Discussion : No Smoking Allowed - On the Job or Off - Case Study Example

Response to Question 2 In my view, employers should restrict employees from smoking when off the work place, or charge them for health insurance. Evidence pertaining to the negative impacts of second-hand (passive) smoke is overwhelming. Stern action needs to be taken to avert the risks posed by passive smoking. Apparently, much of the efforts directed towards curbing the risks posed by smoking have not borne the results expected. There are good reasons why banning employees from smoking at home is bound to help the employers more in their quests for smoke-free workplaces.

Firstly, smokers cost the employer unnecessarily high costs to cater for medical fees for smokers. Individual decisions by employees to engage in smoking eventually cost employers their revenues in costs associated with smoking-related health complications. Employers should avoid unnecessary bills. Some of the ways they can avoid unnecessary costs is totally restricting employees from smoking, or charging smokers higher to recoup some of the monies lost in paying for smoking-related costs. Secondly, employees who engage in smoking have been associated with time excessive time wastage in a firm.

This is brought about by the numerous trips spent attending treatment facilities, time taken to go to designated smoking spots, and constant loss of concentration. There is no particular way to recover the time lost by the smoking employees. As such, the employer reserves the right to seek for ways to recoup the lost time. This, again, confirms why they should charge their smoking employees higher health insurance premiums or simply restrict them from smoking, both at work and off the job.Works CitedKoch, Wendy.

Work Place Ban Not Only Smoking, But Smokers Themselves. USA Today, 6th January, 2012. < http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1>