This page was last updated on April 2, 2010.
Warning sign; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 2, 2010.
To begin, I believe private employers have the right to determine their own employment requirements. While I may have approached the issue differently, I have no problem with St. Luke’s no-smoking requirement. Personally, I would have simply required smokers to pay more for their healthcare insurance commensurate with the increased risk of payouts. Another approach would be to substitute a higher wage (comparable to what St. Luke’s would pay for a non-smoker’s healthcare insurance) in lieu of healthcare insurance. In either case I would not be turning away a good employee I would have hired otherwise and he would foot the bill for the incremental cost of providing healthcare insurance. I also have no problem with St. Luke’s banning smoking on its property. I believe making that determination is the right of all property owners. Remember, the Times does not believe private property owners have that right.
What I don’t know is why St. Luke’s didn’t address other types of risky behavior that could affect healthcare payouts, heavy drinking, obesity, and riding motorcycles being only a few examples.
The editorial says, “Those arguments make sense from a personal and personnel point of view. (There’s something deeply ironic - and counterproductive - about seeing hospital employees lighting up on the grounds of a health-care facility.)” You don’t need the employment requirement to address “seeing hospital employees lighting up on the grounds of a health-care facility.” I’ll go out on a limb and guess St. Luke’s already had a ban on smoking on hospital property as do most (all?) hospitals. At the very least state law prohibits indoor smoking in a workplace and the Times knows it.
The editorial goes on with, “On the other hand, though, this hiring policy raises questions that extend beyond this one employer: Does an employer have a right to dictate to employees what they do when they are not a work? Is this an invasion of privacy? What is to stop employers from discriminating in their hiring practices based on other factors, say eating and drinking habits? If smoking can be banned, why not beer and bur-gers [sic]?” Keep in mind the Times has these “questions” only for private employers. The Times editorial body of work indicates it is perfectly OK with government mandates on personal behavior. These mandates will increase in the name of trying to control government healthcare spending.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.