Baylor Health Care System, one of the Dallas area's largest employers,
has taken several savvy steps in its fight against smoking. It has
offered free smoking-cessation programs to workers, made its campus
smoke-free and slapped a health insurance surcharge on employees who
smoke.
But on Jan. 1, Baylor went a step too far: It stopped hiring
anyone who smokes at work - or anywhere else. Treating smoking, in
essence, like illegal drug use takes Baylor and an increasing number of
other employers down a dangerous road, one that extends far too deeply
into the private lives of prospective workers.
Baylor
says that as a health care organization, it wants to practice what it
preaches: discouraging one of the nation's deadliest health habits. But
such practices are not confined to the health care industry, and they
raise a broader issue: If employers routinely reject people who engage
in risky, but legal, behavior on their own time, what about such things
as overeating or drinking too much alcohol? If smoker bans reduce
health care expenses, cost-conscious employers might be tempted to
stake out new and even more intrusive territory under the "wellness
program" banner. A bit further down the road lies hiring based on
genetics. In that world, inheriting a gene that shows a predisposition
to a costly disease could cost you a job.
A decade ago, bans on hiring smokers were rare. A few companies - including Alaska Airlines, Turner Broadcasting, Florida's Gulf Power and some law enforcement agencies - were among the early adopters. The trend led 29 states to pass laws protecting smokers from what lawmakers saw as workplace discrimination.
While no one keeps count, the practice appears to
be spreading in the other 21 states. At Weyco Inc., a Michigan
medical-benefits administrator, four employees quit when they refused to submit to the company's no-smoker policy. Since 2007, the Cleveland Clinic-
which has 40,000 employees and hires 5,000 a year - hasn't hired anyone
who tests positive for nicotine. Starting this Wednesday,
Pennsylvania's Geisinger Health System, which has 15,000 employees,
won't hire smokers.
At least health care
providers can assert that the bans are related to their medical
missions. But what about other companies? Scotts Co., which makes lawn
and garden supplies, made headlines in 2006 when it was sued by a new
hire who was fired after testing positive for nicotine; Scotts' policy was upheld by a federal court in Boston. Atlanta-based Georgia Power stopped hiring smokers in 2009.
Even
the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, set to open this year, tells
smokers they need not apply for employment. This means House Speaker
John Boehner, a smoker who is second in line to the presidency, couldn't
get a job at a casino in his home state.
In a
nation where 55% of workers get their insurance through their
employers, and where employers' insurance costs have more than doubled
in just a decade, companies have ample reason to cut costs and keep
employees healthy. They also deserve great latitude in hiring, which
makes legislation problematic. But intruding this deeply into people's
private lives raises questions that bear scrutiny.
Companies can charge smokers more for health coverage or ban smoking on the job. But punishing people for using a legal product on their own time crosses a troubling line.
No nicotine
In these 21 states, a workplace can refuse to hire smokers:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Source: American Lung Association