Starting in 2021 U-Haul will no longer hire employees that smoke, this new rule is being implemented in their U.S. locations in states where they can do so legally (Saba, 2020). In Canada, a practice like this is considered discriminatory under the Human Rights Act. There is much controversy surrounding this new policy some businesses are taking up (where it’s legal to do) and creates tension between employer and employee. After looking at both the employers and employees’ different perspectives the conflict is understandable. A solution to alleviate this issue would be a compromise between workers and employers, employers should hire regardless of smoking habits but could implement stricter smoking rules and non-smoking agreements to avoid the problems they face that pushes them to hire non-smokers.
As someone with parents who are business owners and having been an employee before, I see both sides of this controversial topic. From the view of an employer smokers can bring large monetary costs to the company. A study from researches at Ohio State University estimates an extra cost of $5816 annually per one smoking employee, taking into account the higher rate of absenteeism for smokers, rates of decreased productivity from smokers, time costs from unsanctioned breaks to smoke and higher health insurance costs for the company (Berman, Crane, Seiber, & Munur, 2014). Employees who work closely with customers that smoke could harm the image of the company with the negative image smoking entails, along with the unattractive smell one carries after smoking, leaving customers with an unprofessional view of a company. Smoking employees create an unhealth work environment and put fellow non-smoking workers in harm’s way, with second-hand smoke increasing risk of lung cancer, heart disease, heart attacks and stoke (Health Canada, 2006). From this perspective of the employer it seems very attractive and beneficial to take-up the practice of only hiring non-smoking employees. From the perspective of the employee and the law this practice is unfair. As an employee your outside work activities (such as smoking) shouldn’t affect if you get a job or not, someone can still be a hardworking employee even if they smoke and it’s unfair to assume that all smokers take unsanctioned breaks and underperform. In Canada it is illegal to not hire someone due to their smoking habits, the Human Rights Code protects those with addictions as it defines an addiction as a disability, and those with disabilities are protected under the code in the workplace (Ontario Human Rights Commission).
Smoking habits and employment is quite the ethical dilemma; on one side it’s unethical for employees to steal (stealing time, productivity, etc.) on the other side it’s unethical for employers to discriminate against addiction. I believe the best way to resolve the issue is to compromise, through employers hiring regardless of smoking habits, but upon hire, employees agree to a smoke-free contract. The smoke-free agreement could include thing such as; no smoking on company property, no smoking during work, no smelling of smoke at work, etc. depending on what laws allow in particular jurisdiction. This would allow for smokers to still have jobs but employers to avoid some of the issues employing smokers can have. This seems to be a growing trend of business going smoker free, but the ethical dilemma remains.
Sources
Forms of discrimination based on mental health or addiction disabilities (fact sheet). (n.d.). Retrieved February 7, 2020, from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/forms-discrimination-based-mental-health-or-addiction-disabilities-fact-sheet
Its Your Health. (December 6, 2006). Retrieved February 7, 2020, from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/sc-hc/H13-7-25-2011-eng.pdf
Berman, M., Crane, R., Seiber, E., & Munur, M. (2014, September 1). Estimating the cost of a smoking employee. Retrieved from https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/5/428
Saba, R. (2020, January 3). U-Haul is refusing to hire smokers. Can Canadian companies do the same? Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2020/01/03/u-haul-is-refusing-to-hire-smokers-can-canadian-companies-do-the-same.html
Aurora Corbett EMPR 
Hi Aurora, great blog post!!
You did an amazing job in summarizing the key points of the article as well as connecting it to other texts and the Human Rights Code. I also liked that you were able to see and take both sides of the situation which allowed for a more critical analysis. I find it shocking that in 2021, U-Haul will no longer hire employees that smoke within U.S locations but makes me glad that Canada has protections under the Human Rights Code to prevent that. I wonder why these protections do not exist in the United States. Reading and sympathizing with both sides of the situation, I resonate more with the employee because I see firsthand how smoking is “necessary” for certain people, I feel that discriminating against smokers is the same as not hiring someone because of appearance, things that have been seen as taboo such as piercings and tattoos. Yet I understand, that as an employer, you want to protect your business, but there has to be an ethical and fair way to do so.
With your compromise, I feel that is the best resolution, but what if those employees who are smokers need to smoke on shift, as they may be working long hours and need to smoke within that time, how would they not smell of smoke or not smoke during work? In your opinion, how could this be addressed?
LikeLike
Hi Aurora!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I think you summarized the article with great focus and were able to draw connections to other research. Furthermore, I was really surprised when reading your blog that this is actually taking place. I had no idea U-Haul was allowed to execute such decisions under the Human Rights Code. I also found it helpful that you connected the story to a personal element. Moreover, I would definitely side with the employee on this matter because it is absurd that their personal decisions are being subject to such scrutiny. Even though, I do not smoke, I would still be very angry and fight against the company if such decisions were being imposed. Overall, I agree with your solution because it is the most suitable option to accommodate all parties involved. Great Work!
LikeLike
Hi Aurora,
After reading your blog post, I was curious and went to read the original article and checked out some additional information available online on the issue. You did a great job summarizing the article and providing your thoughts on the issue from the perspective of both the employer and the employee.
I find it interesting that, unlike here in Canada, In the US, there is no federal law that prohibits employers from refusing to hire smokers. Instead, individual states set their own legal frameworks on this matter. As the article says, there are currently 21 states where tobacco users have no laws to protect them from actions like those taken by U-Haul and they can legally be overlooked for jobs based on their use of nicotine products.
In the NBC article relating to U-Haul’s resolution, they were cited as moving toward a “healthier workplace”. I feel this reasoning can quickly become a slippery slope as companies can define what they consider “healthy”. While they’ve implemented other healthy lifestyle initiatives like fitness and wellness programs, as far as nicotine usage goes, it seems they are not only looking to stop smokers from smoking during work hours, but also refusing to hire those who smoke outside of work hours and requiring new hires to consent to screening. If the main motivation is to encourage a “healthier workforce”, is refusing to hire nicotine users different from hiring someone who eats fast food, lives a sedentary lifestyle, or enjoys a couple of glasses of wine in the evening?
Reference
Associated Press. “Smokers, do not apply: U-Haul won’t hire nicotine users in 21 states.” NBC News Online. NBC News, 3 Jan 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/smokers-do-not-apply-u-haul-won-t-hire-nicotine-n1109886
LikeLike