Friday, December 2, 2005

World Health Organization: Smokers Need Not Apply

The Financial Times of London reports in this article:

"The World Health Organisation on Thursday became the largest international employer to ban the hiring of smokers in an effort to promote its public health campaign against tobacco use.

In a memo circulated to its 8,000 staff this week, the WHO stressed that it had 'a responsibility to ensure that this [its campaign] is reflected in all its work, including recruitment practices'.

The move is an escalation of action taken against smokers. Several countries have introduced legislation banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and public places, while some employers ban smoking on their premises."

In the United States, such anti-smokers hiring practices would be illegal under some state statutes (e.g., the New Jersey Smokers’ Rights Law 34:6B-1). 

On the other hand, there is strong empirical evidence that smoking causes employees to miss many more days of work and spend more money on health care than non-smokers.  In all, smokers make for more expensive employees.  Perhaps, consistent with my earlier post on obesity regulation, employers should be able to use a combination of carrots and sticks to give employees incentives to quit smoking.

Finally, privacy advocates argue that although employers should be able to prevent employees from smoking at work or on working time, employees should be free from employer interference if they choose to smoke on their own time, away from work.

An interesting debate, indeed. I am opening comments for thoughts and opinions.

Posted by: Paul M. Secunda

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2005/12/world_health_or.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d8349a997d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference World Health Organization: Smokers Need Not Apply:

Comments

I am 1 of 2 smokers in a smoke-free office. Arrangements with my boss allow me to spend 45 minutes of my own lunch eating, returning to work and reserving the other 15 minutes for unpaid smoke breaks outside the office. Works for us!
Thanks

Posted by: Beverly | Dec 14, 2005 9:35:59 PM

I find it interesting how Dana Farber Cancer Insitute encourages tobacco usage. Is this a tactic to keep their revenue and 1B endowement up? We all know tobcacoo usage is associated with causing cancer, then why did DFCI let a board of director have equities in cancer companies? Or why managers allow employees to take frequent cigarette breaks throughout the 9-5 workday (most prevelant at at their financial and development office at 10BP West. Don't ask me, just take a walk by 10BP garage and see them all piled out there. Terrible even more so that internal employees from NH pass out carton's out cigarettes like candy to other staff members who choose to "buy" them for a deep discount.

DFCI should be ashamed of itself. I will never monetarily support that organization again.

Posted by: F | Apr 17, 2006 1:54:22 PM

Post a comment