An Escape From the smoke?
In 1993 Ted Stevens suffered an asthma attack that had him rushed to the hospital and demanded surgery. Ted worked for a prestigious company; however Ted was a smoker so due to this fact the company refused to pay for the surgery, despite the fact that he had health insurance. So with these ramifications taken against Ted was the company doing the right thing? Well this would be answered after Ted took the company to court. The answer according to the judge was no it was not as there are other health risks other than smoking and smoking has no affect on the job that he was participating in. Now we are brought with the Scotts Lawn Company they wish to require workers to give up smoking cigarettes or they will be fired.
First of all it seems highly unjust that because a person undertakes in the act of smoking that they must quit just because the employer pays for the health insurance. It?s unfair because there are other health risks that can boost up health insurance as well. For instance if a person is obese should the company require that they stop eating? Even then to what point can they enforce this rule to which all smokers quit smoking? Even if a person what about the affects of second hand smoke which is just as bad as smoking. So ether way it cancels each other out making this and obscure requirement.
On another note it?s not like smoking has a direct affect on the job. To be honest if anything there are people in the workforce that see it as a valiant escape from stress that working at company can bring. Plus forcing employees to quit smoking will cause a decrease in moral. Something that brings down moral will indeed cause a rambunction
