|
CanMag’s 2005 First Glimpse Into Pandora’s Box
Smoking can affect more than your health.
Smoking and Health Benefits-- Beginning of Pandora's Box
The companies who ask their employee's to quit their habit are, however,
not doing so without providing incentives for them to do so and/or providing
access to a means to quit smoking. However, the time has come to either
quit smoking or find another job; those companies who previously asked their
employee's to quit have reached their deadline and are now asking those
who chose not to quit to leave, and some people are losing their jobs over
it.
For those smokers out there who are on the job-hunt, be aware that some employers are filtering those who smoke out of the hiring process entirely. These employers are requesting applicants to take a nicotine test.
The reason for this is that employers find it too costly to employ someone and pay for their health benefits when they choose to do something as harmful to their body as smoking cigarettes. Even if someone is in good physical condition at the date of hire, though a smoker, employers are becoming extremely reluctant to hire him or her because of the projected health-care costs that are typical of smokers as they age.
As for Pandora's Box…
Employers are well inside their rights to ask their employee's to not smoke during work hours, even if they leave the premises, but can they also ask their employees to not smoke in the privacy of their own lives? For any of you who might think that employers should be able to do this than please allow me discuss a few other lifestyle habits that can lead the increased health-care costs.
Obesity is also one of the lead causes for steep health-care costs-should employers be allowed to deny obese people for that reason as well. What about sex-o-haulics? Single men and women make up a great majority of the work force in the United States, should they be denied a job just because they are at higher risk of contracting a condition or disease that may lead to an increase in health-care costs. Or what about people who just enjoy and maintain an extreme lifestyle such as regular rock-climbing, extreme mountain bike riding, white-water rafting, etc? These people are surely at great risk of injury that may result in large health care costs. And while were at it, why not throw applications of people who live in metropolitan areas in the same pile. They are at a much greater risk of getting in a severe car accident than those who don't live in large cities with high traffic areas. These things all fall under a person's choice and/or life-style choice and should be considered to the same degree.
Living in California, I sometimes forget that it is legal to smoke indoors in a lot of other places in the U.S.. I enjoy my smoke-free environments, however I don't think that it is fair at all for employers to turn down fully qualified and capable people just because of a few life-style choices and the fact that they have the potential to increase the cost of their health-care in the future.
But then again, who said life was fair?
|
| |
Add to Heffee!
