The Non-Smoking Policy - Case Study Example

 The Non-Smoking Policy Step 1: Determination of the facts The non-smoking policy is a constraint that targets all company employees while at the workplace and as they conduct their private conducts at home. The constraint (smoking ban) is also applied to the spouses of the employees if they are covered by the employee's medical insurance. A test is done to all employees in order to reveal if they have smoked. It is important to determine if the rights of the employees are violated by the non-smoking policy and if the policy violates discrimination laws in order to define the ethical issue in the company. Step 2: Define the ethical issue The stakeholders, in this case, are the employees, their spouses, and the employers. These are the people who will be affected by the cost of healthcare that results from smoking. Smoking in the company will affect or harm the non-smokers in the company (second-hand smoking). Non-smokers will have to put have with the risk of smoking-related illness even when they do not smoke. There is a conflict of interest between the employees and the company as employees feels that random testing and smoking ban is a violation of their rights while the employers believe that the policy is for the benefit of the employees. There exists a tension between the rights of the employees and those of the employer. There are no rights that are being ignored, and no one is failing in his or her obligation. The policy is aimed at ensuring a level playing field for all employees (fairness) - to prevent second-hand smoking and first-hand smoking effects. The issue is an ethical issue arising here is whether those employees who are smokers are being discriminated in the workplace. The issue arisng, in this case, is the casue of the tension between the rights of the employer and the rights of the employee. Step 3: Identification of principles, rules, and values Values: Respect and fairness Principle: To increase productivity by quitting smoking as the employees will be healthy Rule: Employees will quit smoking as part of their occupational health and safety and to reduce the burden on employers that is caused by loss of productivity that results from excessive smoking. Step 4: Specify the alternatives The possible alternative to the status quo of the affected employees is quit working at Weyco Inc. and seek for a job at the other USA states where measures against smokers are prohibited. The alternative to the status quo of the company is to fire the employees who violate the non-smoking policy for as long as they do not violate the discrimiantion laws. To achieve a compromise, both the employer and the employees should arrive at a consensus on the way forward. For example, the employer will have to employ a wellness program that will reward those employees who make lifestyle choices that are deemed to be healthy as part of its occupational health and safety. For example, those employees who quit smoking and engage in the program will earn a bonus, which will motivate other employees to quit smoking. This will enable both the employer and the employees to cut on health insurance costs Step 5: Compare values and alternatives The underlying values and principles of the alternative greatly do not differ from the underlying values and principles of the current situation. The values and principles of both the alternative and the current situation are aimed at ensuring respect in the company, reducing discrimination against smokers in the workplace, reducing tension between employees and employers and increasing the level of productivity in the company. The issue of discrimination of smokers in the workplace will be resolved by putting into place a program that will reward those employees who quit smoking and encouraging others to quit smoking. The goal of the non-smoking policy is to reduce health care costs that result from smoking risks, and, for this reason, the reward program will help in the achievement of the goal. Given the constraints of time and resources, the alternative of firing the employees who do not quit smoking will be plausible. This would make it easy for the employer to do way with poor performance and productivity that result from smoking. Step 6: Assessment of the consequences of the alternatives The short-term consequences of the firing workers are that the employer will not have to pay for unhealthy lifestyles of the smokers. The long-term consequences of firing smokers in the workplace may quell objections from the relevant bodies for violation of discrimination rights. If the employer employs the wellness program, he may end up dealing with low productivity both in the long and short term. The positive outcomes of the alternatives are that they will enhance occupational health and safety for the employees hence saving their lives. The negative outcomes of the alternatives are that it will affect the private lives of the employees and their families. Step 7: Making a decision The company should implement the non-smoking policy on its employees and families. This is to ensure respect, fairness and enhance the productivity of the employees. I would be okay with others finding out this decision as it does not in any way violate the rights of the employees. The decision enhances fairness and respect for both smokers and non-smokers in the company as well as the company. Banning smoking in the workplace ensures that the non-smokers are not in any harmed through second harm smoking, which affects their health and productivity in the company. Implementation of the non-smoking policy on families and outside workplace is aimed at enhancing the safety and health of the employers hence improving their productivity levels. The decision is also aimed at protecting public morality in the workplace and outside the workplace. As an employer, I feel that the decision taken, therefore, is for the good of the employees and the company at large References Krogerus M and Tschappeler R, (2011). The Decision Book: Fifty Models for Strategic Thinking. Profile Books Read More