Non Smokers Only Apply
From CBC.ca
Some Canadian companies are following an American trend of refusing to hire smokers, even if they smoke in their off hours.
A group of Canadian online companies, headed by Momentus.ca, have made it clear on their websites that they only hire non-smokers. It's a policy aimed at lowering health-related costs for employers.
"It's well known that a smoker will get sick more frequently, will miss more time from work, even at work the smoker will likely be away from actual work longer than non-smokers ... and will actually cost the employer a fair amount of money," says Dr. Lew Pliamm of the Quit Clinic in Toronto.
Medical ethicists say smokers should not be treated like pariahs because it's an addiction.
"The fact that I may be at greater risk for cardiovascular disease or for other health problems because I'm a smoker isn't necessarily my fault and it shouldn't make me subject to discrimination," says ethicist Arthur Schafer of the University of Manitoba.
At least 29 U.S. states agree and have banned employer discrimination against smokers. But in Canada, employment protection for smokers is largely untested, except for one case involving mining company Cominco in British Columbia in 2000.
Companies in Canada are watching the American situation closely. At Weyco Medical Benefits in Michigan, workers aren't allowed to smoke at work or at home.
"We want a healthy workforce," says Howard Weyer, the company's president.
Weyco gave its employers two years' notice about its no-smoking policy and provided products and programs to help them quit. In the end, 20 workers did kick their habits and four were fired.
Smokers cost Canadian companies $8 billion/year
American companies are more likely to take the hard line because they pay their employees' health insurance premiums.
Canadian companies are taking note because smokers still cost an estimated $8 billion a year in lost productivity. Smokers are absent two days more a year on average than their non-smoking counterparts and they take extended lunches and breaks, adding up to another 14 days of lost productivity.
At the moment, employers in Canada can't fire their workers for smoking but they are allowed to advertise for non-smokers only.
The Quit Clinic's Pliamm says as more employers adopt non-smoking policies, smokers may be more apt to quit their habit.
"If they know that they won't be able to progress in life, to get to where they want to be because of their smoking, this gives them one added benefit in quitting."
Does this constitute a form of discrimination? Well of course, so why isnt it being taken as seriously as, for example, racial discrimination? Maybe because this is indirectly very good for people's health.
Quote
