Companys Rights To Prohibit Employees From Smoking Off The Job - Essay Example

?Company’s Rights to Prohibit Employees from Smoking off the Job Introduction: Smoking at workplaces is an issue that is of major concern for organizations as well as employees with views for and against the prohibitions employed. As the case of the Ford Meter Box, a firm in Indiana, reflects, the company prohibited smoking of its employees in the workplace in the year 1991 (Desjardins & McCall, 1996, p. 247-248). The company stopped hiring smokers and the employees were regularly tested for nicotine. The justification of the company’s policies was that smokers increase the cost of the company through health issues (Hooker, 2003, p.11). This report would try to make a detailed study on the rights on the companies to prohibit smoking in workplaces and the probable implications on the organizations as well as the employees. Prohibition of Smoking at Workplaces: The Issues: Interferences in personal lives, regular nicotine tests or the ban in smoking in a workplace may have several pros and cons (The Pros and Cons of a Regular Nicotine Test in the Workplace, 2011). The Pros: A large number of states are initiating the ban of smoking within workplaces. This measure has certain advantages as it is expected to improve the spirits among those employees who do not smoke, protect the non smokers from passive smoking, the quality of air gets enhanced, and the cost of the company also decreases as lower maintenance costs are needed and health bills also expected to be comparatively low. Many private firms do not even hire smokers. Also, several companies tend to make their smoker employees participate in different smoking cessation programs that would enable them to quit smoking. Employees are often charged high insurance premiums that might also act as a motivator for refraining from smoking (Hill, 2006, pp.1-3). Ban in smoking through laws has been found to reduce the passive smoking to a great extent. Improvement in health conditions of such employees has been obtained. The support for such bans has shown to increase (Callinan, Clarke, Doherty & Kelleher, 2010, p.2). A change in the smoking behavior is likely when workplaces bring in limitations on smoking. Employees tend to smoke less and many employees may even quit smoking. Smokers who truly try to quit smoking have actually been found to be more successful than others (Burns, Shanks, Major, Gower & Shopland, n.d., p.104). Prohibiting smoking within organizations is necessary and hence supportive to my views. It can be understood that people who do not smoke would suffer from passive smoking if others smoke within an office. Particularly since an organization is a closed area, it would be more suffering for the non-smokers. Hence smoking needs to be prohibited within the working areas. Moreover, if employees are not allowed to smoke in their work places, this might gradually help them to lessen their habits of smoking which is undeniably better for their health. Thus, considering both the issues of the smokers’ health as well as the sufferings of non smokers from passive smoking, it seems to me that prohibition of smoking in workplaces should be highly supported and followed in all organizations. The Cons: If the case of Ford Meter Box can be considered there are two issues that arise- one being the issue of freedom, and the other being the issue of privacy. The ban in smoking creates personal issue by impeding the freedom of an employee. The private issue arises when the employee needs to give a nicotine test. Whether a company can intrude into the privacy of an employee raises matters of serious concern. Arguments in support of Ford may find the cost factors significant enough to conduct such tests (Hooker, 2003, pp.11-12). The greater problems arise when companies try to regulate the smoking of their employees even at their residences. For example, “in Indiana, an employee was fired because she smoked cigarettes in her own home” (ACLU Briefing Paper Number 12, n.d.). Several federal and state laws exist that protect the rights of the employees not only against discriminations but also against exploitations in regard to nicotine testing, urine testing and other similar activities. As the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) believes, the unfair treatment of employees should be removed and employees should have proper treatments protecting their interests that are not meant to harm the workplace (So Don’t Even Think About Smoking Here, 1996). The prohibition of smoking within organizations is necessary for the benefit of both smokers and non smokers. However, some organizations tend to intrude in the personal preferences of the employees and try to prohibit their smoking even when they are not in their workplaces. Also many organizations may not recruit people who are non smokers. In these cases, such interferences may not be acceptable since organizations need to be bothered with their employees and their work environments and not with the personal lives of the employees. If an employee does not smoke within the office, then the organization should not have any troubles with him. Thus prohibition of smoking in offices in my views should be enough for an organization to promote a healthy environment within the workplace. A critical analysis: The concern arises in a different respect. As in the case of Ford Meter Box, it has been observed that the company does not even hire smokers. Also, it does not allow the smokers to smoke even in their residences and several companies have been found to conduct nicotine tests on the employees. These steps may result in consequences not favorable for the employees. Whether a company can interfere in the personal and private affairs of an employee would remain a debatable issue. It might be acceptable for the employees to accept smoking prohibitions as well as smoking cessation programs while they are present within the organization. As studies reflect this has in fact created positive results for the employees’ health. However, an individual may demand for privacy when he is not in the workplace. It may be the case with many employees that they may not wish to quit smoking. At the same time, they may accept and follow the rules of their workplace and may either smoke less or not smoke during the working hours. Thus, the rules for such candidates should not be forced to interfere in their personal lives that have no associations with their workplaces. In such situations, employee rights protecting the private and personal interests of the employees should play a major role. To my views, organizations need to focus on the work environment in a manner such that all employees are comfortable to work there. Hence, prohibition of smoking would help the non smokers to a great extent. However, rules do not need to be as strict as not to allow smokers to smoke even when they are not in office. It is not required to make it obligatory to quit smoking. If the prohibition leads to quitting of smoking on its own, it can be considered as beneficial for the health of the person; but, if he does not want to quit smoking, organizations do not need to take measures to forcefully make them quit. Considering the internal environment as well as the health factors, prohibition of smoking can be supported and accepted with high values. Conclusion: To conclude this study, it can be said that prohibition of smoking within workplaces by management of different companies may prove to be beneficial for the employees. Smokers may be able to quit or lessen their smoking. This is turn protects the non smokers as well from passive smoking. However, companies like the Ford Meter Box that not only prohibit smoking within the workplaces but also do not allow employees to smoke when they are in their homes, are expected to create difficulties for several employees. This may reflect interference in the personal lives of the employees which requires to be protected by the employee rights. Thus although companies may have the right to prohibit smoking in workplaces, depending on the level of restrictions posed by the company on smoking of employees, there may be both pros and cons of smoking prohibition in workplaces. References 1) ACLU Briefing Paper Number 12 (n.d.). Lectlaw, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp08.htm 2) Burns, D.M. Shanks, T.G. Major, J.M. Gower, K.B. & D.R. Shopland (n.d.). Restrictions on Smoking in the Workplace, Cancercontrol, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/12/Chapter_3.pdf 3) Callinan, J.E. Clarke, A. Doherty, K. & C. Kelleher (2010). Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption, The Cochraine Library, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/World%20No%20Tobacco%20Day/CD005992.pdf 4) DesJardins, J.R. & J.J. McCall (1996). Contemporary issues in business ethics. Massachusetts: Wadsworth Pub. Co. 5) Hill, M. (2006). Employer Initiatives to Stop Smoking, Journal of Employee Assistance, 36(2), pp.1-7, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://www.valueoptions.com/company/Coverage/files/Journal_of_Employee_Assistance_Employer_Initiatives_to_Stop_Smoking.pdf 6) Hooker, J.N. (2003). Ethical Analysis of Case Studies, Marcbrands, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://resume.marcbrands.com/classfolder/45-740/https@blackboard.andrew.cmu.edu/courses/1/s04-45740/content/_174297_1/cases.pdf 7) So Don’t Even Think About Smoking Here (1996). The New York Times, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/29/business/so-don-t-even-think-about-smoking-here.html?pagewanted=2 8) The Pros and Cons of a Regular Nicotine Test in the Workplace (2011). TestCountry, Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://www.testcountry.org/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-regular-nicotine-test-in-the-workplace.htm Read More