Smoking V/S Employment

2011-06-25T01:25:00.000-07:00

Warning : Smoking is bad for your employment

Stories are popping up everywhere about employers who are refusing to hire workers who smoke, or tacking on a premium penalty, or even offering a quitting incentive, hoping to reduce health care costs and increase productivity.

The CDC estimates that workers who smoke cost their companies about $1,850 extra per year in absenteeism and medical costs than workers who do not smoke.

This issue is stirring up a lot of concerns over discrimination, increased costs for the employee and what the best ways are to get employees who smoke to quit.

Hospitals kick the habit

A majority of hospitals now have smoke-free campuses, affecting patients and workers alike. But some are going a step further, by not hiring workers who smoke, even in their private lives.

One hospital, Mercy Medical Centers in Des Moines, Iowa, will no longer hire workers who smoke.

Job applicants will be required to take a urine test, and anyone who tests positive for nicotine will have to wait six months before re-applying. Current employees who smoke will be not be fired, but will be encouraged to quit and the hospital says they will provide resources for quitting options.

In a statement, Chief Human Resources Officer Robyn Wilkinson for Mercy said, “Our employees have an obligation to set a good example for the communities we serve.”

Other hospitals haven’t outright outlawed smoking; employees who do just have to pay more for it. Starting January of next year, Carle Foundation Hospital in Illinois will charge employees who smoke $30 extra per month for their health care premiums.

The slippery slope

Some have asked, if employers can reject candidates because they are smokers, where will the screening stop? What about overweight workers, or those with diabetes? Surely those employees are more costly, as well.

“I think banning the hiring of smokers is a slippery slope. We don’t know where that would end,” said Andrew Tarsy of the Progressive Business Leaders Network. “Employers start looking at our lifestyle choices, our personal habits, what we do at home and I think it raises a lot of concerns.”

A majority of states currently have laws that protect smokers from workplace discrimination.

Ohio doesn’t. One employer, Reynolds and Reynolds in Dayton, Ohio, began rejecting five years ago candidates who smoked and this January began requiring all current workers to quit the habit. Workers were given about a five month advance notice to quit the habit, but any worker who is found using tobacco going forward can be fired.

But there could be consequences to these policies. Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, says, "Unemployment is also bad for health.”

In a large study with General Electric, employees who smoke were offered a cash incentive. After a year, almost 15 percent of those who participated and were given cash had stayed smoke-free. Only 5 percent of those who were not given an incentive refrained from smoking.

Solutions for employers

QuitNet by Healthways is the largest tobacco cessation program, and is in use by more than 100 employers, several of them Fortune 500 companies.

The program cost to an employer varies, from about $6 to $10 per employee, but the return of about $1,850 per person is substantial.

Janna Lacatell is the senior design manager for Healthways' Tobacco Cessation Solutions, and says that employers should focus on hiring for job-related qualifications, but also wants toencourage employers to offer resources and support to employees to make it possible to quit smoking.

Lacatell also says it’s important to address all forms of tobacco use, and not just cigarette smoking.

Employees can register for the online-based program online or on the phone. It includes round the clock support and coaching, as well as free nicotine-replacement therapy such as patches or gum. This is an important aspect, because “employees can better understand the value of a box of patches,” Lacatell says.

By Ginny Kipling

Complied by Sudhir Jain

2009-09-08T01:01:00.000-07:00

Whirlpool Suspends 39 Employees For Using Tobacco

INDIANAPOLIS — Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.

A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.

As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.

"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.

Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.

In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.

"It's definitely not something we wanted to do," she said. "It's unpleasant."

The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.

A 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers _ those with 20,000 or more employees _ adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status, according to the human resources consulting firm Mercer.

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.

"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.

Compiled By:

Sudhir Jain

Your request is being processed...

Your request is being processed...

2009-05-10T00:18:00.000-07:00

Should We Penalize Employees For Smoking?

When we talk about employee-related smoking, one of the first things we need to consider is performance-related costs.

Frequent smoke breaks are a major issue when it comes to employee performance and productivity. Employees who leave their desks several times throughout the day to take smoking breaks are clearly less productive than those who do not. Smokers are also absent from work considerably more than non-smokers. This becomes a major issue when employers have salaried employees who smoke.

Medical-related costs

Annual health care costs for smokers are 31 percent higher on average than the costs for non-smokers. A recent study from the American Cancer Society revealed that smokers had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs.76), had a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days) and made six more visits to health care facilities per-year when compared to non-smokers (2).

Smokers add approximately seven percent to the total cost of healthcare for group health plan beneficiaries (2). Both employers and non-smoking employees absorb these added costs in the form of higher premiums.

What companies are doing: Companies throughout the United States are addressing this issue in several different ways. Many are either refusing to hire employees who smoke or are maintaining an unspoken preference for hiring non-smokers.Some companies take their preference for non-smokers even further by penalizing smokers financially. A client's HR Assistant recently read in a post on an HR forum that an Indiana company is docking the paycheck of each employee who smokes by $5 per-week until they quit. From a legal standpoint, this practice is highly questionable. However, it is legal for employers to charge a "tobacco use fee"-a health plan add-on that punishes employees for smoking.

Other companies are adding smoke cessation programs as employee benefits. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "paying for tobacco use cessation treatments is the single most cost-effective health insurance benefit for adults that can be provided to employees."

Comprehensive smoke cessation programs run on average about $0.50 per member per month (PMPM). For an employer sponsored health benefit program, the total average annual claim savings per smoker who quits is $192 (3). An October 2007 National Business Group on Health (NBGH) survey of 506 employers revealed that 74% believe smoking cessation benefits can decrease health care costs. Despite this, only 2% of companies offer a comprehensive scientifically-based smoking cessation program as an employee benefit (3).

Smoke cessation and small-to-mid-size firms: Many small-to-mid-size employers are reluctant to offer smoking cessation benefits due to the up-front costs they will incur, despite the high likelihood that these benefits will yield a positive return on investment (ROI). Authors of a case study on The Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) reported that smoking cessation programs should return an estimated 1/3 of costs to employers in the first year and to break even by the third year. Everything beyond the third year is positive ROI (4).

But, given the current economy, will employers even think of cost savings three years in advance? And what goes into an effective smoking cessation program?

The 2000 Public Health Service guideline indicated that a combination of pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling is the most effective way to treat nicotine addiction. The authors of the PBGH case study further recommend that employers offering smoking cessation plans provide access to both prescription medications and over-the-counter (OTC) medications in order to expand treatment options. They also recommend that employers eliminate employee out-of-pocket costs for smoking cessation drugs and therapies in order to increase program participation rates (4).

However, insurance companies do not cover OTC medications, so employers offering them as part of a smoking cessation benefit are left to foot the bill. Many employers cannot afford this added cost. At the end of the day, these employers are left with two options: refuse to hire smokers or charge a "tobacco use fee".

Compiled by: Sudhir Jain

QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.

BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.

2009-02-14T04:33:00.000-08:00

Smoking and employment

Someone has drawn attention, on another thread, to an article by Prof Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health which raises the question of smoking and employment. This is an issue that Forest first highlighted eight or nine years ago when we analysed hundreds of recruitment ads in a number of publications (including the Guardian) and noted the increasing trend for companies to employ "non-smokers only". (Our subsequent report caused quite a stir.)

The press release that promotes Siegel's article is unambiguous: "US experts call for rethink of trend to bar smokers from employment". It continues:

The increasing trend for employers, particularly in the US, to bar smokers from applying for jobs or staying in post should be stopped, until the appropriateness of such policies has been properly evaluated, argue experts in an essay published in Tobacco Control.

As of August 2008, 21 US states, 400 US cities, nine Canadian provinces, six Australian states/territories, and 14 other countries, including the UK, had banned smoking in workplaces, bars, and restaurants.

But in recent years, smoke free workplaces have shifted to “smoker-free workplaces”, with some companies even stating “tobacco free candidates only” in their employment policies ...

These policies aim to cut cigarette consumption, by promoting the need to quit and by making smoking less socially acceptable, say the authors from the Universities of Washington and Boston.

The evidence backs them up. And there is also some evidence to suggest that these policies could boost productivity and reduce absenteeism, they add.

But quite apart from infringements of personal privacy and individual rights, smokers who are sacked or forced to resign many not be able to find other work, which in itself could have a seriously detrimental impact on their and their families’ health, contend the authors.

Smokers will also be unjustly discriminated against in a way that people who risk their health by drinking or eating too much, and exercising too little, are not ...

The authors call for a much wider public health debate, and for proper evaluation of these policies, on the grounds that “the potential unintended side effects ... could be far reaching”.
Compiled by: Sudhir Jain
QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.
BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.

2008-09-20T06:17:00.000-07:00

"Lighting Up" Could Mean Looking for Another Job

The trend to institute smoking bans in public buildings, restaurants and other areas may be taking a giant leap right forward right into the work arena.

Scotts Miracle Grow has announced to its employees that after a grace period, employees who smoke on - or off - the job will be terminated. The company contends that it is trying to control rising health-care costs and improve worker health, according to an account by the Chicago Tribune.

And Scotts isn't the first company to institute this type of policy, never mind the legality of the move. Weyco Inc., a small Michigan-based benefits firm, had workers'-rights groups up in arms when it declared that smokers must quit cigarettes and undergo mandatory testing or find another job.

In fact, an estimated 6,000 employers, ranging from municipalities to a Seattle property-management firm, all raising the banner of saving on health care expenses, are now refusing to hire smokers, the National Workrights Institute reported. The institute is not in favor the trend which it believes smacks of discrimination.

The question of legality arises when smoking remains a legal activity, particularly when it is done in the privacy of one's home. However, the impetus for some health care companies and other firms around the country is that if insurance companies provide safe drivers with discounts, why not offer the same discounts to those who maintain healthy lifestyles.

West Coast-based PacifiCare, Aetna, Cigna and the newly launched Virgin Life Care (a partnership between billionaire Richard Branson and Humana) offer speical initiatives to those who practice good habits.

The Tribune reports that Chicago-based provider Destiny Health, allows its members to earn Vitality Bucks (or points) by undergoing fitness assessments, exercising or seeking preventive care such as Pap smears and prostate exams. Points can also be earned by embarking on charity walks, learning CPR and even reading health-related tidbits on the company Web sites. The Vitality Points can be redeemed for CDs, frequent flyer miles, movie tickets or hotel packages.

The Department of Health and Human Services agrees when it says that a whopping 75 percent of health-care spending could be eliminated or delayed through preventive measures and healthy lifestyle choices. Trends are showing the some insurance companies are beginning to believe that concrete preventative health care is cost effective over treating disease--after the fact.

Many companies now offer incentives to their employees including memberships in health clubs paid for by the company as well as establishing a health club for employees right on the company's property, contests with prizes for those who lose weight and so on.

With health insurers and companies promoting healthy lifestyles, will the trend continue with firms not hiring or even firing employees who smoke on or off the job? With Chicago prohibiting smoking in bars and bowling alleys--nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Compiled by: Sudhir Jain

QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.

BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.

2007-08-20T02:38:00.000-07:00

Where there’s smoke, there’s no hire

As society’s tolerance towards smoking falls, it is not surprising that some employers are preferring to hire non-smokers. What are the downsides of hiring smokers and are employers actually allowed to discriminate against smokers?

There’s no question that smoking is becoming socially unacceptable. There’s also no doubt as to the negative health effects of smoking. The impact of smokers in the workplace however, is less clear.

Certainly there is a school of thought that smoking doesn’t affect an employee’s performance. There are however, some logical potential disadvantages to hiring smokers:

Smokers may break more frequently than non-smokers and may be anxious or irritable if they don’t “get their fix”. This may result in decreased productivity;
The smell of smoke can be fairly off-putting, both to non-smoking colleagues and clients;
Smoking is unhealthy and studies indicate that smokers use more sick leave;
Smokers must now congregate outside to smoke: presenting a potentially non ideal image to clients and the public; and
Having smokers in the workplace doesn’t assist an employer in promoting a healthy workplace for customers and colleagues.

Can an employer lawfully discriminate against a smoker?

Although the Smoke-Free Environments Act 1990 prohibits smoking in the workplace, the Act is silent as to whether a person can be discriminated against because they are a smoker.

The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination on certain grounds, including religion, race, sex or disability. Discriminating against a smoker however, is not a specific prohibited ground of discrimination. Presumably, this means that it is not unlawful under the Human Rights Act for an employer or potential employer to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis that they smoke.

An important distinction needs to be drawn between existing employees and those applying for employment. On the above basis, it would seem that an employer could lawfully refuse to employ someone because they are a smoker. But due to other obligations at law, employers would not be able to terminate employment of existing employees solely because they are smokers. Employers would also need to be careful that they don’t disadvantage an existing employee by unjustifiably treating them differently because they are a smoker.

A discussion

It would be fair to say that the potential negative side effects set out above would almost certainly discourage employers from hiring an employee, even when they have suitable experience and qualifications for the position. Studies have proven that smokers take more sick leave than their non-smoking colleagues. This not only results in greater costs to the employer, but may also result in a drop in team morale as other colleagues are left to cope with the smoker’s absence.

Decreased productivity can also be a negative side effect, although a direct correlation between smokers and lower productivity is difficult to prove.

And then of course, there’s the potential for smoking employees to develop lung cancer. Little needs to be said about the devastating effect such an illness can have on an individual or the workplace.

ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) do not support discrimination against smokers. ASH believes the notion of hiring non-smokers only would be ridiculous, given 25% of the population are smokers and it is not reasonable to presume smokers wouldn’t make good employees. ASH’s position has some merit. After all, Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton and Denny Crane are all noted smokers.

The European Commission has stated that employers may legally be able to shun smokers when applying for a position of employment.

In the United States some employers will not employ smokers and some have terminated a smoker’s employment on the basis they did not quit smoking after requests to do so. As a lot of employers in the US provide employees with medical insurance, such a stance is likely to be related to the effect of employing smokers on the cost of medical insurance premiums.

Whether New Zealand employers will follow this international trend is yet to be seen, but as society increasingly places restrictions on people who choose to smoke, it will not be surprising if they eventually do.

Richard Mrkusich is a specialist employment lawyer at Kensington Swan.

Compiled by: Sudhir Jain

QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.

BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.

2006-12-17T10:46:00.000-08:00

A Company's Threat:
Quit Smoking or Leave.

By Ilan Brat

Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. is taking its campaign to stamp out smoking among its workers to an unusual length: It's threatening to fire smokers beginning next fall.

The threat represents the latest attempt by an employer to try to reduce health-care costs by targeting smokers. In January, four employees at Weyco Inc., a small medical-benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., lost their jobs after they refused to be tested for tobacco use. Scotts, which has 5,300 U.S. workers, is one of the largest companies to have put an outright ban on smoking even off the job.

With medical expenses rising, corporations are increasingly focusing on the employees who they believe account for the majority of health-care costs. Some companies have tried to lower the number of smokers in their work force by offering employees money and counseling help to quit smoking. In April, Humana Inc., a Louisville, Ky., health insurer, asked its employees if they had used tobacco in the previous 12 months. Those who said they hadn't got a $5 bonus in their paychecks each pay period. General Mills Inc. imposes a $20 a month surcharge on the health benefits of smokers.

Weyco, the medical-benefits administrator, announced a tobacco-free policy in Sept. 2003. It used a device similar to a breathalyzer to test for tobacco use. In January 2005, four of its 190 employees chose not to take the test and were forced to leave.

Scotts offers to pay for smoking-cessation programs and products. But the October ultimatum "is way over the top by today's standards," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of major corporations. "Most employers are still in the mode of 'You've got to have positive incentives.' "

Firing workers who won't stop smoking is illegal in the 30 states that have laws protecting smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, a not-for-profit organization that focuses on human rights in the workplace. But elsewhere, unless workers fall in one of a few protected classifications defined by state and federal laws, employers have more leeway.

Some lawyers said Scotts could be vulnerable to disability challenges if it fires people who smoke. "Once you start regulating outside conduct, the question is where do you stop?" says Marvin Gittler, an employment-law specialist and managing partner with Asher, Gittler, Greenfield & D'Alba Ltd. in Chicago.

Smokers who are "really trying" to quit, even after the deadline, won't have to worry, allows Jim Hagedorn, Scotts' chief executive. "If you work with us, and we know you're working with us, I don't think you're going to end up getting fired."

Still, Scotts stresses that it expects employees to make a good-faith effort to improve their health. Scotts estimates that about 30% of its workers smoke.

Next October, the Marysville, Ohio, company said it will begin randomly testing about 20% of its work force nationwide where it is legal to do so. (Ohio is among the states that don't have specific smoker-protection laws.) The company says it hasn't worked out the details of how to test employees. Workers found to be still smoking or using other tobacco products habitually could be fired, Scotts says, as long as they work in states where such termination is legal. In states that do have smoker-protection laws, employees who are on the company's medical plan could see their health-care premiums become "substantially higher," though details aren't final yet, the company adds.

The tobacco initiative is part of a broad wellness program that includes a $5 million fitness gym and health clinic opened last month near the company's headquarters. Employees on the company's medical plan will have free access in the clinic to a physician, nurse practitioners, diet and fitness experts and a pharmacy with generic drugs.

In return, every year employees will face a strict requirement: Take a health assessment through a program affiliated with medical-information Web site WebMD Health Corp. -- or pay $40 extra a month in health-care costs. The health assessment starts with a form to be filled out online. Then, a "health coach" contacts the employee and arranges a treatment regimen for any health issues. The employee must follow through with the recommendations or pay higher premiums, though the exact amount hasn't been worked out yet.

The wellness program is administered by Whole Health Management Inc., a Cleveland company. Whole Health Management also works with Continental Airlines, Sprint Nextel and Nissan, among others.

Scotts' Mr. Hagedorn said he has "gotten pretty religious" about his employees' health recently. Last year, the company abolished smoking from its corporate campus, and the company cafeteria has cut down on fried food, instead offering up baked salmon and other fish. Vending machines dispense more "granola stuff," he said. By company mandate, employees who leave work during the work day for the gym won't be penalized.

Mr. Hagedorn, 50 years old, once smoked two packs of cigarettes a day but quit 20 years ago after his mother died of lung cancer. He said he understands how difficult it is to quit smoking but also how important it is. "Are we going to stand by and watch our people get sick? The answer is no," he said. "Success here is not firing anybody."

Linda Sutkin, a 31-year employee of the lawn and gardening-products company who works in customer service, won't have that worry. After a company-sponsored smoking-cessation program and Zyban, a medication to help quit, the 50-year-old smoked her last cigarette in January 2004. She misses the camaraderie of smoking with friends on breaks but is glad she quit.

Other smokers at headquarters are concerned about the company's October deadline, she says. "The consensus is like, is this the end or is it going to lead to something else?" she says. "Are they going to watch what we eat?"

Also visit: Best Way To Quit Smoking.

Quit Smoking News.

2006-04-03T23:58:00.000-07:00

Cigarette Smoking Is Growing Hazardous To Careers In Business

Every morning, as soon as he gets to work, a Johnson & Johnson manager makes a beeline for the bathroom. He gargles with mouthwash and downs mints. Then, to mask any lingering odor, he douses his face and hands with skin cream.

But he still worries that he will be reprimanded or passed over for a promotion if his boss ever learns that his closet vice is cigarette smoking.

"I've become almost like a junkie, sneaking around as if I take illegal drugs," says the manager, who works at Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Brunswick, N.J. "In a {corporate} culture like ours, where everyone is looking good and smelling good, the last thing you do is stick a cigarette in your mouth."

In corporate America, cigarette smoking is becoming hazardous to careers. Increasingly, smokers express anxiety that their prospects for getting hired and promoted are being stunted by their habit. Many of them fear they face both covert and overt discrimination in the workplace.

Until now, few companies have explicitly refused to hire smokers or have fired them outright for lighting up on the job. But evidence indicates that the undercurrent of employer prejudice against smokers is growing stronger. Smokers feel especially vulnerable at companies where smoking restrictions are already in force or where top executives don't smoke. They worry that, at the very least, it will be harder for them to climb the career ladder than for nonsmokers.

Barbara Hackman Franklin, a corporate director on several boards including those of Westinghouse Electric Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Black & Decker Corp. and Aetna Life & Casualty Co., says many companies have adopted an unwritten rule: "If you want to advance, don't smoke."

Indeed, in the past five years, smoking has gone from being a socially acceptable practice to one that is increasingly seen as a character defect indicating weakness and lack of self-discipline. "The cocaine abuser, the drunk at a party -- and the person who smokes next door -- are all viewed with the same generalized distaste," contends Robert Rosner, the executive director of the Smoking Policy Institute, which helps companies establish smoking restrictions.

Given such attitudes, many smokers are trying, with various degrees of success, to kick the habit. Among those in corporate America who continue to puff, many say they no longer feel like one of the guys. William L. Newkirk, the vice president of public relations at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., quit smoking briefly to please his chairman, who led a nonsmoking crusade. Now back to his several-pack-a-day habit, Mr. Newkirk acknowledges that he feels "more and more like a pariah."

Some bosses make no secret of their bias. Recently, Ralston Purina Co.'s chairman, William Stiritz, delivered a tongue-lashing to some cigar-smoking senior executives about their "nasty" habit and lack of respect for others. The managers have since reformed their ways -- at least at work -- but word of Mr. Stiritz's displeasure traveled quickly throughout the company.

"Given the attitude of the top echelon at Ralston Purina, smoking is an impediment to climbing the corporate ladder," says W. Edwin Magee, the corporate medical director, who has tried to help some fast-track managers quit. "A number of young executives trying to climb have come to me and said, 'When you know your boss doesn't smoke and doesn't like it, it's a strong reason not to.'"

Smokers are feeling the heat because companies are taking a harder line on such issues as productivity, rising medical costs and the effects of passive smoke. Although there are conflicting claims about whether smokers cost employers more in terms of higher insurance rates and absenteeism, companies often cite such concerns to justify restrictive smoking policies. In addition, new state and local ordinances and employee complaints put significant pressure on many companies.

Last year, a survey of 660 companies by the Bureau of National Affairs Inc., a Washington-based research group, found that 36% of employers had adopted restrictive policies on smoking and an additional 22% were studying them.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey conducted between April 12 and April 14 shows that tolerance for smoking is evaporating. Two-thirds of the 1,011 nonsmokers polled said they are more likely to think of their rights as nonsmokers than five years ago. More than half of the nonsmokers said cigarette smoke in the workplace bothers them.

Of the 462 smokers polled, 40% said they get more complaints about their smoking from fellow workers than they got five years ago. And two-thirds of the entire employee sampling said they approve of laws that restrict smoking in the workplace and other public places.

But not all smokers are under fire. In certain industries, certain parts of the country or certain companies where the top brass smoke, the habit is apt to be condoned, even encouraged. Signs at the headquarters of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Winston-Salem, N.C., proclaim, "Thank you for smoking." Brown-Forman Inc., the nation's largest distiller, terms smoking a "non-issue." Says Russell C. Buzby, the company's executive director of human resources: "It's just good manners in corporate life to have as few rules as possible."

Even at companies where smoking is restricted, most executives maintain in public that cigarettes aren't a factor in evaluating potential or current employees. "We're promoting people for their ability to think, for their ability to make judgments and decisions," says John W. Teets, the chief executive officer of Greyhound Corp., which instituted a companywide smoking ban last year. "Smoking isn't a detriment to being promoted."

Where it does exist, discrimination against smokers is hard to prove. Often, it is the result of an individual manager's bias -- typically subconscious -- rather than an explicit corporate policy. Either way, few people want to talk about it.

"Two of my corporate clients have told me in great confidence that they have been discriminating against smokers," says John Fox, an employment and labor lawyer based in Washington, D.C. "But they are afraid to discuss it openly because no one knows what the law is, and there is a great liability attached to wrongful discharge."

Mr. Fox says one client reduced its work force by selecting smokers to dismiss, while the other refused to promote and transfer smokers to one of its units. In neither case were the smokers informed that they were being penalized because of their habit.

Another reason for the secrecy is that discrimination against smokers also carries with it the implication of race and sex discrimination. Unpublished research collected in 1985 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that 40.7% of black males over age 20 smoke, while only 32.3% of such white males do. According to the same data, 27.7% of all white females smoke, compared with 32% of all black females. In the 20- to 24-year-old age category, 33.1% of white women smoke -- a figure that is significantly above that of black or white males or black females in the same age group.

Thus, the tobacco industry, particularly Philip Morris Cos., and some civil-rights organizations argue that cigarettes could be used as a weapon against blacks and young women, since those groups are more apt to smoke than white males. "Any kind of smoking restrictions could have a disproportionate impact on women and blacks," contends Robert W. Ethridge, assistant vice president for equal opportunity at Emory University.

Mr. Ethridge, who also is the president of the American Association of Affirmative Action, a group of 1,300 affirmative-action officers, argues that segregated office assignments could create a "back of the bus" mentality. Such practices risk cutting off blacks and women from their supervisors and undermining their chances for increased compensation and promotion, he says. But because the restrictions are new, he adds, "We may not see the true impact until a couple of years from now."

As the on-the-job restrictions and penalties have mounted, concerned smokers like the Johnson & Johnson closet-puffing manager have increasingly taken to hiding their habits. Some other examples:

-- Clest Lanier, a 39-year-old personnel assistant for the Farm Credit Banks of Louisville, Ky., typically smokes only at lunchtime, when her office is empty, or in the bathroom. As a black and a woman, she contends she already has two strikes against her. "Cigarettes could be the third strike," she says.

-- Not long ago, a chain-smoking advertising copywriter spent several hours in a no-smoking conference room at Campbell Soup Co. in Camden, N.J., and surreptitiously lit a cigarette. When someone walked in the door, he tried to make his smoke disappear by crouching down and exhaling into a desk drawer.

-- Until last year when a smoking ban went into effect at Rainier Bancorporation in Seattle, C. Bruce Emry, vice president of communications, used to go through 2 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day. But he never smoked in his superiors' offices. "There was a feeling in the back of my mind that it might count against me," he explains.

-- I.T. "Tex" Corley, vice president for finance at Mesa Limited Partnership in Dallas, quit two months ago. Before then, he says, he would smoke in front of his boss, a former smoker, in "real social" situations. But he drew the line when it came to work or travel. In meetings with his superior, Mr. Corley wouldn't dream of saying he needed a cigarette break. His excuse for absenting himself: "I have to make a phone call."

Smokers' various subterfuges, in many cases, are necessitated by very real threats. At a company's board meeting several months ago, Ms. Hackman Franklin, the corporate director, says talk turned to candidates in line for some top executive jobs. An upper-level manager was hailed as a "real star of his generation." But then, Ms. Hackman Franklin recalls, a director interrupted with, "Wait a minute. He's a little overweight, and he's a smoker. He's always got a cigarette in his mouth." Others chimed in, she says, raising questions about "his longevity and his ability to stay the course." The enthusiastic discussion of the up-and-comer petered out.

Rodger C. Taylor, a product manager at Fellowes Manufacturing Co. of Itasca, Ill., freely admits he wouldn't hire a smoker even though his company has no such official policy. Although he has yet to reject a smoker, he says, "I look upon smokers as being weak and not being at the same level of intelligence as I am. At some point, their progression up the career ladder will be stopped because, to me, they're slobs."

Similarly, Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Co.'s president, James Hellauer, recently interviewed a job candidate who was also a friend -- and a heavy smoker. But Mr. Hellauer, who has banned smoking at his Norristown, Pa., company, says he didn't give his buddy the job, in part because of his negative feelings about "nicotine fingers" and "reeking" clothes.

Another big problem for career-conscious smokers is that it is getting harder for them to look like team players. Over a year ago, the Johnson & Johnson manager attended a meeting where one nonsmoking executive devastated a cigarette-smoking rival by complaining vociferously when he pulled out his matches. "He {the nonsmoker} managed to make him {the smoker} look like a jerk without ever having to attack his work," the manager recalls.

At some companies, the nonconformity of smokers is made all the more obvious because they can puff only in segregated areas. For example, at Fellowes Manufacturing, employees have to light up outside at a loading dock, amid the stench of diesel fumes. Says Gina Canale, a purchasing assistant at the company: "We feel degraded, isolated and like outcasts."

In extreme cases, smokers can get fired. In January, Chicago-based USG Corp. said it would no longer hire smokers at nine mineral-fiber manufacturing plants and told its 1,300 employees at those plants that they must stop smoking or lose their jobs. In an attempt to minimize health threats and to reduce worker-compensation costs, USG's ban will apply to both work and home. The company will conduct periodic lung tests to monitor any changes in the employees' health status. (Thus far, USG has banned smoking in the workplace, but it hasn't yet introduced the nosmoking-at-home phase.)

Last December, Edelburg Trenkler, a catering supervisor at the Penrose Hospital in Colorado Springs, Colo., lost her job. In her termination letter, hospital officials cited the employee's unsatisfactory performance, missed meetings and "rude" behavior.

But Ms. Trenkler's bosses also disclosed to her another reason for her discharge: On National Smokeout Day, she was discovered in a smoke-free dining room puffing on a cigarette, a gesture her bosses now say symbolized her "defiant attitude." Explains Sister Ruth Ann Panning, a Penrose official: "Smoking was mentioned because it reflected an attitude of 'I'll do what I please.'" (Ms. Trenkler says she now intends to file a wrongful-discharge suit.)

Indeed, a lot of smokers complain that the very smoking restrictions intended to make them healthier and more productive actually work to their disadvantage. While some manage to quit or drastically curtail their habit, others admit that when they are supposed to be making critical decisions, they are really worrying about when and where they can have their next cigarette. That anxiety, they say, undermines their ability to perform.

Now that she isn't allowed to smoke at her desk, Sharon Randolph, a manager in customer service at New York Telephone Co., says she is often tempted to slam down the phone on customers. "You're preoccupied with thinking, 'God, I hope this conversation {with a customer} ends,'" she says. "You'll do or say almost anything just to have a cigarette." Ms. Randolph feels such deprivation has turned her already stressful job into a pressure cooker. "By the time I hang up, I'm jumping out of my skin," she says. "That's probably more unhealthy than smoking."

But when smokers duck out for cigarette breaks, their productivity suffers. That can fuel the perception that smokers aren't as capable or as conscientious as their nonsmoking peers. Ms. Randolph is so anxious about maintaining her productivity that she now takes work home at night.

However they try to juggle the demands of their habit and their workload, some smokers fear that nonsmokers will run out of patience. Kathleen Landry, the manager of staffing at Greyhound, sees the day when her company's bosses, tolerant up to now, crack down on the trips that smokers make to the outdoor plaza. So with the help of jujubes, she is struggling to cut down to just two cigarettes per workday.

"There almost aren't words to describe how difficult it is," she confides. "But if we smokers continue to stand outside smoking, instead of sitting inside working, it obviously will hurt all our careers."

Others refuse to back down. David W. Brenton, an engineering assistant at a Motorola Inc. government-electronics facility in Chandler, Ariz., now faces the prospect of his career going up in smoke. Mainly in response to local ordinances, Motorola soon will prohibit employees from smoking in their work areas and private offices. And when that happens, Mr. Brenton plans to quit the company where he has worked for eight years -- rather than abandon his pack-and-a-half-a-day habit. He says he is bitter that Motorola has exceeded local requirements, allowing him, as he puts it, to be "victimized."

(Motorola won't discuss Mr. Brenton's case, but it says its purpose is to find "something fair and equitable" for all employees.)

"I feel ripped off," Mr. Brenton says. "I feel as though a lot of things I wanted to do here and worked my way up to do will have to go by the wayside."

By: Alix M.Freedman

Also visit: Best Way To Quit Smoking

Quit Smoking News

Quit Smoking Guide

2006-03-18T01:21:00.000-08:00

Smokers fume as employers enforce ban.

Rows are bubbling up as health trusts, some police forces and universities act to stub out the habit at work. By Sian Griffiths

SOPHIE BLINMAN made the headlines just before Christmas: she was asked to leave her new job after 45 minutes when bosses discovered she was a smoker.

The 21-year-old, recruited through an employment agency, was dismissed from her temporary telesales post at Dataflow Communications in Somerset. She didn’t light up in the company buildings but had admitted to staff that she was a smoker.

The company, which has 33 staff, last week reiterated its policy: “We do not hire smokers and the policy is on the website. Sophie was a temporary employee . . . if she had been interviewed for a permanent position it would have been discovered that she was a smoker and she would not have been offered a job.”

It’s a story to strike fear into the hearts of puffers everywhere — even as they embark on new-year resolutions to give up the habit. Bosses in health trusts, police forces and even universities are taking an increasingly hard line on those who smoke at work.

If you are an employee in the public sector, 2006 will be the year you have an added incentive to quit. It may cost you your job if you don’t.

Under the health bill that is now going through parliament, all NHS premises and government departments have to become no-smoking zones by the end of this year.

Even before the bill becomes law, which is expected in the next few months, some health-service bosses are bringing in strict policies in advance of the December deadline. London is at the forefront of the change — smoking was banned on all NHS premises in London from January 1.

Staff are being helped to quit with some trusts offering nicotine-replacement therapy or time off for those who want to get help to stop.

The boundaries are being drawn more tightly in the public sector than in private companies. While companies have provided refuges for smokers to take cigarette breaks on roofs or in their grounds, there will be no such provision in many hospitals. Smoking outside and even smoking off duty if you are in uniform will become a disciplinary offence in certain trusts.

March 8 — No Smoking Day — is the day the Suffolk East primary care trust has chosen to bring in its ban. All its 3,500 hospital staff will face disciplinary action if they are caught smoking on NHS premises, while they are on duty or while they are wearing their uniform.

Although the aim is to be “compassionate” about the new condition of service — with help for staff to qive up — the trust confirmed that if someone persistently lit up on hospital premises or was often seen smoking in uniform, “it would become a disciplinary matter”.

The move has already caused controversy. While public-sector trade unions such as Unison have been calling for a ban for years, some are also worried that smokers may end up being victimised by overzealous bosses.

In America countless companies, police forces and municipal governments refuse to hire smokers. Some insist on nicotine tests and even use lie-detectors.

Britain is still some way from such extreme measures, but there are signs that we may be inching in that direction and voices are beginning to be raised in protest.

Karen Webb, director for the eastern region of the Royal College of Nursing, for instance, has reservations about Suffolk East primary care trust’s decision to extend its policy to “staff who are seen smoking wearing their name badges off NHS premises”.

She said: “We support the smoking ban on the premises, but off the premises it’s more difficult . . . our view would be that these organisations have bigger things to deal with than policing the smoking habits of staff who are not on NHS sites.”

There is another row bubbling up in North Wales where the police force has scrapped cigarette breaks and banned smoking for all staff while at work or on police premises, including car parks.

The policy came into effect last week and the force warned that any breaches would result in disciplinary action.

Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales Police, said: “Smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, which not only damages the health of the addicts themselves but also, through passive inhalation, the health of those around them.

“Smokers generally have a much worse attendance record due to smoking-related illnesses and they are more likely to suffer injuries at work. Smoking-related absence from work also adds to the pressure on colleagues.”

But it was the wording of an advertisement for traffic police officers in the principality that brought open confrontation. When the force decided to advertise the jobs with a clause excluding smokers from applying, the North Wales Police Federation sprang into action.

“The smoking ban started at the beginning of the year and there’s a 50-50 split among staff about whether it bothers them,” said Richard Eccles of the Police Federation, who disputes the national attendance and sickness statistics for smokers.

“There was a lot of concern about the advertisement that said, ‘Don’t bother applying for these jobs if you’re a smoker’.”

The federation’s challenge prompted the North Wales force to take legal advice on the job advertisements. The advice has yet to be made public.

Eccles said: “The problem is that staff were employed under one set of rules and now, halfway through their careers, they are being told that some jobs are not open.”

But he accepts that there is probably little, legally, that smokers can do. “It is discrimination, but not the kind that you can take to an employment tribunal,” said Eccles.

Hugh Robertson, head of health and safety at the TUC, said that every effort must be made to cut the number of people who die from passive smoking at work each year — a figure that he says now stands at 700, 48 of whom worked in pubs and clubs.

But Robertson agreed that it was important people were not “stigmatised for something that is legal”.

He said: “If you drive smoking underground, you create more risks. If people can’t smoke openly anywhere, what will they do — go into a stationery cupboard and smoke there? They will just smoke in a clandestine way.”

The Sunday Times

January 08, 2006

Also visit: Quit smoking method

Quit smoking guide

Quit smoking news

Quit smoking products

Best Way To Quit Smoking

2006-03-07T10:54:00.000-08:00

Job Search Information

Smoking or Non ?

CollegeGrad.com

The question is asked every time we enter a restaurant. And I will always turn to the interviewee and ask, "Which do you prefer?" Whether you smoke or not, always respond, "It's up to you." And if you do smoke, do not smoke, even if your interviewer smokes.

Smokers beware. Smoking is at an all-time low on the acceptance scale. You are not a protected minority--and you are definitely in the minority. Even the smell of smoke on your clothes can count against you. If you smoke, do not smoke the day of the interview. In fact, do not smoke after your last shower prior to the interview. And wear fresh clothes which are free of the tobacco smell. Tough rules? Possibly. But there are enough sensitive noses and prejudiced minds out there that you should do your very best to avoid any and all potential negatives. And smoking is one area that most of society looks down on.

If you do smoke, there will likely be an advantage to kicking the habit before you begin work--ideally, before you begin interviewing, given the potential negative impact it can have on the job search process. Most companies now force employees to smoke either in a designated smoking room or outside the building (which can be especially rough in northern climates). The amount of time necessary for even the average pack-a-day smoker to get their nicotine fix can amount to over 10% lost productivity. This fact is not quickly ignored by the average manager. And it may eventually work against you, either in your job search or in your professional career.

If you have been looking for an incentive to quit, this may be your opportunity.

Also visit: Quit Smoking In A Natural And Easy Way.

Quit Smoking Methods

Quit Smoking Products

2006-03-02T23:41:00.000-08:00

WHO jobs: Smokers need not apply.

Kounteya Sinha--Times News Network

NEW DELHI: If you smoke and want a job in the World Health Organisation, you’ll have to kick the habit.

As of December 1, all applicants to WHO are being asked if they smoke or use other tobacco products. If their answer is yes and if they qualify for the job, they are asked to quit. They are hired only if they agree to do so.

This was stated by WHO’s director of immunisation, vaccines and biologicals Dr Jean Marie Okwo Bele, who was in Delhi recently to participate in the 3rd Global Alliance of Vaccine and Immunisation partners’ meeting.

Dr Bele said: "We are no longer recruiting smokers under our tough new employment policy. All applicants to any of our offices across the globe are being asked whether they smoke. If they qualify for the job, they are being asked to quit smoking. Only on agreeing are they being recruited."

He said: "This decision is being communicated to all our global branches, to be put into immediate effect. As of December 1, all employment notices will include a line stating that the UN health agency has a smoke-free environment and does not promote tobacco use or recruit smokers."

Also visit: Quit Smoking Methods

Quit Smoking Products

Quit Smoking News

Best Way To Quit Smoking

2006-01-08T10:36:00.000-08:00

Butting In: Employers Penalize Smokers and Overweight Workers

By Ursula Furi-Perry

Some companies are enticing employees to lead healthier, more productive lives with a variety of "wellness" initiatives, including smoking-cessation counseling and products, weight maintenance plans, and exercise programs. Companies are promoting everything from a discount on smoking replacement aids and health club memberships to substantial discounts on health insurance premiums.

But in recent months, some companies have gone further, imposing what some critics say are stiff and unfair penalties against smokers and overweight workers.

A handful of companies, for instance, are charging employees who smoke higher insurance premiums. In states like Minnesota, that choice is protected by legislation. State law expressly allows employers to charge different premium rates as long as the differences reflect actual differential costs to the company.

Sandra Sandell, director of the Secondhand Smoke Resource Center at the Association of Nonsmokers in Minnesota, said that employers who are self-insured--those that offer health insurance to all their employees and bear its costs--may determine that it costs more to insure its smokers and then charge the extra amount to their employees who smoke.

"Smokers are not a protected class," she said. "If the employer determines that it costs more to insure its smokers, it can charge the extra amount to its employees who smoke." In fact, the laws of the state expressly allow employers to do so.

Nonetheless, employers must square their decision to provide different health premiums with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA,) which prohibits employers offering health insurance from requiring similarly situated individuals to pay higher premiums on the basis of any health-status-related factor.

"Employers may offer special discounts, rebates, and incentives in return for employees' adherence to wellness programs," said James McElligott, a partner practicing employer benefits law at McGuireWoods, LLP, in Richmond, VA. "To do so, they must meet some standards: the program has to be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease; the rewards must be proportionate; the employer must measure the reward strictly based on employees' adherence to the program; employees must have the opportunity to qualify for the program at least once a year; and employers must provide a reasonable alternative to those employees whose entry into the program may be unreasonably difficult."

Statutes such as Minnesota's may appear to be contradictory to HIPAA's standards, but states have the ultimate trump card in enacting insurance legislation. "The Minnesota statute is an attempt at balance," said Douglas N. Silverstein, partner at Kesluk & Silverstein in Los Angeles, who has substantial experience representing both employers and employees in labor and employment suits. "It reflects the legislative intent to protect lawful off-duty conduct while recognizing that smoking results in higher costs, which should be shared by employer and employee." Depending on interpretation, smoking in particular may or may not qualify as a health-status-related factor.

"Laws dealing with discrimination have traditionally made a distinction between immutable characteristics and (voluntary) behaviors," Mr. McElligott said. "Smoking is a mixed bag. While it is addictive and a difficult habit to break, it's also a behavior," rather than an innate characteristic. "It's also important to recognize that HIPPAA is fairly new," said Mr. Silverstein. "The issue may ultimately be resolved through the courts."

A growing number of companies are even beginning to refuse to hire candidates who smoke. Union Pacific Corporation reportedly recently implemented a trial program in several of the 23 states where it does business, vowing to hire only nonsmokers wherever possible.

The Pinellas Sheriff's office in Florida reportedly will not consider applicants who are smokers or have used tobacco products for six months prior to employment. In Washington State, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department not only refuses to hire smokers, it even asks employees to sign an affidavit promising not to smoke.

The reasons behind not hiring smokers are manifold. Simply put, experts say, smokers can be a great nuisance-and expense-in the workplace. In a recent survey of 47,000 workers in six companies, the MEDSTAT Group, a market resource and intelligence firm specializing in healthcare, determined that smokers cost employers $1,714 more per year than nonsmoker employees. Smokers also take more sick days and breaks during the workday, experts say. Furthermore, in a world of growing awareness about the detrimental effects of both smoking and secondhand smoke, employers simply do not want to project an image of endorsing tobacco use.

Employers are not barred from excluding smokers, experts say, because smoking is considered a lifestyle choice, not a disability or health problem. Therefore, smokers are technically not a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. In those states where smokers are not expressly protected by statute, not hiring tobacco users is basically legal. "Smokers are not a protected class," said V. James DeSimone, partner at Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman, an employment rights law firm in Venice, CA.

In fact, some courts have found for employers on the issue. "Where job applicants had to sign an affidavit of nonsmoking for a year, the Florida Supreme Court upheld that policy," explained Mr. Silverstein. "In effect, the court said that because smokers are constantly required to reveal whether they smoke, they do not have (a reasonable expectation of privacy)."

But not every state offers employers free reign to decline hiring smokers. Many states have enacted "lifestyle discrimination" statutes, prohibiting employment discrimination based on smoking, and even obesity and moderate alcohol use in some cases.

In New Jersey, for instance, the law prevents employers from denying employment or discharging from employment or taking any other adverse action against smokers unless the employer has a "rational" employment-related reason for doing so. New Jersey's statute explicitly prohibits employers from deciding between applicants on the basis of smoking.

California, Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Kentucky also have enacted legislation to protect smokers. "In those states, employees would probably have a pretty strong argument against adverse discrimination," Mr. Silverstein said.

Most of these "smokers' rights" statutes do allow employers some leeway: for example, employers may declare a smoke-free workplace and have smoke-free policies during work hours.

Some measures also protect against other forms of lifestyle discrimination, shielding those who may overeat or drink alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. In fact, obesity is becoming a growing concern among employers, so much so that employer-based weight management plans are becoming the next wave of smoking cessation programs.

But employers may not get away with charging obese employees higher health insurance premiums. Obesity is likely to be considered a health factor protected by HIPAA, even a disability in some instances.

"Chronic obesity has been recognized as a disability. Here, more clearly defined standards apply," said Mr. McElligott.

"Whether obesity is considered a medical condition may depend on its medical causes," Mr. DeSimone explained.

It is important to recognize the wider societal issues behind smoking and the workplace, experts say. "On one end of the spectrum, there's an individual's constitutional right to privacy," Mr. Silverstein explained, "on the other, there's well-accepted scientific data that smoking causes maladies, costs employers more, and makes healthcare more expensive. It's tough to resolve disputes when societal behaviors stand otherwise."

The effectiveness of employers' tough-arm smoking cessation techniques remains to be seen, although some experts prefer milder solutions. "Investing in employees through counseling programs and other methods is a better solution than charging higher health premiums as a type of punishment," said Dawn Robbins, Health Policy Coordinator for Tobacco Free Oregon, a statewide smoking cessation initiative. "I would rather see laws that encourage individuals than employers prohibiting people from seeking employment" based on smoking, Mr. DeSimone agreed.

Also visit: Quit smoking in a natural way

Additional Methods

2005-12-27T17:52:00.000-08:00

No Ifs, Ands or Butts:

Smokers Need Not Apply.

By Eileen Gunn.

Walk up to Union Pacific's headquarters in downtown Omaha, Neb., and the gaggle of smokers typically clustered outside office buildings these days is nowhere to be found. The company has banned smoking anywhere on its main property -- inside or out. Gradually though, where employees smoke will become less of an issue, because in Omaha and seven other states, Union Pacific won't hire smokers.

"We put so much time into helping employees to lower all these different health risks, it doesn't make sense to bring them in as smokers and then have to put all that effort into getting them to quit [smoking]," says Marcy Zauha, director of health and safety, who helped to put the hiring policy in place last summer.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer health-insurance premiums rose almost 14% between the spring of 2002 and 2003, marking the third consecutive year of double-digit growth. So companies big and small are analyzing their insurance claims to see which preventable, lifestyle-related illnesses are costing them the most. And they're coming up with a range of wellness programs, from in-office gyms to healthier cafeteria food to annual on-campus physicals to help employees avoid those health problems.

ComPsych, a company in Chicago that administers wellness programs, has seen its lifestyle-intervention programs go from being about 1% of its business five years ago to more than 15% today.

Kicking the Habit

Help for people who want to quit also is improving. "We know that a combination of medication and counseling helps more than the medication alone," Ms. Darling reports. Smoking-cessation programs often don't cost companies much, which means they can take a carrot-and-stick approach -- barring workplace smoking while lending support and even financial incentives like a discount on insurance to those who want to quit.

Union-Pacific makes prescription coverage for drugs like Zyban, used to treat nicotine addiction, available to all its employees -- a move that costs less than $10,000 a year, total, according to Ms. Zauha. When members of its largely male, middle-aged population take the drug, they also receive phone calls from wellness counselors and have access to occupational-health nurses at field offices.

This dual approach worked for Glenn Foppe, 54, a supervisor in the company's billing department who'd smoked for three decades up until three years ago. "I tried many times to quit. I tried gum, hypnotism, Smokenders," he says. He once even managed to quit for a few months while wearing a patch. But what finally did it, he says, was his Zyban prescription, which allowed him to gradually smoke less, and walk more, over 90 days. He also had counselors keeping in touch with him by phone and at work -- it was "a kind of reward" to have someone asking about his progress and eventually congratulating him on his success.

For its efforts, Union Pacific saw its smoking population shrink from 40% of its work force in 1990 to 27% in 2003. And, while lifestyle-related health-care claims have risen across the country by about 2.2% a year, Union Pacific's fell by 35% between 1990 and 2001, according to Ms. Zauha.

The Supportive Approach.

The policy so far hasn't hurt the company's ability to hire employees. Union Pacific operates in about 23 states but applies this policy in only a few locations -- where it's legal and the local labor pool is large enough that the rule won't make a discernable difference in the number of applicants.

In 2005, it will ban smoking on all its property nationwide -- a bold move for a railroad company that owns vast tracts of land. Still, Ms. Zauha and others concede that it's difficult to ever be 100% smoker-free, because "some people have made the decision to not quit and they're not gonna do it."

But every time they make it a little harder for employees to get to that next cigarette, "it reduces the number of people smoking during the day and decreases the amount of smoking going on overall," notes Rich Chaifetz, chief executive officer of ComPsych.

When Union Pacific asked employees not to smoke inside its buildings several years ago, Mr. Foppe kept up his two-packs-a-day habit on weekends, but cut down to about half that during the week without even trying. "You'd only have your 10-minute breaks to smoke as much as you can, and you really can't smoke much more than one cigarette in that time," he says.

Of course, employee morale and public image are tricky, another reason why even the most aggressive companies take care in how they implement these policies. "If you act like there's a new sheriff in town, you become the wellness Nazi and people resent it," says David Hunnicutt, president of the Wellness Councils of America. "That's why you have to be as creative and supportive as possible."

Better-organized companies give employees a few months' notice before starting a program like a campus-wide smoking ban. Lowe's, for example, gave employees nine months of lead time and worked with the American Lung Association to educate employees who wanted to quit in that time.

The company still heard from disgruntled employees and even customers about the policy. But, a spokesperson says, "the positives have outweighed the negatives. Anecdotally, we're hearing that productivity at some of the stores has gone up."

If employers' health-care costs continue to rise, and our knowledge about wellness gets still better, it's likely that employees will see more companies following in the tracks of Lowe's and Union Pacific.

-- Ms. Gunn is a free-lance writer in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Also Visit: Smoking v/s Employment

Quit Smoking Before You Are Asked To Quit Your Job.

Quit Smoking In A Natural And Easy Way.

2005-12-19T10:45:00.000-08:00

Employers Filter Out Applicants Who Smoke
By Cris Maher
From: The Wall Street Journal Online

Kick the habbit--or don't bother applying for the job.

That is the dictum at a growing number of companies that are adopting tough measures to eliminate smokers from their ranks in an effort to reign in health-care costs.Some are requiring job applicant to undergo nicotine testing or respond to questions about their smoking habbits.Others are forcing current emplyees who won't quit smoking to give up their jobs.

On Jan. 1, Weyco Inc., a small medical-benefits administrator, no longer will employ people who smoke at its Okemos, Mich., headquarters. Only nonsmokers will be considered for new openings, and current employees who are smokers and refuse to quit will have to leave.

Gary Climes, chief financial officer of Weyco, says the company notified its 200 employees about the new policy in the fall of 2003, and set up a smoking-cessation program to help smokers quit. "We've tried to counsel people to [quit and] stay, but there are some that are still trying to make those decisions," he says.

Such antismoking policies are problematic for companies with employees in states with smokers' rights laws. Twenty-nine states, including Illinois, have laws that prohibit employers from discriminating against smokers. As a result, Weyco will continue to employ one smoker in Illinois, even after its policy in Michigan goes into effect, Mr. Climes says.

Nevertheless, smokers increasingly face hiring hurdles even at companies that don't have formal antismoking policies. "There is discrimination at many companies -- and maybe even most companies -- against people who smoke," says Jay Whitehead, publisher of HRO Today, a magazine for human-resources executives.

Hiring managers who are instructed by their companies not to directly ask applicants about smoking (for fear of violating privacy rights) often discern smokers during interviews and reject them. Just because a question about smoking isn't asked directly "doesn't mean that hiring managers turn off their sense of smell," Mr. Whitehead says.

Investors Property Management Inc. in Seattle, began asking job applicants two years ago whether they smoked in an effort to eliminate candidates with the habit. Now, Dieter Benz, vice president of operations for the multifamily and commercial-property management company, says he is considering requiring applicants to undergo a blood test to prove they aren't smokers. "Even though all of our marketing materials indicate that we do not hire smokers, we still get people that are trying to slip in under the radar," he says.

Earlier this month, Mr. Benz fired a staffer after a burn hole in the upholstery of a company truck tipped him off that the individual was smoking, at least occasionally.

The company pays the complete cost of health-insurance premiums for its 14 employees. "In exchange for that you can't smoke," Mr. Benz says. The company makes one exception -- for a bookkeeper who has been employed since before the strict hiring policy took effect.

Some companies that employ smokers simply are charging them more for health-care coverage. And lying about one's habit can result in loss of health-care coverage or termination, says Richard A. Chaifetz, chairman and chief executive of ComPsych Corp., a Chicago employee-assistance and wellness provider.

Navistar International Corp., a Warrenville, Ill., truck manufacturer, will charge employees who smoke $50 per month more for their health-care coverage beginning next July.

Privacy-rights advocates and many smokers say companies are going too far in punishing employees for engaging in a legal activity. "It's crazy, because if you [smoke] in one context you're fine and in another you're not," says Dave Pickrell, founder of Smokers Fighting Discrimination, a nonprofit in Katy, Texas.

Also visit: Smoking v/s Employment

Quit Smoking In A Natural Way