Barring Smokers From the Workplace
I DISAGREE THAT IT'S A PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY. CASE IN POINT, IN NOVEMBER I WAS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED FOR A WEEK TO A LOCAL COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER - NO SMOKING ALLOWED. SO, DID I GO INTO CONVULSIONS? WITHDRAWAL? NO.To the Editor:“Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban” (front page, Feb. 11), about employers who refuse to hire smokers, used the word “addiction” only once.
In most cases, smoking isn’t a lifestyle choice but a serious, hard-to-kick physical dependency, for which there’s no reliable treatment. I smoked for 11 years — from ages 12 to 23. Quitting took multiple tries and was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done.
SEVERAL MORE CASES IN POINT. ON THREE OCCASIONS I HAVE STOPPED SMOKING COLD TURKEY, FOR DURATIONS OF 10, 5, AND 5 YEARS.
AS OPPOSED TO AN ILLEGAL ADDICTION?
Is it fair to discriminate in hiring against someone who has a legal addiction?
ONE SUSPECTS TOO, THAT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PRODUCTIVITY IS LOST BY WORKERS WHO SNEAK AWAY AT THEIR DESKS DOWNLOADING INTERNET PORN, PLAYING ON-LINE POKER, ETC, ETC, ETC - LET HE WHO IS W/O SIN CAST THE FIRST ROCK.Sandra Wilde
New York, Feb. 11, 2011
To the Editor:
Your article quotes the president of National Workrights Institute as saying that there is “nothing unique about smoking” to warrant the barring of smokers from employment at hospitals.
As a physician, I can attest that this is not the case. First, a significant amount of productivity is lost by workers who must sneak away from the hospital every two hours to placate their addictions.
THIS SOUNDS LIKE SO MUCH A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT THAT I WOULD DEMAND TO SEE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS DOCTOR IS SPENDING MANY OF HIS ALLEGEDLY WORKING HOURS CHECKING OUT HIS CO-WORKERS AND WRITING THEM UP. WHININ' BITCH.
Second, some workers flout the rules and smoke right outside doors through which patients must walk. This practice is bad for the health of many patients, especially those with pulmonary issues. And given that each worker is a representative of the hospital for which he or she works, some could view this practice as frank disrespect by the hospital of patients’ health.
TO WHOM DOES IT SEND THIS IMPLICIT MESSAGE?
Finally, it sends an implicit message that if those in health care are smoking right outside their own institutional pillars, smoking is not that bad after all.
HOW MUCH DO THE PORN SURFERS, GAME PLAYERS, E-MAIL WRITERS, ETC COST, ON AVERAGE, FOR HEALTH CARE AND LOST PRODUCTIVITY?
David Silverstein
Stony Brook, N.Y., Feb. 11, 2011
To the Editor:
The policy of firing or not hiring smokers is justified by some employers by the added health care costs; your article cites the federal estimate that “employees who smoke cost, on average, $3,391 more a year each for health care and lost productivity.”
Without granting that premise, I call your attention to your own article, “Diabetics in the Workplace Confront a Tangle of Law” (Dec. 26, 2006), in which you state that $13,243 is the estimated yearly medical costs for a diabetic, “more than five times that of workers without diabetes.” You add that “if absenteeism and productivity losses are added, diabetes ranks third as an economic cost to employers, after heart disease and hypertension.”
If dollars, not ability, are the hiring criterion, shouldn’t hospitals first refuse to hire diabetics and anyone with heart disease or hypertension, no matter how qualified?
It would seem that if the money excuse is gone, the smoker bans are starkly revealed for what they are: blatant, and highly irrational, discrimination.
Linda Stewart
New York, Feb. 11, 2011
To the Editor:
I am not a smoker; nor do I enjoy trying to make my way into the entrance of a building that is surrounded by smokers. I do, however, believe that denying an individual’s employment application based on his or her status as a smoker should not be legal.
Hospitals that are conditioning employment based on a person’s smoking status argue (and rightly so) that smokers increase the cost of insurance for the rest of the population. But asking people what they lawfully do outside of the office should not be allowed.
What if hospitals question if employees count their calories or engage in unprotected sex? Barring smokers is the camel’s nose under the tent.
Eshai J. Gorshein
Brookline, Mass., Feb. 11, 2011
To the Editor:
As the commissioner for public health for Cincinnati some 35 years ago, I cautioned against using public health policy in a way that limits individual choice. The controversies at the time included requiring the wearing of seat belts and motorcycle helmets and the forced fluoridation of water, measures that I supported from a public health perspective but that clearly limit choice and freedom.
Now employers are discriminating against employees who choose to smoke tobacco. Although one can argue that all behavior outside work may potentially affect costs to the employer and the health of employees, the slippery slope of these employers’ demands will have a significant effect on our freedom.
Are we now to allow businesses to inspect the homes and activities of their employees to assure that they all practice good, healthy habits? Will that include assuring that their children do not use skateboards without helmets, do not eat fast food and so on?
Arnold Leff
Boulder Creek, Calif., Feb. 15, 2011
The writer is a doctor.
