October 1 should be an interesting day in workplaces around Tennessee. That’s the day that the Non-Smoker Protection Act goes into effect. This act was passed last week by the Tennessee House and Senate. The governor will sign it soon.
The Non-Smoker Protection Act will effectively ban smoking in any enclosed work environment. That includes restaurants, company break rooms, and restrooms. There are a few exceptions. Smoking will still be allowed, for example, in businesses with less than four employees, age-restricted venues, and areas with open garage-type doors.
Personally, I’m okay with the ban. My father died of smoking-related cancer at the age of 58. I’ve never smoked and will enjoy going to restaurants and not coming out smelling like an ashtray.
On the other hand, I’m still a fan of the free market and probably would have preferred no ban. Business owners are free to ban smoking in the workplace anytime they want. Likewise, customers and employees are free to patronize and work for companies that fit their preferences.
The name of the act implies that non-smokers will be protected by it. I suppose there’s also some hope that smokers might smoke less, or even quit smoking, if they can’t smoke in the workplace.
Following this logic, I began to wonder if companies might be better off without any smokers. As it turns out, I’m not the first to wonder this. One of the most recent studies found that the average smoker costs their company $4,430 per year in lost productivity. This figure only includes absenteeism and does not include the costs of higher health care expenses and early retirement due to smoking-related health problems.
Before you decide to go out and fire all of your smokers, it’s time for the bad news. You can’t. Approximately twenty-nine states have laws that specifically protect smokers from discrimination. Twenty-one states, on the other hand, allow business owners the freedom to lower their costs by firing smokers.
Tennessee is one of the twenty-nine. Maybe that means that Tennessee is an enlightened state that seeks to protect everyone from cruel forms of discrimination. I don’t think so.
As far as I know, only Michigan protects employees from discrimination on the basis of height and weight. Only Washington, D.C. protects employees on the basis of personal appearance.
In other words, private employers in most states are generally free to fire people who are unattractive, overweight, underweight, or fans of the New York Yankees. Employers who choose to make these bad decisions, however, must also suffer the consequences.
But twenty-nine states have decided that smokers cannot be fired. Oddly enough, these states tend to be tobacco-producing states with very powerful tobacco lobbyists.
Interestingly, Tennessee’s statute only prevents the firing of smokers. That wording seems to imply that Tennessee employers could refuse to hire smokers.
By this point it probably sounds as if I’m being too tough on smokers. But smokers need jobs too; especially if they’re going to be able to pay the new 42 cent per pack tax.
I would actually prefer to see employers actively encouraging their smokers to quit. Many companies offer free smoking cessation programs, but very few go as far as providing incentives to participate.
Everyone would benefit from less smoking. Employers would get lower labor costs. Taxpayers would pay less to programs like Medicaid. And more grandkids would get to meet their grandparents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
With the industrial push for foreign practices in the workplace, such as six sigma and lean, efficiency has become a taboo concept. Measuring efficiency has been labeled as measuring a side effect, not the cause. Putting the right people in the right place and providing them with measurements and incentives naturally leads to high efficiency. However, efficiency can be measured before and after a change in a cause to determine the effect it had. I feel that this concept is commonly overlooked.
Smoking is unhealthy and kills both innocent victims as well as the not so innocent. Some people will continue to smoke, even if it is made illegal. Some of these smokers are highly efficient while smoking, while others have to take time to flick the ashes before placing a burger on a bun.
I can accept the $4,430 in lost absenteeism, but how about efficiency. I know several smokers that will tell you that they work harder and better while they are smoking. I also know several smokers that do in fact produce a better quality product at a faster rate than their non-smoking counterpart. It is always difficult talking with them when it comes to smoking because there are few studies out there to show a before and after case, the employees can only compare themselves to a co-worker and not their real potential.
In this situation, smoking will continue to be allowed where I work due to the wording of the new smoking ban. Education of the health effects and costs to the company will do little to dissuade these employees from smoking. Facts showing that the average person is less efficient at what they do while smoking might help tear down the mental block that “smoking is bad for everyone except me.” (like wearing the “beer goggles” that they use on elementary students).
With this new mandatory ban, efficiency studies might be the key in illustration to the general public in both Tennessee and the rest of the nation what really happens. Better hurry though, because efficiency is not measured in modernized companies and the ban goes into full effect soon.
Post a Comment