SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS

As more and more organisations go smoke-free, a major questions arises. That is, what do the smokers do? In such organisations, the answer si simple. They go outside to smoke. But that raises other issues, like lost productivity while employees are outside smoking, or cleanup of ashes and butts scattered on the ground. Should smokers have rights? It has become well-documented that smoking can create health problems. Accordingly, health insurance premiums, as well as othe premiums like life insurance, are significantly higher for those who light up. And in most cases, employers have passed these increased premium costs on to the worker. Companies have become more stringent in developing policies on smoking, and many have banned smoking on company premises altogether. Clearly, the smoker today is disadvantaged, but how far can that go?
Can an organisation refuse to hire someone simply because he or she smokes? Depending on the organisaton, the requirement of the job, and the stat in which one lives, they might! Even so, employers may take this one step further. Companies may, in fact, be able to terminate an individual for smoking off the job--- on ana employee's own time. Do you believe companies have the right to dictate what you do outside of work? If an organisation can take such action against employees for smoking, and justify it aon the grounds that it creates a health problem, what about other things we do? Eating too much fatty food can create a health problem, so should we be susceptible to discipline for being caught eating a Big Mac? Some members of the medical community cite how one or two alcoholic drinks a day may in fact be therapeutic and prevent the onset of certain diseases. Yet, alcohol can be damaging to humans. Accordingly, should we be fired for having a glass of wine with diner, or drinking a beer at a sporting event? What do you think? How far should we permit regulating "wellness" in our organisations?