There have been a great many stories for which the response: “Only in Florida” rings appropriately true. The following might be the sole exception. But, not because it isn’t weird, but rather because the obvious response for me was: “Only in [insert your favorite Totalitarian locale].”
Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they will no longer hire smokers. In Florida, the right not to hire employees who smoke was upheld in 1995 by the state Supreme Court after a prospective employee sued North Miami. Citing the Centers for Disease Control research which puts the annual cost of hiring a smoker at $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses, the county becomes the first in Southwest Florida to make smoking a hiring issue. The recent ban comes off the heels of the county’s recent smoking ban on public beaches.
Sarasota County Administrator Jim Ley says that the hiring ban was the end result of “a five- or six-year strategy to produce a healthier work force and manage our long-term healthcare costs.” The county’s annual health benefits cost runs about $31 million for their 3,600 employees.
While difficult to gauge the popularity of such hiring policies in lieu of their much less prevalent nature compared with bans on restaurants and the like, Patrick Reynolds who heads the Foundation for a Smoke Free America, says their dependency relies much more heavily on state labor laws.
Moreover, Reynolds goes on to say, “It’s really a question of what extent the state empowers companies to refuse to hire smokers. We know these bans contribute to the overall goal of a smoke free America.”
What does it say about a society where the government can establish, as does Florida Statute Title XLIV Chapter 760.10 dealing with unlawful employment practices, that it is unlawful employment practice to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status and then implore a hiring policy which discriminates against someone who smokes?
Does such an employment hiring practice extend to private sector employers? And what if said employer wishes to invoke a similar such policy by not hiring a young woman on the basis of her physical attributes (or lack thereof). After all, he’s not discriminating on the basis of her age, sex, or marital status. Maybe he just happens to think her breasts should be larger than they are. Or, maybe she has great breasts but she’s short. Maybe the employer reserves the right to feel as though the servers in his establishment ought to be a certain height. Or does this fall under the “handicap” clause?
Okay, perhaps I’m being a bit hyperbolic here since the discrimination herein is predicated on reigning in healthcare costs and producing a healthier work force.
Addressing the former, ought we not then exercise this premise for private sector employers who wish to not employ individuals who are overweight? Maybe said employers wish not to employ individuals with diabetes, a history of high cholesterol, a history of high blood pressure, genetic predisposition to breast cancer or cervical cancer, etc. or, as is more abundantly obvious, individuals who eat their weight in trans-fatty goods on a daily basis. Maybe those same employers wish not to employ workers who lead “high-risk” lifestyles too. Come to think of it, the aforementioned list might just as well serve as a precursor for the latter argument as well; that being the healthier workforce argument.
But, what gets me in all of this is that while the government will reserve and execute this exclusive right to discriminate on the basis of smoking, respective bar and restaurant owners are not afforded equal protection similarly, be it directly (whereby they would assert their right to specifically hire and/or cater to a smoking only clientele) or indirectly through free-market principles (whereby workers and/or patrons reserve the right of choice to work or enter an establishment where smoking might in fact be taking place).
15 comments:
This sounds like something that would more likely happen here in Minnesota, Chris. What did Dad say about it?
I am surprised this hasn't been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Florida.
Now while I was a supporter of Minnesota's indoor smoking ban (see "Where There's Smoke, There's Ire"--RX Magazine, February 2007), you have to admit that such a draconian policy of refusing to hire smokers is a gross infringement upon one's civil liberties.
Then again, the government does have the fiduciary duty to its constituents to spend their tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way, and so its difficult to fault them for attempting to do so.
While I believe government should leave us the hell alone and just provide a framework to keep us safe and to pursue capitalism to it's fullest, this one might be different. I do not for a minute believe that federal or local government should interfere with your personal life, but there is a ton of evidence that indicates smoking increases health issues and thus increases, not just the employers, but everyone's cost of living.
I certainly would not fall on my sword to fight for this legislation, but I wouldn't stand up for smokers rights either. In my opinion, if they want to smoke that's fine with me - just don't exhale.
Since I've been smoking a pipe (no-Prince Albert) since 1959, I missed two days in 1974 with a strained back, and half a day in
1992 with food poisoning. In those 50 years, I was rarely lucky to get down to a 40 hour week. So, smoking was not a criteria when I hired for my departments. Nor did it affect my bottom line; (alcohol caused more absenteeism) I guess the figures come from valid studies, and second hand smoke bothers a lot (all?) nonsmokers.
The costs for cigarettes have risen to the point that they are
an important incentive to quit- along with personal health concerns. And you are right, we
are 'reformers' and after the smokers are eradicated, the overweight will be next. puff
BB, I don't think it's a second hand smoke issue as much as lost production because of health related problems of smokers. Either pipe smoking isn't as bad as cigarettes, or you are an exception to the rule, but I do think the health risks are real. And unlike discriminating based on race, creed or gender, none of which in and of themselves are a health risk, smoking workers probably cost more than non-smokers.
One: any evidence that SHS (second hand smoke) or ETS (environmentatl tobacco smoke) is detrimental to your health is based on JUNK SCIENCE.
According to a 1975 New England Journal of Medicine study cited in this Cato Institute report:
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-4.pdf
"[1975]...when many more individuals smoked and there were much higher ETS concentrations in public places, exposure to an hour's worth of prevailing levels of ETS was equivalent to smoking 0.004 cigarettes. Put differently, one would have to breathe smoke-filled air for 4,000 hours in order to inhale as much tobacco smoke as a smoker inhales in a single cigarette."
What's more, the argument that non-smokers subsidize the healthcare of smokers is an absolute canard. In fact, there is a sizeable amount of data which shows the exact opposite to be true. This is for the simple fact that A) non-smokers statistically live longer than smokers and reach ages in which they incur large health care costs. And, B) smokers pay heavy tobacco taxes and also draw less from public pensions than non-smokers.
Simply by looking at transfers between groups on these premises, smokers (without question) subsidize non-smokers.
I haven't yet mentioned this story to dad yet Jon. It's pretty easy to gauge what his response might be.
Thanks for droppin' in.
"Then again, the government does have the fiduciary duty to its constituents to spend their tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way, and so its difficult to fault them for attempting to do so."
This is indeed a fair argument Beth. However, those smokers are also making a tax contribution (and a far more sizable one at that given the taxes on tobacco). The government has an equal obligation to them as well.
I should mention that the jury is apparently still out with respect to Gay smokers.
They might be exempt here.
I should mention that the jury is apparently still out with respect to Gay smokers.
lol, you've been hanging around Z-man's blog too much.
But as to the point about cigarettes getting taxed so much, supposedly this money goes towards federally funded health care (Medicare, etc.) does it not, and so it does treat smokers and non-smokers alike, perhaps non-smokers for a longer period of time but perhaps for fewer ailments.
I don't think it's an issue of second hand smoke here as much as it is the fact that smokers insurance may be higher, or their medical care and time off for it greater than that of a non-smoker. What if the state tries to provide lesser benefits to smokers (or perhaps charge them more than non-smokers) rather than not hire them, this would also be construed as discriminatory, but at least in not hiring smokers in the first place you know you have a more potentially productive staff getting paid with tax dollars. And those taxes collected from cigarettes are not helping pay those salaries.
Charging higher premiums for those who smoke; I wouldn't cite as discriminatory. It would essentially amount to a more user based premise.
As for the second hand smoke thing, you're right, it doesn't apply in this instance. I merely put that stuff in there to discredit Lucid Guys concerns.
All valid points for discussion. Soapbox, you really haven't discredited my point since I didn't attribute higher costs to non-smokers through second hand smoke. The higher cost is spread among everyone due to the increased health issues that smokers suffer. Checking your same source, the CATO Institute,
"...studies that have followed smokers and nonsmokersfor many years have found that smokers are three times more likely to die between the ages of 45 and 64 and two times more likely to die between the ages of 65 and 84 than those who have never smoked. Although a certain proportion of smoking-related deaths occur among older Americans, the fact is that 33 percent of non-smokers live to age 85,compared with only 12 percent of smokers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n2/fortherecord.pdf
Forgive me for drawing a correlation between two of your statements Lucid. When you said:
"...but there is a ton of evidence that indicates smoking increases health issues..."
Coupled with:
"...if they want to smoke that's fine with me - just don't exhale."
I came to a sort of conclusion that you were suggesting that the exhalation (i.e., Second Hand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke) was then attributable to smoking related health issues.
While I will concede that second hand smoke can exacerbate pre-existing conditions (i.e., asthma, allergies, et al.), I do not subscribe to the belief that brief and infrequent exposure to SHS or ETS greatly increases one's likelihood of developing lung cancer or any other smoking related illness any more so than would otherwise exist.
Hence why I posted the data from the New England Journal of Medicine's findings.
My mistake soapbox - I did lead you to that conclusion. My smart ass comment about not exhaling was simply my way of stating that someone's personal right to smoke should not trump the right of the person next to them to breathe clean air. When non-smokers are around smokers, what ever the situation, they have no choice but to breathe smoke. It may or may not cause increaed health issues, but it is unpleasant and the non-smokers choice to breathe clean air has been taken away.
It happens Lucid; no big deal.
But, in the course of discussing the smoking ban issue, it is my view that it is important to remember that while it is unpleasant for the non-smoker to be subjected to the hazy exhalation of a smoker at the next bar stool over (mind you I enjoy a smoke-free environment as much as the next person), the issue was never one of smoker vs. non-smoker.
The issue was always about private property rights (i.e., the private business owner vs. government regulation).
The key tenet of Socialism is the abolishment of private property. This is done by citing private property's existence as being for "the public good".
Individuals, in their quest for smoke-free establishments, adopted this premise hook, line, and sinker as they started proclaiming bars and restaurants as "public" places.
Because they serve the public doesn't make them so. They exist for one primary purpose only and that is the for the benefit of the individual who owns it.
And, while I did previously mention that the issue is not one of smoker vs. non-smoker; if said business owner wishes to permit smoking within their establishment, the right of the patrons to partake exists. It is unjust to deny this freedom of association and freedom of assembly.
That said, the only right the non-smoker has then in this regard is the right to not enter said establishment if their desire to be free from second hand smoke trumps their desire to have a drink and a decent meal.
Post a Comment