due to the risk of exposure to second hand smoke. Places of employment are considered public places therefore employers have the right to forbid hiring of smokers to reduce the risk of exposure to others. OSHA a federal safety law states that you have the right to a safe and hazardous free work place Since the risk of second hand smoke exposure is hazardous to your health employers believe they are within their right to ban smoking. The federal government and public health agree.
When it comes to the debate of privacy issues employers are not looking at one’s private life and tying to violate their rights they are looking at the bigger picture. Who’s affected by the exposure and who is at risk. Employers want to protect themselves and the public they serve, and they are doing so by implementing policies that reflect these protections.
When one looks at the facts presented from all sides of the smoking ban on employees debate they begin to question policies. These questions lead to research and studies that are carefully examined to decide if the bans on smoking are beneficial to all. Employers did not just stand up one day and say let’s ban employees who smoke from employment because they felt like doing so. They researched and questioned all sides of the issue. This debate has been ongoing for many years and will continue to be as new research and statistics come forward.
Healthcare facilities are here to serve, protect, promote health and wellness to the masses and they look at the effects of everything on the people they serve and employee. Are they promoting wellness and keeping the standards of care reasonable? When faced with the facts healthcare facilities are looking at the bigger picture. Yes, someone may not get a job because of their choices but this is not to discriminate or pry into one’s private life this is a protection. They are trying to protect the health of the community they serve. Prevent the rise in cost to the consumer protecting them from an even bigger inflation in cost of healthcare. Healthcare is an ever-growing industry and the cost of this industry is inflated. A lot of these costs are preventable. If choosing not to employee a smoker can reduce these costs why not put a ban on it.
Banning the hiring of a smoker will long be an issue but when faced with the research you being to see the reason behind the ban. There are some issues that arise from smoking; health, cost, ethical and privacy issues it almost becomes overwhelming to comprehend but the facts are the facts. Looking at the statistics alone on how smoking effects one’s health should be deterrent enough, but the fact is smoking is an addiction one that is hard to overcome. Employers are facing the reality employing smokers leads to more issues than banning them does.
Here is the reality of the situation summed up. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the world. One in five Americans die from smoking. Smoking not only effects the person smoking but can affect those around them too. Employing a smoker can cost employers millions of dollars especially an employer as large as a healthcare facility. Should healthcare employers and others be allowed to put a ban on hiring smokers? Quite simply yes.
