More Reasons To Quit Smoking
In an opinion piece this morning entitled “Getting employees to quit smoking is a good thing, within reason“, the Editorial Board of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel say that, “Encouraging smokers to quit, with the stick or the carrot, is one thing, but making it a condition of their job security or career path is overstepping the line.”
Overstepping the line in what way? Are employers supposed to simply bear the increased costs associated with having employees who smoke?
Are the editors of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel aware that:
- Smoking employees cost an employer an average of $1,429 per smoker per year in increased health care costs over nonsmoking employees (and this does not include the costs of lost productivity and absenteeism)?
- Employees who take four 10-minute smoke breaks a day actually work a full month less every year than workers who don’t take smoking breaks?
- Smokers are absent from work 50% more than nonsmokers, and are also 50% more likely to be hospitalized and have 15% higher disability rates?
Would the Editorial Board of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel say the same thing about alcoholics? Are employers who require alcoholics to quit drinking as a condition of their job security or career path overstepping the line?
What about heroin addicts? Cocaine addicts? Are employers who require addicts in general to quit feeding their addictions as a condition of their job security or career path overstepping the line?
Why the special case for smokers? Last I heard, Florida wasn’t even in the Top 10 Tobacco-producing states (although it was 11th in total acreage devoted to tobacoo cultivation).
Ultimately, it’s you and me who pay the increased costs for employers who continue to employ smokers, and I applaud any employer who tries to help their employees quit smoking, whether they use the carrot or the stick; as a nation, we can’t afford to keep subsidizing this addiction.
