|
|
John Wilcox, Moderator
Follow John on 
John Wilcox is senior editor of 15 HR Specialist newsletters covering employment law, compensation and benefits, as well as theHRSpecialist.com. A journalist who has covered HR, training, organization development and business management for more than 15 years, John keeps his finger on the pulse of what’s working in HR through daily contact with some of the nation’s top HR pros, business people and employment law attorneys.
Question: My CEO asked me to look into the feasibility of requiring employees to be 'tobacco-free' off the job as well as during working hours. He thinks we could save a lot on health insurance if none of our employees smoked. Has anybody done this ... or considered it? What issues do I need to consider before I make a recommendation on how we should proceed? -- Chris M., Ohio
|
|
That is totally discriminatory. What someone does on his or her own time is no one's business unless it interferes with job performance. It would be better to charge higher health premiums for smokers.
Posted by: Deborah S. Atkinson | May 07, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Tobacco is a legal crop and cigarettes are a legal product in the United States. Having a policy of hiring only non-smokers is discriminating against people who are engaging in a legal act; doing otherwise harkens to a 'big-brother-is-watching' scenario. Perhaps a more equitable resolution is to base employer/employee health care costs on the type of activity in which an employee engages.
Posted by: CJ | May 07, 2007 at 12:29 PM
About two years ago, we changed our hiring requirement, stating on our application that we hired only non-smokers. Since 'smoker' is not a protected class, it's not discriminatory. We did not fire or discipline current smokers. We did add a wellness benefit for smoking cessation to encourage them to quit. We pay for one class and 30 days of prescription or non-prescription aids annually. The change didn't affect the current staff so there was little negative blowback. In fact, we got compliments for offering the additional benefit.
Posted by: Patsy | May 07, 2007 at 12:30 PM
This can certainly be a hot topic, especially when the health issue is brought into it. Do we not hire someone because they are overweight, inactive, drink or have a stressful living environment?
Posted by: Anita | May 07, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Tobacco-free on the job premises sounds feasible. Off the job? That is a personal issue. And for those that think it will save in health insurance, how about making obese employees lose weight, resulting in lower insurance rates because they have less chance of diabetes, heart disease and some types of cancer.
Posted by: Linda | May 07, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Junk food and lack of exercise are major causes of obesity, which in turn causes huge health problems that companies pay for dearly. Not to mention the health issues relating to alcohol. Does that mean that employers should also rule what employees eat and drink while lounging on their couches? Where will we draw the line? The employer has no right to govern the legal, personal choices of their employees. And no, I don't smoke or drink.
Posted by: Vicki | May 07, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Our organization went totally smoke free just last summer. Existing employees are free to smoke on their own time. All new employees are required to be smoke free. They are nicotine tested during their physical, and they sign paperwork informing them that we are a smoke-free facility and that they are required to be smoke free also.
Posted by: Pam | May 07, 2007 at 12:34 PM
If an employer is worried about the company's health insurance rates, then the rates should be broken down by smoker/non-smoker status, and smokers should pay increased rates out of their own pockets.
Posted by: Beverly | May 07, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Controlling what an employee does in the workplace is one thing, but trying to control what they do in the privacy of their own homes is another. Many health insurance companies now offer managed health care, where a nurse practitioner works with employees to manage chronic problems such as diabetes, obesity, smoking, etc. This is a free and confidential service. Check with your current health-insurance provider.
Posted by: Liz | May 07, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I don't think you can legally exclude all smokers. This seems to be discrimination. No group of people should be excluded from employment. Maybe this company could offer incentives for healthier lifestyles. It could sponsor health club memberships or stop-smoking activities.
Posted by: Nicole Daniel | May 07, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I am a non-smoker and don't like being around smoke. I can see the employer's view. I myself have wondered how much I have to pay because of other people's bad habits. With that being said, to not hire because of what someone does in their off time is discriminatory and a BIG can of worms any way you paint it.
Posted by: Dawn | May 07, 2007 at 12:37 PM
In Louisiana, it is illegal to refuse to hire someone based on whether they use tobacco.
Posted by: KC | December 11, 2007 at 02:53 PM