Smokers Need Not Apply

Costs are driving the trend not to hire smokers. According to the CDC, a smoker will have 50 percent higher absenteeism, and, when present, will work 39 fewer minutes per day because of smoke breaks, which leads to 1,817 lost hours of annual productivity. A smoker will have higher accident rates, cause $1,000 a year in property damage (from cigarette burns and smoke damage), and will cost up to $5,000 more a year for annual insurance premiums. American Express, a financial services company, found that smokers were costing the company $5,000–$6,000 more per year than nonsmokers.

Nationwide, about 6,000 companies refuse to hire smokers. In 2020, U-Haul joined those companies and implemented a nicotine-free hiring policy in the 21 states where it is legal to discriminate on the basis of nicotine use.^[1] Few people would fault a company for trying to control costs and maintain a productive workforce, but the question is how far should a company go in pursuit of these goals? If companies begin by discriminating against smokers, they might next discriminate against people who are overweight in order to cut costs.

Suppose you are an executive at a company located in a state where you can legally decide not to hire nicotine users, would you implement such a policy to save costs?