Businesses Shutting Down and Employers Responsibility

As of March 24, at 11:59pm, all non-essential businesses in Ontario must shutdown due to the global pandemic of COVID-19. Essential businesses such as grocery stores and pharmacies remain open. Ontario Premier made the decision to do so to slow the spread of the virus COVID-19 (DeClerq, 2020). All over the globe businesses are shutting down and people are losing jobs due to the pandemic. This has become a controversial topic because although Ontario needs to take these measures for health and safety, it also can put enormous amounts of stress on the economy and people who are now unemployed. In these difficult times employers must work extra hard to support employees and try to adapt to provide some source of work for employees from home or online.

Businesses in Ontario being shut down are an essential part of slowing the spread of COVID-19, but although shutting down businesses and work stops the spread, it can create other problems. Many Ontarians are now out of work and thus income, although it is possible to apply for employment insurance, this only provides around half of what you make working. For workers who already live paycheck to paycheck, only being able to receive half of this regular paycheck can be detrimental to their livelihood. This stress on being out of work can spark mental health issues such as stress and anxiety, worrying about how they will be able to afford basic necessities such as food, and the uncertainty of when work will become available again. Shutting down of businesses can have a huge impact financially on businesses, especially small businesses. The money they are losing out on being shut down could push them to go out of business completely or cause them to have to cut down on staff when businesses reopen in attempt to cut costs to make back this lost income. From the viewpoint of Ontario workers and business owners, the shutting down of many businesses and being out of work causes much worry and anxiety regarding their livelihood. The closing of many businesses is not good for the economy. Although this decision is beneficial for Ontario’s health and safety in regard to COVID-19, it could push more strain on the healthcare system with mental health issues rising in these times of anxiety and stress.

From the viewpoint of the government, it is essential to shutdown non-essential businesses to slow the spread of COVID-19, to keep Ontarians safe and healthy. In times of a pandemic there isn’t really any other option other than to close down to stop the spread.

The Ontario Primer had to shut down non-essential businesses. I think the responsibility of these hardships for some employees lies in the hands of employers.  Employers who have had their businesses closed need to step up and support their employees. Employers should be doing everything they can to adapt to these new times whether it be transferring business online or over the phone, but adapting to provide employees with some form of work they can complete while in self-isolation. If employers can adapt their businesses, they will be able to provide employees with income which in turn will keep down mental stress and anxiety. This will also keep businesses having a form of income, so businesses aren’t going out of business. Overall, if employers take on this challenge and adapt, the economy overall will be benefitted.

References

DeClerq, K. (2020, March 24). Ontario orders all non-essential businesses to shut down. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-orders-all-non-essential-businesses-to-shut-down-1.4864492

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