Refuse to hire candidates? (Essay Sample)

Companies can’t refuse to hire candidates who smoke Introduction The topic of smoking in the place of work has attracted a great deal of hubbub from different quarters consisting of the protagonists and antagonists of hiring candidates who smoke. Specifically, the main concerns against smoking are its health risks to the work environment, products and other employees. The cost benefit analysis of employees who smoke against employees who do not smoke suggests that smokers are liabilities in terms of economic, environmental, and social costs of companies. Despite these effects, it is almost impossible for companies to refuse to hire candidates who smoke since this would amount to discrimination. Thus, this analytical paper attempts to support the statement that companies cannot refuse to hire candidates who smoke. Companies cannot refuse to hire candidates who smoke It is paradoxical for companies to refuse to hire candidates who smoke yet they have avenues for caring for the sick employees. Across any organization, employees often have treatment packages for behavioral illnesses or diseases which affect them out of their own lifestyle, such as diabetes, infections, and heart failure among others. Thus, it will be incongruous and callous for companies to refuse to hire candidates who smoke yet they engage and later offer medical packages to other employees who have illnesses as a result of their lifestyle (Dubner, par. 2). Same as the way companies offer jobs to candidates with behavioral illnesses such as sexually transmitted ailments, it would be discriminating to refuse to hire a candidate who smokes since both diseases are as a result of personal choice. As a matter of fact, “they should not discriminate against qualified job candidates on the basis of health-related behavior” (Zimmerman, par. 4). The primary reason for companies to refuse to hire candidates is the fallacious argument that smokers in the work environment are conscientious to the recent rising cost of health care to the employees. Through critical and creative reflection, it is in order to dismiss this argument as very simplistic. The argument is silent on the addictive nature of smoking and treats it as an absolute voluntary activity. However, “among adult daily smokers, 88% began smoking by the time they were 18, before society would consider them fully responsible for their actions” (Zimmerman, par. 5). Almost 50% of the daily smokers are addicted to smoking despite being competent in their areas of specialization. Although “as many as 69% of smokers want to quit, the addictive properties of tobacco make that exceedingly difficult: only 3 to 5% of unaided cessation attempts succeed” (Zimmerman, par. 5). Thus, locking this group from employment would translate into direct victimization and discrimination of persons on the basis of their past mistakes. Refusing to hire candidates who smoke is same as treating smokers as people who have full control of their behavioral addiction. Isolating smoking as the only reason for the rising cost of health care in companies is unrealistic. Several ailments take a higher percentage of health care cost than the effects of smoking. For instance, candidates who suffer cancer and advance diabetes are more likely to strain the cost of health care besides being constant absentees than candidates who are smokers. The increase in the cost of health care is also as a result of increased premiums when employees have children and working in unsafe environment. In the real sense, “many of these costs result from seemingly innocent, everyday lifestyle choices such as those regarding diet and exercise” (Zimmerman, par. 7). It is unfair to blame candidates who smoke or the act of smoking as the only contributing factor to the high cost of health care in companies. The primary focus of problematic behavior is on three systems of psychosocial influence such as the personality system, the perceived environment system, and the behavior system. The variables in the personality system are at the socio-cognitive level, reflex social meanings, and developmental experience. These can be values, expectations, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations toward a person and others. The variables in the perceived environment system refer to environmental characteristics such as supports, influence, controls, models, and expectations of others. The variables in the behavior system indicate the degree to which our interests in the domain of problem behavior are differentiable and relatively comprehensive. There is no research to indicate that candidates who smoke have a dysfunction of any of the above systems (Wisniewski par. 4). It would be wrong to refuse to hire a candidate who smokes simply by the reason that an employer has a formed opinion of the person. Conclusion In summary, the causes of illness are influenced by several interacting factors that produce significantly different results in terms of their effects on the cost of providing health care to employees. For example, individuals already suffering from an illness are likely to be physically inactive despite being a non smoker. Thus, companies cannot refuse to hire candidates who smoke since this will be discriminatory to the basic right of employment. It is unfair to treat smoking as an absolute voluntary activity when hiring candidates. Works Cited Dubner, Stephen. Is it unethical to not hire smokers? 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014. http://freakonomics.com/2013/04/02/is-it-unethical-to-not-hire-smokers/ Wisniewski, Dan. A ban on hiring smokers? It’s not that simple. 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014. http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/ Zimmerman, Rachel. When businesses refuse to hire smokers. 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014. http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/when-businesses-refuse-to-hire- smokers