Introduction
The firm’s best interest should guide the company. In addition to health care costs and more frequent illnesses, hiring smokers is also ineffective from the standpoint of their performance of work duties. This is an objective evaluation criterion and does not discriminate against employees. Comparing smokers with non-smoking employees, it can be revealed that a non-smoking employee works more. This is because, according to statistics, a smoker smokes every hour for 10-15 minutes (Sulzberger, 2011).
Work Ethic and Core Values
If the working day is assumed to be 8 hours, then smokers get at least 1 hour and 30 minutes of smoking break for one working day of inappropriate time consumption. This makes 7 hours and 30 minutes a week, which is a whole working day. Thus, the smoker does not work 5 days a week but 4 days a week. The apparent advantages of non-smoking employees are demonstrated based on efficiency.
Refusing to hire smoking employees is a good decision for the company. Such a principle can be considered “doing the right thing,” which corresponds to the firm’s core values (Lecker, 2009). The approach of not hiring smokers will affirm and respect the individual rights of other non-smoking employees. The same working day and its payment are unfair to employees who devote their working time only to work, and who work more efficiently due to the absence of the need to leave for a smoke break. The support of non-smoking, conscientiously working employees in this case is “doing the right thing”, corresponding to the firm’s core values.
The issue of accepting smoking employees is social, not ethical. An issue of ethics affects socially vulnerable segments of the population and fights discrimination against citizens who cannot change their situation. For example, issues such as age, gender, race, nationality, and disability are ethical issues. They affect the working capacity, expenses, and, accordingly, the employer’s desire to hire an employee, but the potential employee himself cannot influence any of these factors (Janofsky, 1994).
Smoking is a voluntary choice of the individual; this is a socially harmful habit, so hiring smokers should be considered a social responsibility (Hennessy, 2006). Since smoking by one of the employees harms the health of their colleagues and the company, pursue policies, make decisions, and take actions that benefit society in this area.
Conclusion
Even given the fact that it is so much cheaper not to hire smokers, refusing to hire smokers is not a form of discrimination. According to the definition, discrimination is a violation of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of a person and a citizen, depending on various factors (Azfal, 2010). These factors include gender, race, skin color, nationality, language, origin, property, family, social and official status, age, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership or non-membership in public associations or social groups (Maher, 2004). Smoking does not belong to any of these factors; at the legislative level, this harmful habit is not only not protected, but also limited.
Works Cited
Azfzal, S. “Smokers Need Not Apply: Is Hiring Ban Trend of the Future?” The Christian Science Monitor, 2010. Web.
Hennessy, M. “Right to Smoke?” CFO, 2006, 54.
Janofsky, M. “Ban on Employees Who Smoke Faces Challenges of Bias,” The New York Times, 1994, A1.
Lecker, M. “The Smoking Penalty: Distributive Justice or Smokism?” Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 84: 47-64.
Maher, K. “Companies Are Closing Doors on Job Applicants Who Smoke,” Wall Street Journal, 2004, B6.
Sulzberger, A. “Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban,” The New York Times, 2011. Web.