Introduction
Strong evidence exists for advocacy against smoking in the workplace. Mallaina et al. (2013) asserted health risks associated with smoking speed up one’s personal death rate by 100 percent. Numerous studies have ubiquitously indicated, and have medically shown, that smoking is extremely harmful to human health. As of late, many companies’ Human Resources (HR) divisions have banned the hiring of smokers altogether, in accordance with their organizational policies. Meanwhile, myriad individuals who are smokers, disagree with such policies, claiming that hiring practice rejections on that basis, is discriminatory. However, a contemporary peer-reviewed, scholarly medical journal study, reported that cardiovascular disease and early deaths, have a direct bearing on “smoking as a significant predictor” (Mallaina et al., 2013, p. 1). In other words, smoking poses a major risk factor for heart disease, in terms of mortality. Fire departments have a special role in the demonstration of health and safety in the community. The City of Covington Fire Department should only hire non-smoking candidates because studies have shown that smoking can lead to many health issues, for the department, as well as the community as a whole. The hiring of non-smokers for Covington Fire Department will lead to better community service, revenue/costs savings, and promotion of a health-conscious attitude for the community to embrace.

Order Now
Use code: HELLO100 at checkout

Discussion
Oddly enough, arguments about smoking versus non-smoking in the workplace has become somewhat controversial. Smokers claim they have the ethical, or legal right to engage in their smoking habits on the job. Non-smokers are equally passionate, believing they have the right to be completely smokefree – particularly by experiencing freedom from second-hand smoke exposure at work. However, when a workplace industry represents health and safety, its hiring policies should be based upon best practices and a reflection of logic. Working at a fire department entails a plethora of serious, life-impacting operations. If a firefighter is a smoker, he or she may actually be slowed down in his or her physical abilities to perform lifesaving tasks. This is a serious indictment. First, a quick review is in order of the effects firefighter staffing implies, in terms of absenteeism.

The reason absenteeism, as appends to firefighting, is so critical regards the necessity of the provisions of lifesaving tasks performed. Firefighters must respond at a moment’s notice. Fry, Magazine, and Rao (2006) argued “A typical fire department is composed of multiple companies, where each company may have specialized geographic and functional assignments,” and each of these cooperating sectors need a “minimum of firefighters required for duty” (p. 353). If a firefighter employee’s health is impaired, due to smoking, the costs in revenues could be lost – as well as impact dangerous gaps in workforce-shift needs. Fire departments, due to the lifesaving services they provide, hold a special role of overall responsibility.

Aside from the possible factor that smoking, as a firefighter employee, could impact job performance, there is the human resources concern for mitigation of wastage in spending, and avoidance of unnecessary absenteeism. In other words, when minimum staffing for fire departments are not met, costs impacts on the organization ensue. Fry et al. (2006) illustrated this point, and argued from their research, that the many months of extensive training means that not all will graduate. Thus, only a few candidates make it through. Permanent and temporary absences of firefighters from duty can reduce the work-pool, and cause cost wastage. If you really think about it, this rationale makes sense. Firefighter employees are paid well. There are beneficial financial costs, for the City of Covington Fire Department to hire non-smokers, as well.

Given the fact that the Global Recession of 2008-2009 hit the international economy like a sledgehammer, controlling cost estimates for private industry and public agencies have been an issue. According to the research of Berman, Crane, Seiber and Munur (2014) excess annual costs for private employers in the United States, can be blamed on five aspects of smokers in the workplace. These areas of impact by smokers on the job, the researchers examined, included rates of “absenteeism, presenteeism, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers” (Berman et al., 2014, p. 428). Absenteeism had been described from the literature, while investigating this topic, as normally allotted sick days, and vacation time. Presenteeism is when employs show up for work, but are not fully well to adequately perform their duties. It’s one thing to sit at a desk job all day. But a fire department needs its firefighters to be in physically tip-top shape, as well as dispatch and operations management to be mentally clear at all times. The aforementioned report estimated annual excess-costs of a “smoking employee to a private employer,” of $5,816 each year (Berman et al., 2014, p. 428). This figure is per each smoking employee.

The personal health risks for smokers themselves are at stake. These risks are high, calculable, and enormous for all stakeholders, including their loved ones. In a compelling speech before a live, videotaped TEDx audience, medical physician Johnathan Ross said he sees the ills from smoking every day, and explained the medical scientific data supporting health reasons for not smoking (2014). Ross (2014) delivered a passionate plea about the problem of smoking hazards adversely affecting both communities and the nation. Ross (2014) offered statistics that 1,300 daily deaths are directly due to smoking, and correlated the annual data translating to 480,000 annual deaths (“Smoking – Johnathan Ross, MD,” 2014). Yet opposition against not hiring smokers, still persists.

A favorite, popular counterargument holds that smokers personal rights are being violated, when hiring personnel upholds policies which advocate the hiring of non-smokers. Despite the fact that human resources must be responsible for company budgeting costs, smokers still complain about companies’ hiring non-smokers, as their policy dictates. Workplace Fairness, an association dedicated to the rights of workers, echoed smokers’ concerns with a legal response asserting, “There is no federal law that governs smoking at work, so” regulations vary state-to-state (“Smoking and the Workplace,” 2017). Thus, the argument for smokers falls apart, since claims of discrimination are not founded upon legal grounds. Further more, employees in the workplace who are non-smokers, deserve the right to not breathe in cancer-causing pollutants destroying their heatlh. Common sense tells you, that even if smokers on-the-job have designated areas outside, smoke travels and non-smokers will still be at risk for second-hand smoke hazards.

Researchers, in a primary source, explored this notion. Sivri, Lazuras, Rodafinos and Eiser (2013), explored smoke-free policies in the workplace by studying socio-psychological motivations for non-smokers standing up for themselves, asserting their rights to breathe nicotine-free air while working. It was concluded that non-smokers assertiveness on the job, are driven by defending protection of their health, to breathe smoke-free air. Studying smokers in Greece, Italy, and the Netherlands, Mallaina et al. (2013), based on a scoring model predicted their random group held a “100% increased probability of death due to cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years” as compared to non-smokers (p. 9). In his book, Gregory Wood (2016) framed the smoking versus non-smoking ‘wars’ in employment as a political, socio-cultural issue. Yet, people are dying every day and Berman et al. (2014) remind lost productivity can append to absenteeism, referencing one source stating nearly 90,000 U.S. Army personnel, had “concluded that ‘current smoking’ was associated with a 60% increase in risk of lost workdays” for men, and 15% for women (p. 2). Thus, overall it behooves the best interest, for all involved, that the City of Covington Fire Department render the sensible, cost-effective, health-based standards for adoption of hiring non-smokers.

Conclusions
While it is true there have been arguments articulating viewpoints from both smokers, and non-smokers in the workplace, the final decision is in the control of HR personnel. Hiring practices governed by the Covington Fire Department must consider a wide gamut of concerns. The health of current and future employees is at stake. Personnel should set the tone for a healthy model for the community, demonstrate fiscal responsibility in handling operational/pension, and healthcare costs, and seek to protect non-smokers who may be the most at risk if smokers are hired. The supportive research herein, and the narrative of a logical rationale, have elicited good reasons for hiring non-smoker candidates for the City of Covington Fire Department.

    References
  • Berman, M., Crane, R., Seiber, E., & Munur, M. (2014). Estimating the cost of a smoking employee. Tobacco Control, 23(5), 428-433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012- 050888
  • Fry, M. J., Magazine, M. J., & Rao, U. S. (2006). Firefighter Staffing Including Temporary Absences and Wastage. Operations Research, 54(2), 353-365.
  • Mallaina, P., Lionis, C., Rol, H., Imperiali, R., Burgess, A., Nixon, M., & Malvestiti, F. M. (2013). Smoking cessation and the risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes predicted from established risk scores: results of the Cardiovascular Risk Assessment among Smokers in Primary Care in Europe (CV-ASPIRE) study. BMC Public Health, 13362. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-362
  • Sivri, C., Lazuras, L., Rodafinos, A., & Eiser, J. R. (2013). Smoke-free policies and non- smokers’ reactions to SHS exposure in small and medium enterprises. International Journal Of Occupational Medicine And Environmental Health, 26(6), 940-948. doi:10.2478/s13382-013-0166-3
  • TEDx Talks. (2014, October 9). Smoking – Johnathan Ross, MD / TEDx Toledo. [Web vlog comment]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbCPxyGn0
  • Wood, G. (2016). Clearing the air: The rise and fall of smoking in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  • Workplace Fairness. (2017). Smoking and the Workplace [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.workplacefairness.org/smoking-rights-workplace