No Smoking Policy at Cleveland Clinic

No Smoking Hiring Policy at the Cleveland Clinic

MLR 601-Cleveland State University

Executive Summary

A decade ago, bans on hiring smokers were rare. A few companies and some law enforcement agencies were among the early adopters of not hiring smokers. The early adopters began a trend that led 29 states to pass laws protecting smokers from what lawmakers saw as workplace discrimination.  The practice appears to be spreading in the other 21 states. Since 2007, the Cleveland Clinic, which has more than 39,000 employees and hires approximately 5,000 a year, hasn’t hired anyone who tests positive for nicotine.  Health care providers have the benefit of asserting that the bans are related to their medical missions.

In a nation where 55% of workers get their insurance through their employers, and where employers' insurance expenses have more than doubled in ten years’ time, companies have ample reason to cut costs and keep employees healthy (Jones,2012). This provides incentive for eradicating smoking addiction through wellness programs and non-exclusion hiring practices.

Companies can charge smokers more for health coverage and ban smoking on the job. However, crossing the line and punishing people (and their families) for using a legal product on their personal time can be construed as invasive and bears examination.

Accordingly, this paper will attempt to answer the following question:

Is it beneficial for a company who is seeking to reduce its health care costs and align its policies with its organization vision to implement a no-smoking hiring policy?

Defining what is ethical and unethical when it comes to hiring smokers can be very subjective.  This document will illustrate with data the impact of not hiring the best person for the job. Some of these costs could include;

• Costs associated with performance differences of top tier workers
• Costs associated with human rights lawsuits
• Potential impact of public perception of the company due to policy changes

This paper demonstrates rationale for why employers should consider more constructive approaches than punishing smokers. With the initial focus being on whether candidates meet job requirements and then focusing on providing support for employees who wish to quit smoking once hired.

Background

There is a growing trend of companies refusing to hire nicotine users. Some of the more prominent companies to do so are CVS, Lowe’s, Union-Pacific Railroad, Scott’s Miracle Gro, and numerous healthcare companies including the Cleveland Clinic. Companies are claiming that by not hiring smokers they are going to save more $4,000 per employee annually in medical coverage premiums, which will lead to increased productivity and a reduction in absenteeism (Schmidt, Voigt, & Emanuel, 2013). Besides perceived financial benefits healthcare institutions are depicting it as driving a favorable organizational image of serving as role models for patients (Schmidt, Voigt, & Emanuel, 2013). Adding to their claim health care systems state the fact that the leading cause of preventable death in the United States is smoking (Mokdad AH, 2004). States and the general public are split about equally on whether employers should be allowed to refuse employment to nicotine users. Currently twenty-nine U.S. states have legislation in place that prohibits companies from denying employment to smokers while twenty-one do not (Schmidt, Voigt, & Emanuel, 2013). According to a Harris poll Americans agree with the majority of the states. 65% of Americans are opposed to companies not hiring smokers (Schmidt, Voigt, & Emanuel, 2013). The corporate policy of not hiring smokers has been upheld in court. Scott’s company was sued by a formal employee who failed a nicotine urinalysis during his new hiring period. Scott’s company’s decision was upheld in the Boston federal court (Saltzman, 2009). The real question is whether or not the debate over turning away job applicants for smoking is a health issue or a labor issue. Lindsay Grace, coalition chairwoman and spokeswoman for the lung association in Indiana said “This really isn’t a health issue, tobacco control or cessation issue. This is really an employer and labor issue (Berggoetz, 2014).”