I’d love to see cigarettes disappear from the face of the earth and from its bowels too, but I have problems with this decision on the part of the Sarasota County Commission.
Citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers’ health insurance, Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they no longer will hire smokers.
In Florida, the right not to hire employees who smoke was upheld in 1995 by the state Supreme Court after a prospective employee sued North Miami.
Sarasota County officials cited Centers for Disease Control research that put the annual cost of hiring a smoker at $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses.
Note that the policy applies only to new hires — country workers who currently smoke are not being mandated to give up either their habit or their job. The difference is significant.
“It’s really a question of what extent the state empowers companies to refuse to hire smokers,” said [Foundation for a Smoke Free America head Patrick] Reynolds, who only tracks statewide smoking policies. “We know these bans contribute to the overall goal of a smoke free America.”
Perhaps coercion brings smokers closer to quitting, but I doubt it, and this is not the county’s job. Its job is to assemble a capable, competent work force (in theory, anyway; remember, Sarasota County is in Florida).
The move not to hire smokers is the latest in a string of anti-smoking rules initiated by Sarasota County.
The county recently banned smoking on public beaches.
Sarasota County Commissioner Jon Thaxton opposed the beach smoking ban as an assault on personal freedom but supports the hiring criteria.
“I want to give people their opportunity to do what otherwise are lawful activities but this is proactive, not retroactive,” he said. “Everyone will know this up front.”
This seems utterly backward. Why anyone could support allowing thousands of butts to continue piling up on Siesta Beach or in any public place is crazy; were it up to me no one would get to smoke in parks or in any public spaces, period. That the same individual who champions “personal freedom” is standing behind a new hiring policy that penalizes people for off-hours behavior is bizarre.
I am not knocking the County’s aim to save money, which this place bleeds. The decision to not hire smokers is economically unimpeachable. At the same time, And, in contrast with obesity, it’s easy, at least for many, to lie about being a smoker. Enforcement of the policy wil be difficult, as I doubt new hires will be routinely tested for cotinine (the chief metabolite of nicotine).
Ley said 15 percent of the county’s employees with severe illnesses account for 85 percent of the health care costs.
As with every business and company in existence, I’m sure. Okay, lets take that and the CDC’s findings and apply them to other populations who are sicker than average on account of modifiable lifestyle factors: the sedentary, the overweight, the sedentary overweight (talk about evil synergy), heavy drinkers, and people who ride motorcycles 500 miles a week without wearing a helmet. The overweight issue is probably of greatest concern because so many millions of Americans are fat, with hundreds more achieving globose status every day. At this point only fringe-dwelling goofballs and food-industry shills deny the obesity-health costs connection.
So what to do? Should smokers and heavy people (whose “condition,” to be fair, is not binary as smoking in terms of mutability) be as eligible for work as anyone else, but made to pay higher premiums?
That appears to be the most popular idea among American taxpayers, but Sarasota County has, for good or for ill, elected to do away with that sticky issue altogether.
kemibe
docbushwell
jim
#1 by Brian on May 23, 2008 - 2:48 pm
I’ve always failed to see how smokers increase medical costs for companies or insurance companies. Everybody dies at some point, and the vast majority of people in America die of cancer or heart disease (which smoking tends to cause). And, the older you get, the more difficult (and expensive) it becomes to treat these diseases. It would seem like, by cutting down people at younger ages, when the cancer/cardiovascular disease is cheaper to treat, smoking would at the very least have no net impact on long term health care costs.
#2 by Kevin Beck on May 23, 2008 - 2:56 pm
True, but you’re talking about lifetime costs (which companies or government agencies working on yearly budgets) couldn’t give a shit about) versus annual costs (which they do and must be concerned with). Imagine if you took the most costly smoker in any corporation each year and added up he numbers over a period of years equivalent to a typical employee’s working lifetime (say 40 years). This figure would be astronomical compared to that for any one smoker out there.
#3 by Joel on May 23, 2008 - 2:57 pm
Baring an entire segment of the population from employment. That’s a little disturbing. Who’s next?
#4 by MRW on May 23, 2008 - 3:39 pm
“I’ve always failed to see how smokers increase medical costs for companies or insurance companies. Everybody dies at some point… [and treating the young is cheaper]”
For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that treating the young is cheaper, even though that doesn’t seem obvious to me.
The old have paid into the system over time. Think of it this way: Let’s say a young person costs 100 dollars to treat for something that ends up killing them anyway. Let’s say that an old person costs 150 for the same. If the old person has paid into the insurance pot for 20 years and the young person only for 10, the old person is effectively cheaper to treat. (Yes, all these costs are ridiculous, but you get the point)
Or, let’s say that the people don’t immediately die, but that this becomes a chronic condition that keeps needing treatment. Now, not only has the young person paid in less, but they also are likely to be taking money out of the pot for longer, because the old person is likely to die from something or other sooner.
#5 by decrepitoldfool on May 23, 2008 - 4:09 pm
Maybe they should ban me; I commute on a bicycle and could get hit by a car. Plus I’m overweight; maybe I’ll have a heart attack.
Individuals vary widely. My boss smokes and is easily the most productive person I have ever met in my life.
#6 by Marketblogger on May 23, 2008 - 6:20 pm
This is bad math. They cite studies showing how much smokers cost in productivity, but they don’t bother to consider the cost of not hiring the best, most qualified person for a job. In some cases the best candidate will happen to be smoker. If they higher someone less qualified, then there’s a cost associated with the gap, or difference. That cost would at least partially offset the savings from hiring non-smokers, and could possibly more than fully offset the savings.
http://www.marketblog.com
#7 by Kevin Beck on May 23, 2008 - 6:24 pm
In general that’s an excellent point, Marketblogger, but bear in mind that at least 90 percent of people interested in going to work for the State of Florida are barely qualified to fling shit at walls.
#8 by Brian on May 23, 2008 - 7:24 pm
Re: MRW
When we are talking about older vs younger people, all other things being equal, any given medical intervention will have a greater risk of complications. Complications cost money.
As far as the amount of time that smokers/nonsmokers have paid into the health care system, that would be important if smoking-related diseases were killing people in their 30s or 40s. But the median age of onset of lung cancer (80% attributable to smoking) is age 66. Also, take a look at this chart from a NEJM paper (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052/F1) – the health care costs don’t become significantly different until one is about 55 years old.
That chart is actually from a paper saying that, if everybody quit smoking, health care costs would fall in the short term, but overall, global health care costs would rise as people lived longer, and their disease treatment becomes more expensive.
I understand why companies might want to not hire smokers, as the reduction in life expectancy tends to cut into what would be productive years. But globally, there is no real reduction in health care costs, just the relative productivity of a smoker vs a non-smoker.
The chronic disease thing is kind of irrelevant, as whatever people die of tends to be “chronic” for a few years before they actually do die.
#9 by Joel on May 23, 2008 - 8:03 pm
bear in mind that at least 90 percent of people interested in going to work for State of Florida are barely qualified to fling shit at walls.
Please Kevin, don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think. OMG. :)
#10 by Kim on May 24, 2008 - 1:05 am
I’m sure denying fat people employment is just the thing to reduce obesity and obesity related expenses in this country, considering the poor have such great access to gyms, safe neighborhoods for outdoor activity, and fresh, healthy food.
#11 by anon on May 24, 2008 - 2:02 am
at least 90 percent of people interested in going to work for the State of Florida are barely qualified to fling shit at walls.
___________________
OMFG!!!!! That is so true according to my relative that lived their and their hiring pool consisted of the rehab house down the street. Seriously, it was the meth addicts, the alcoholics and the whatever else people who they had to pick from. They worked in a high end retail boutique store that catered to New Yorkers with vacation homes.
Anyhooo… thanks for the quote- i will be sure to pass it along. You made my nite. I work in the service industry and can say that where I am, in another country, this is an apt description of many people in BOTH my jobs.
As for the argument- Britain resisted a quitting smoking campaign because it would cause health costs to rise.
This was a few years ago. Now the NHS pays its doctors bonuses for people who are stopping doing bad things. I guess they have more money now, or something. (Tongue in cheek of course). I have no idea what is going on except that it seems like government is really invested in knowing everything about a person now.
#12 by Julie Stahlhut on May 24, 2008 - 11:11 am
I think it’s eminently reasonable, for public-health and fire-safety reasons, to ban smoking in the workplace — but NOT to refuse to hire smokers. The first question that comes to my mind is: How would you prove that you don’t smoke? Is your employer supposed to spy on you when you’re off the premises, or search your coat pockets or purse for cigarettes and lighters? Could you be reprimanded or fired if your clothes smell like cigarette smoke, even if it’s just because you live with a relative or friend who smokes in the house? Could they extend this policy and claim that because alcoholism is life-threatening and drinking on the job is inappropriate, they won’t hire someone who occasionally has a drink in the evening at home?
Kim has an excellent point as well. (The analogy to diet and exercise programs is a good one. I’m on a pretty serious exercise schedule myself, and the biggest factor in my having stuck with it is the presence of a low-fee 24-hour fitness center in my workplace.) Lots of workplaces support smoking-cessation programs. Other aids to quitting, like nicotine patches and prescription medications, cost money.
There are plenty of ways to motivate people to quit smoking, but this kind of micromanagement isn’t one of them.