No Smoking
Helen McCarthy worked for the Department of Social and Health Services for the state of Washington for over ten years. At work she was regularly exposed to tobacco smoke. A nonsmoker, Helen complained to her superiors about the smoke, but no arrangements were 5 made to help her. Eventually, Helen developed obstructive lung cancer/(Scott 13)
At first, one may think that Helen's is a rare and unusual case.
However, there is an increasing number of nonsmokers throughout the country who suffer illnesses from or are simply tired of being exposed to tobacco smoke on the job. There is, in addition, an increased recognition of the right of employees to work in a smoke-
free environment. Due to the awareness of nonsmokers' rights, some companies have implemented smoking policies in an effort to provide a more healthy and more productive workplace. While no-smok ing policies offer a good start to an improved work environment, there should be a ban on smoking in the workplace to ultimately get rid of all smoking on the job.
On-the-job smoking is a hot issue for both smokers and non-smokers, and many managers now see smoking as a productivity 20 problem. Although opponents question whether smoking affects one's productivity, it has, in fact, been proven that a smoker costs a company, both medically and in productivity, more than a nonsmoker.
According to William Weis, an associate professor in the Albers School of Business at Seattle University, a "smoking employee costs 25 his or her employer an estimated $5,740 more annually than a nonsmoking employee" (Collison 80). These costs include absenteeism (which is 50 percent greater for smokers), medical care, lost earnings, insurance, damages, and the health impact (Collison 80). Absenteeism, and absence due to smoking breaks, is but one of the 30 productivity problems, yet it accounts for a great deal of employer costs. Marvin Kristein, associate professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook states:
July 1st, 2010
Posted in Article