No Smoking Policies at Work: Discrimination or Social Responsibility?

Posted by : Barbara Safani 3 Comments

The co-op board of the building I live in is recommending a new policy that prohibits new renters and owners from smoking in their apartments and requires that current smokers stop smoking in their apartments after a period of three years. While it may seem odd to some of you that a residential building would ban smoking, some apartment buildings are moving in this direction.

People haven’t been allowed to smoke in office buildings for years. Yet more recently, companies seem to be upping the ante and not hiring people who smoke. Memorial Hospital of Chattanooga, TN will only hire non-smokers as of February 1, claiming that they want to set a good, healthy example in the community. Sarasota County stopped hiring smokers a few years ago, citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers’ health insurance.

Thirty states have passed laws that protect smokers against job discrimination. But often the protection is only limited to conditions for employment. Some companies charge smokers more for insurance, don’t offer smoking breaks, or don’t allow people who have smoked within a two hour window to come onto the premises.

My father smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 47 years. I still remember the huge (and always full) ashtray in his office…he retired before the no smoking policies in offices were enacted. As I’ve watched his health and quality of life deteriorate over the past 13 years living with emphysema and COPD, I often wonder if my father would have made different choices if his ability to land a job or keep a job or live in a particular apartment building hinged on him quitting smoking. And even if he felt discriminated against because of those decisions, would I perhaps be grateful for that discrimination because he would have spent those 13 years and whatever time he has left as a healthier man.

What do you think about policies not to hire or fire employees who smoke? Is it discrimination or social responsibility?

— 3 Comments —

  1. Hi, Barbara,

    I believe the policy not to hire people who smoke is practicing social responsibility. As a nation, we have become too lax about the consequences of poor health choices, while others have paid the price in increase health care costs for those with chronic conditions developed as a result of smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption, and a host of other self-destructive habits.

    There is enough information–all around us–that excuses for not changing one’s health habits just don’t cut it anymore. It’s a matter of choice, and consequences of poor choices should fall on the shoulders of the one making bad choices, not on the rest of us.

    So, I for one, am glad to see companies clamping down, and in so doing, are making a loud statement that it’s NOT okay to ignore your health at the expense of others. Looking the other way, when someone can do something about the problem, needs to stop.

    My dad also died from the effects of excessive cigarette smoking. The end of his life wasn’t pretty.

    ~Kathy

  2. Ilona,

    It sounds like your situation was truly infringing on your rights and your health. Glad you got out of that one. It’s been fascinating to watch the amount of emotion that the smoking debate has stirred up in my building. BTW, the majority of shareholders voted to make the building smoke free, so phase 2 of this process should be interesting. Thanks for reading!

  3. Kathy,

    You bring up excellent points. The “It’s my life and I will do what I want” argument doesn’t hold as much weight when it is affecting the lives of others. And as I’m sure you’ve realized from your own personal experience, the consequences of a smoker living their life as they choose often has a negative impact on the lives of their loved ones who are left to care for them once they become ill.

Comments are closed.