Smoking in the Workplace
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Smoking in the Workplace
Smoking is an unhealthy behavior that increases health risk to active and passive smokers.
The study analyzes the article “Should Employers Be Permitted not to Hire Smokers? A Review of US Legal Provisions” (Patel and Schmidt, 2017). Some states have smokers protection laws in the workplace while others have no regulations to protect the interest of job seekers and employees. Some states implement rules to protect smokers while others do not lead to ethical, business, and legal issues related to smoking.
Background
Only about half of the states in America have provisions to protect smokers. Smoking is medically recognized addiction, and it is ethically unjustified in curtailing employment of smokers. Patel and Schmidt (2017) argue that smokers should be disadvantaged in the workplace. Smoking is becoming a public health burden in many countries around the world. For example, smoking is one of the leading cause of death around the globe. Policymakers should look for alternative measures to regulate tobacco instead of adopting non-hiring provisions. The ethical dilemma arises due to contradictions on individual’s rights and public health. Therefore, there are clear guidelines on moral or legal issues related to smoking in the workplace.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues arise on whether smokers should be treated differently in the workplace because tobacco use is a health risk to active and passive smokers. There are ethical variations on how states define tobacco use at the workplace. The moral rationales for tobacco regulation and smoker protection also differ across the country. Ethical issues related to smoking include protecting privacy and avoiding discrimination. Smoking is one of the leading causes of death in the United States and other countries. Patel and Schmidt (2017) argue that smoking cause about 480,000 annually in America and 5.7 million deaths around the world. Therefore, smoking has a severe impact on public health because tobacco use has social, economic, and ethical issues in society.
The argument for and against can be argued based on utilitarianism and deontological ethical theories. Under utilitarianism approach, the policymakers should consider the decision that generates greater benefits to many people by analyzing the consequences of tobacco use to public health. Smoking causes health complications and even death to active and passive smothers. Therefore, tobacco use harms both smokers and non-smokers, and it does not benefit the most significant number of people. In this case, the utilitarian approach advocates for regulation of smoking in the workplace. Alsrayheen and Aldiabat (2018) utilitarian approach is a society-centered philosophy that focuses on the greatest happiness. However, smoker protection legislation is in line with protecting job seekers or employees’ privacy and preventing discrimination in the workplace.
Deontological theory of ethics states that individuals have a responsibility to perform their duties regardless of the consequences. Likewise, employers and policymakers should protect the rights of job seekers and employees against discrimination. Deontological ethics does not consider the implications of implementing laws to protect smokers in workers. Therefore, the utilitarian theory of ethics advocates for prohibiting employees from hiring smokers to generate maximum benefits in the workplace and promote public health (Alsrayheen and Aldiabat, 2018). On the other side, deontological ethics argues that policymakers and employees must promote public health by prohibiting smoking in the workplace.
Business Issues
The ethical issues related to smokers’ protection may affect business performance and relations with the public. Customers and investors prefer dealing with businesses that protect employees’ rights and environmental protection. However, protection of smokers expose active and smokers to tobacco-related health risks. Smoking also employees’ productivity and pose safety concerns such as the fire in the workplace. Patel and Schmidt (2017) argue that that states that prohibit the hiring of smokers threats economic livelihood and well-being of the underprivileged people in the community. In this case, discrimination of smokers and less privileged in society reduces the purchasing of demand for products. Besides, legislation prohibiting employers from hiring smokers increase compliance costs due to the termination of employment contracts for smokers.
Legal Issues
Approximately over 25 states in the U.S. have regulations to protect smokers. Most of the states protect public protect employees. Some smoker protection laws prohibit the consumption of tobacco while other states refer specifically to smoking. Patel and Schmidt (2017) smokers’ protection laws are different in 29 states and Washington D.C. However, there are 21 states, which have on protection regulations. Therefore, there is a variation in the protection of employees’ rights across the country. Besides, laws across the country differ in the smokers’ protection in private and public employees. The legal approach to smoker protection is not necessarily ethical.
Conclusion
Implementation of laws to protect smokers vary across the country leading to ethical, business, and legal issues related to smoking. Smoking is an issue of concern in public health because it increases the health care budget and causes death among active and passive smokers. The lack of standard legislation to regulate the use of tobacco in the workplace creates an ethical dilemma on whether it is right or wrong to protect smokers’ right in the workplace. Various theories of ethics provide a different approach towards the implementation of smokers’ protection laws.
References
Alsrayheen, E.A. & Aldiabat, K. M. (2018). Nicotine Vaccines for Smoking Prevention and Treatment from Utilitarian and Deontological Ethical Perspectives. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 14(2), 1-8.
Patel, R. R. & Schmidt, H. (2017). Should Employers Be Permitted not to Hire Smokers? A Review of US Legal Provisions. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(12), 701-706. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.33