Why should a company hire someone who is likely to get cancer and increase health care cost? The goal of not hiring smokers is to maintain a healthy work enviroment and reduce the company's health-care costs. Therefore, I agree with the right not to hire cigarette smokers.
Nationally, smoking is responsible for an estimated $96 billion in direct medical costs and $97 billion in lost productivity annually, according to estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each year, smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke causes 443,000 premature deaths and costs the nation $193 billion in health bills and lost productivity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Medical costs, (trips to the emergency room, hospital stays,and medications) are rising 10 to 15 percent a year. Employing a smoker on average cost about $4000 more because of higher health-care cost and lost productivity. Costs and productivity consideration have led many health insurance providers nationwide, to raise health insurance premiums for employees who use tobacco products.
The average smoker costs his or her employer $2,500 to $4,000 more each year in health care costs, compared with a nonsmoker. Smokers will have more absenteeism then a non-smoker and because of smoke breaks will work 1,817 hours less a year then a non-smoker, that's 39 minutes of lost productivity per day even when they are present. It would be ethical for employers to not only refuse smokers but to fire current employees that smoke.
Smoker's are trying to say, "that refusing to hire a employee that smokes is discrimination", and is trying to claim that they fall into the ADAAA ACT (American's with Disabilities Act). Under the ADAAA Act smoker's may be considered disabled because they may have difficulty breathing(emphysema, bronchititis) or because they have a nicotine addiction. This causes companies insurance premiums to go up. It’s not considered discrimination in the...