Makes me furious that I quit smoking, as I can’t blow smoke at the screen in exasperation.

I happen to think that firing people for smoking is asinine, but I’m not going to join the debate as it seems to be currently framed, i.e. “should other people have to pay for your choices.” Anyone who’s a regular reader can probably work out what I think about that one, and I think it’s probably the wrong question to ask, since it nearly always devolves into absurdity, which I take as a good indication that it isn’t really about principles, but rather about rearranging the world to meet your own ideal.

In any case, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is actually a bad move for a company to make.  Even if you figure the publicity is a wash, they’ve narrowed the pool of potential hires not just by the percentage of people who smoke but also by the percentage of people who think they’re assholes, which is, I suspect, higher than some might think.  It’s good to be able to define your company culture, but you definitely take a risk when you exclude such a large group from consideration.  This sort of move also tends to give morale a good beating as people wonder what will be next, which can result in additional turnover.  And turnover is, as we all know, freaking expensive.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it were years before they saw any actual savings from this one.

And that’s not even touching on what their customers may think.

I suppose one could make the opposite case, that the best people will flock to a company where they don’t have to share space with undesirables, but I’m skeptical.  One could also assume that they computed all of this and they really did come out ahead, but it sounds like an emotional move to me, and it may be impossible to compute all of the intangibles anyway.  In any case, the company has a perfect right to do what they did--and the market has every right to kick their ass for it.  Be interesting to see what happens.

1. Now Deb, THAT’S the best argument yet that I’ve seen to say that the business owner shouldn’t be doing it. My whole point was the financial considerations from paying extra insurance for someone’s habit.

   You’ve made a good case that he wouldn’t save a lot of money. And that he WOULD save money was the entire point of my post at Dean’s.

   Thanks for the intelligent comment. I never thought of it quite that way!!! Good point!

   Posted by Michael  on  01/25  at  08:31 PM

2. I agree, this seems like a really stupid business decision. My take on the whole mess is that it has nothing to do with medical insurance costs and everything to do with Howard Weyers’ desire to browbeat people into living the way he thinks they should.

   Posted by G. Hamid  on  01/25  at  10:36 PM

3. That’s my take on it too.  “Insurance costs” is a crap excuse since the business could easily pass those on to high risk individuals.  These jerks just get off on bossing people around.  That’s too bad, because Deb’s right.  A disgruntled workforce that is afraid of their private life getting them fired is NOT going to be a productive workforce.

   Posted by caltechgirl  on  01/26  at  12:10 AM

4. Excellent point!
   I don’t smoke and I wouldn’t work for them because they are jerks.

   Posted by Scott Kirwin  on  01/26  at  01:48 PM

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main

Powered by ExpressionEngine