It's a complex question: In May, we asked Monster.com site visitors whether employers should be allowed to require that employees be nonsmokers. More than 3,000 people responded (19% of them identified themselves as smokers).
Some employers believe that hiring only nonsmokers will keep insurance costs (and sick days) down while keeping productivity up. But even many nonsmokers seem to see smoking as a personal choice that employers should have no say in -- a majority of them (and, less surprisingly, a majority of smokers) say that employers should not be allowed to refuse to hire smokers.
Here are the results:
Should a company be allowed to require that its employees be nonsmokers?
*3,237 respondents
Today, Radio Iowa is reporting that a Des Moines hospital has announced a nonsmokers-only policy: starting July 1, prospective employees of Mercy Medical Center in Des Moines will have to submit to a urine test that will check for nicotine. The report says that a representative of the ACLU has called the policy legal, although some states have forbidden similar policies.
What do you think of policies like this? Should employers be allowed to say "No Smokers Allowed"? Share your thought in the comments section.
Share this post: Digg, StumbleUpon, del.icio.us, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515e7c69e2015432ba5b1d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should Employers Be Allowed to Hire Only Nonsmokers?:
No comments:
Post a Comment