The people in the workplace can be categorize into two groups: the employer and the employees. The employees work for their employer and in turn the employer has the duty and responsibility to ensure that the minimum safety requirements are met. However, employers are not required to provide health insurance benefits to their employees. More often than not, providing health insurance benefits is very costly to the employer and in an attempt to mitigate the costs, employers’ encourage employee participation in various healthy lifestyle programs and initiatives as well as providing incentives for their participation in such programs. These kinds of action are not always met with enthusiasm, some find it unreasonable to be expected to do so on their own time to change their lifestyle to suit their employers.
Weyco Inc. had a no-smoking policy, where employees were banned from smoking both in the workplace and outside the workplace. This policy also applied to spouses of employees who were also being covered by the company’s health insurance. To ensure employees were not breaking the policy, Weyco Inc. required its employees to take a test that would reveal whether they smoked. (Cohen & Grace 79)
The theories of utilitarianism which is a branch of consequentialism and deontology both focus on what makes an act right, or in this case a controversial policy justifiable. However, there are intrinsic differences to both in term of what the meaning of morality and their ultimate goal. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the maximum benefit that can be achieved for everyone. (Cohen & Grace 14) While, Deontology is concerned with balancing the need to be both legally in the right and morally in the right. (Cohen & Grace 16) In followi...
... middle of paper ...
...s invasion outside the workplace, the limits to how much they can influence and invade personal lives become increasingly blurred. However, encouraging and offering incentives to employees to comply with this policy outside the workplace is not wrong as it would benefit the employees to do so. Having this policy inadvertently discriminates its employees based on their location, as discrimination whether direct or indirect is ethically integral to determining something as justifiable. As the process of justification is indeed like smoking, after doing it once, it becomes easier to do it again. Once it is done successfully to one case, it becomes more malleable as it can become synthesized to more and more complex and controversial cases.
Works Cited
Cohen, S., Grace, D. (2010). Business ethics: Canadian edition. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
...ter for obese individuals than for average weight individuals. The healthier workers are, the fewer medical services they use. The five leading causes of death in the U.S., heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes — are directly linked to unhealthy lifestyles. Clearly, encouraging healthful habits presents an opportunity to improve workers’ well being, reduce the need for medical services and help control costs.
In every workplace smoking is banned but it is not banned for the outside of the workplace. Smoking is a habit known by many for this may be caused by stress from either workplace or home situations. Smoking is a health hazard to everyone but it may affects others at a different pace or in different ways. Within this essay there will be why ‘Smoking should be banned in the workplace (inside and out)’. One the main reasons why is because of the health risks that are caused from smoking.
Jennings, M. M. (2009). Business ethics case studies and selected readings. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
In current events, a huge issue among state and city lawmakers all over the country is the debate over whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. Many argue that allowing people to smoke in public places proposes serious health risks for innocent bystanders. Though the health risks are high, many still oppose the proposal of such laws. Business owners presiding over such establishments as bars and restaurants worry that the smoking bans will severely hurt their revenues if passed. While this is an understandable concern, the health of our communities citizens is much more important than the loss of a handful of customers for businesses.
Jennings, M. (2009). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, worldwide, and most importantly, in New York. Although the tobacco industry appears to be a beneficial addition to our economy, it has been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to our government; but the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality, disability, and pollution, the government winds up having to provide the funds to programs related to these issues. If current smoking patterns continue, by 2030 the proportion of tobacco related death will be one in six, about 10 million deaths per year (World bank). There are scientific articles regarding the relation of premature mortality and disability to tobacco use. Places where tobacco use is commonly used, about ninety percent of cases of lung cancer, fifteen percent of cases of other cancers, seventy-five percent of cases of bronchitis and emphysema and twenty-five
Zupek, Rachel. "Smokers Drag Down a Workplace." CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Aug. 2007. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of the "triple bottom line". Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211
Moon, C & Bonny, C 2001, Business Ethics: Facing Up to the Issues, 1st Edition, Profile Books Ltd, Great Britain.
Those who are against smoker discrimination contend that placing employment restrictions on smokers, while may be meant for the good of society, will have an adverse effect on smokers, perpetuating health disparities, by taking away needed income which makes it harder to obtain health coverage. Therefore, the policy, intended for the greater good, could result in negative consequences that outweigh the benefits, implying that there is a double effect to the situation (Roberts, 2014). Another argument is the very obvious issue of personal liberty. No company should be able to dictate what an employee does while off the clock. A company that sets a smoker-free policy is unfairly using their power to control parts of workers’ lives that should be left to the discretion of the worker alone. Smoker discrimination is an indirect way of forcing a worker to live a life parallel to what the employer considers acceptable by withholding the right to make a living. This creates a “might equals right” justice system, where the companies who hold all of the money hold the power to dominate workers, who will be obliged to adhere to such standards in order to feed their families. Although the amount of companies employing this strategy is limited for now, if the numbers continue to grow, there are forty-seven million Americans who will end up out of work or be forced to quit participating in a completely lawful
This essay argues that managers should attempt to manage the employee’s body as it impacts various parts of the organisations especially the organisations overall performance. Section One drawing on Goss’ (1997) ‘Healthy Discipline? Health Promotion At Work’ explores the body’s impact on performance, where mangers implement health programs to improve their well being as well as their ulterior motive to increase employee’s optimum performance. Health programs stimulate healthier behaviours’ by avoiding unhealthy habits such as smoking, consumption of alcohol and lack of sleep which Brewis and Grey (2008) draw the implications to the body and more importantly performance in the workplace. The new stress of health programs and participation as an indication of job commitment are explored by Goss (1997), which draws on the repercussions of the introduction of these health programs to manage the body. Section two follows examining the body as a representation of the organisation as it communicates an employee’s work ethic and the organisations culture through employees’ behaviour. Kate Moss’ modeling scandal will be alluded to, as an example of the consequences of conflicting values between the organisation and the employee. Section three furthermore examines managing the body as a form of control to reiterate the power structure within the organisation. The power structure of the organisation must be maintained to ensure the balance within the organisation and assist the organisations achieve its desired outcome (Dale and Burrell 2008). Hence, as the body impacts many parts of the organisation it is an integral part, which must be managed, as it not only affects the organisation temporarily but also perpetually.
Jennings, M. (2010). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
In the perfect situation, smoking policy would be set by bar or restaurant owners, and customers would patronize the establishments with the policy they prefer. Customers would decide-without the government's help-if they want to avoid smoke-filled rooms or enter them. They might even choose to sit in an area sectioned off for smokers or non-smokers, but the ultimate issue is choice (Ruwart 1). When the government starts telling restaurant owners what their customers can and cannot do, the government is overstepping its boundaries.
...n has contributed to a significant decrease in the prevalence of smoking related diseases. Although the smoking ban seems to be effective, some pro-smoking arguments consider it to be rather extreme. The government can come to a compromise that is beneficiary to both smokers and non-smokers. The smoking ban can be reviewed such that it permits large buildings to have designated indoor smoking areas and smoking licenses can be issued for buildings with proper ventilations. Smoking is a lifestyle choice and although it may pose possible harm to healthy living, smokers should not be treated as pariahs but rather should be encouraged to live a more healthy life. The government should also make efforts to create awareness of the dangers smoking is likely to cause to the younger generations. Stigmatization is dangerous for any individual and should not be encouraged.
As ethical debacles regularly occur, it is clear that business ethics are not a fad (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).