The answer to the question might cost you a job.
One of the biggest questions in politics is how far is too far when it comes to the government and our personal lives. In Delray Beach, Florida, that debate might heat up even more. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel, the city will no longer hire any employees that smoke regularly. (This includes any tobacco product such as pipes, snuff, etc...) The reasoning behind the move, as quoted from the article,
One of the biggest questions in politics is how far is too far when it comes to the government and our personal lives. In Delray Beach, Florida, that debate might heat up even more. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel, the city will no longer hire any employees that smoke regularly. (This includes any tobacco product such as pipes, snuff, etc...) The reasoning behind the move, as quoted from the article,
"Smokers can cost a company or government agency an average of $12,000 a year in health and disability-related costs".
The city's reasoning revolves around the budget - ultimately, this would save money for taxpayers. But, have they gone too far?
In my own opinion, I don't think a company should have the right to state whether or not an employee can or cannot smoke. It's the employee's choice to endanger their body by smoking, and a company shouldn't be able to discriminate against smokers. There are rules forbidding discrimination against race, gender, legal background (such as jail time), and even disabilities. So why is it okay for them to discriminate against smokers? It's not.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a company wouldn't hire somebody just because of their own personal choices, such as smoking, is ridiculous. Whether or not a person chooses to endanger themselves and choose to smoke is their own problem, not a company's. Everybody needs a job, and to not hire somebody because of something so small as this is unfair.
ReplyDeleteMakayla - Great point. To play devil's advocate, smoking increases the cost of health care. If an employee is a smoker, do you think it would be fair to deny them health insurance if they don't stop smoking?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that limiting the amount of jobs available to the public due to whether or not they are a smoker will create a positive impact in the long run. If more regions of the U.S. were to do this, it would be a step in the right direction for our economy. Not only that, but it could also possibly create for the number of smokers in the U.S. to plummet drastically. Not only would this promote a healthier economy, but more importantly it would promote a healthier body.
ReplyDeleteI believe that not only limiting the public jobs to be between smokers and non-smokers America will be a cleaner country in the future. According to a website I found the lowest that Americans have ever smoked is the world median, so if we decreased in consumption of tobacco products maybe that would show the world as well to change. The article is on http://www.gallup.com/poll/28432/smoking-rates-around-world-how-americans-compare.aspx.
ReplyDeleteNo i compleatly disagree with this, just because someone smokes a cigerette doesnt mean they should be disgriminating on them. Businesses should not get into your personal life unless there is something illegal going on and cigerettes are not illegal unless you are under 18.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, if the possibility that hiring an employee can cause more expenses in the long term, from a logistical standpoint, it makes perfect sense not to hire. Hiring a non smoker as opposed to a smoker might yield a higher profit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's not plausible or reasonable to look at an employee as a set of numbers. Ethically speaking, even if a person doesn't agree with smoking, it's a personal choice that some might partake in. Discrimination is defined as unjust treatment based on a category of people--smokers are a category of people, and whether or not they are making the right decision for themselves shouldn't factor into their ability to be a productive employee.
It is difficult for me to pick a side on this topic. Both sides have great points. While I do believe that it is a person’s right to choose whether or not they smoke, at the same time I feel like companies have the right to at least a little control over their employees and what they do while at work.
ReplyDeleteWhen a company hires a person to work for them,it is the responsibility of the new employee to realize that while they are at work, everything they do represents the company. Because of that, I feel like company owners have the right to determine who is representing them or not. If company owners don’t want to have their business represented by smokers, than they should have the option to say so. Unless a smoker agrees to not smoke while they are at work, I believe that the company should have a say in whether or not the person is hired.
Although I agree that the government shouldn't discriminate against people who smoke by not hiring them, I can perfectly see why they would want to do so. It costs more to have employees who smoke. Where I work, some of the smokers take upwards of 10 breaks a night to smoke, so if each of those breaks is only a couple minutes, that's a half hour per night, or more. If you make $30/hour that's $15 per night of lost work for the company. And if you have, say 3 people doing it, like where I work, that's almost $50/night of lost work. In a month that's over $1,000. I don't believe it's exactly right to not hire them, but I can completely see why they are doing that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people are right about government taking too much control of our lives. I see where businesses are going with not allowing their employees to smoke at work because smoking causes so much damage to the body. I think that it should be fine for businesses to restrict employees smoking so they will not have to worry about as much health issues. It will also make employees smoke less which will help people become healthier and have to pay less for cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that government has taken it way too far when it comes to the personal lives of those in America. I also understand where the government is going when they are concerned with the well being of smokers, but that should not limit them when it comes to getting hired for a job. The people who do smoke should be able to get a job, but can easily be permitted from smoking on the premises of the job. The government tends to get into the lives on other occasions too. When we go to vote on November 6th, we have to consider what each president is there to offer us and whether or not they are changing and alternating too much in our personal lives. Maybe in the long run changes like this will result in success for more money and good, but for the time being is it really right for the government to peek into our personal lives?
ReplyDelete