Ethics in the Workplace
Essay by review • February 14, 2011 • Research Paper • 1,957 Words (8 Pages) • 1,722 Views
Ethics in Management - PHL 323
Ethics in the Workplace Case Study Action Plan
Learning Team B: Cynthia Gibbs
Elizabeth Hedden
Dr. Christopher Klein, Facilitator
December 11, 2005
Ethics in the Workplace Case Study Action Plan
Introduction
In 2003, Weyco Inc., a licensed third party medical benefits administrator based in Okemos, Michigan, announced that effective January 1, 2005, they would no longer hire smokers (http://www.weyco.com/web/). They were changing their policy to a Tobacco-Free Policy, which would not only prohibit employees from smoking in or around the workplace, but outside the workplace, including in the privacy of their own homes. Employees who worked for Weyco Inc. were given a 15-month time frame to kick the habit. Weyco offered cessation classes and payment for medication and treatments to help employees quit smoking. In January 2005, four Weyco employees were terminated for refusing to take a smoking breath test.
Workplace Dilemma
Weyco's actions have created quite an uproar and spawned a controversial debate. This work place dilemma not only captured the attention of locals, but nationwide news coverage. The dilemma remains whether it is ethical for Weyco to regulate employee's tobacco use outside of the workplace. Opponents of Weyco's Tobacco-Free Policy argue that it is a violation of privacy. However, according to state and federal law, Weyco's actions are not illegal.
There are two main parties who are affected by this workplace dilemma; Weyco employees, both smokers and non-smokers, and the corporation, Weyco Inc. Money, health, privacy, and contradicting principles are all factors that play a role in each party's stance to either support or oppose Weyco's Tobacco-Free Policy.
Isolate the Problems
Being that Weyco is a medical benefits administrator, and they are "...in business to help other companies save money and improve employee health through innovative benefit plans," the corporation bases their principles on what they consider to be healthy lifestyles. Like any corporation, Weyco seeks to save money, especially since part of their business is to help other corporations save money. Weyco declares that "Michigan businesses have the right to protect themselves from the enormous financial harm that smokers inflict upon society. So do individual employees and taxpayers" (http://www.weyco.com/web/). Additionally, they provide the following information:
* Michigan's smoking-related health-care costs amount to $2.65 billion a year.
* Lost employee productivity due to smoking totals another $3.4 billion.
* Every Michigan household pays $557 in taxes for smoking-related illnesses annually.
* And each smoker costs his employer more than $4,000 a year in absenteeism, medical benefits, earnings lost to sickness or premature death, etc. (http://www.weyco.com/web/)
While Weyco will reap financial benefits from their new Tobacco-Free Policy, they proclaim that their actions are "...not just about saving money, it is about saving lives" (http://www.weyco.com/web/) Weyco points out the following to support their stance:
* Smoking kills 4.9 million people worldwide each year.
* In Michigan, the smoking death toll is 16,000 a year -- more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
* On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than non-smokers. (http://www.weyco.com/web/)
Lastly, in defense to the claim that they are violating their employees' privacy, Weyco declares that what employees do in the privacy of their own home is there business, "so long as it does not harm anyone else" (http://www.weyco.com/web/). In Weyco's opinion it would seem that they feel smoking can cause harm to finances and health to both employees and the corporation.
While Weyco may have some valid points, the fact remains that employee's who smoke feel that not only is their privacy being invaded, but they incur other sufferings as well. Many question "what other personal behaviors employers may seek to limit, even outside the workplace" (Schultz, M., Lee, A., and Lacy, E., 2005). Smokers also claim that they already pay high taxes for cigarettes and that in the process of quitting there are other health issues such as weight gain (Lacy, E., Lee, A., and, Schultz, M 2005).
Marisa Schultz, Amy Lee, and Eric Lacy of the Detroit News quoted Wendy Wagenhiem of The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan who stated, "At least two dozen other states prevent lifestyle discrimination, and that's possible in Michigan as well if people are concerned about their privacy, as well they should be" (Lacy, E., Lee, A., and, Schultz, M 2005). Additionally, according to Schultz, Lee, and Lacy, there are 29 other states that have laws regarding smoker's right, yet the 1.9 million smokers in Michigan do not have any laws to protect or help them. Furthermore, Michigan smokers feel they pay enough since they pay "one of the highest cigarette taxes in the nation" (Lacy, E., Lee, A., and, Schultz, M 2005). Now they may have to pay by losing their job and their income.
While most of the arguments are made by Weyco and employees who smoke, according to Barbara Wieland of the Lansing State Journal, "Nonsmokers who support the policy say it will pare health care costs and improve employees' lives." Additionally, Wieland quotes John Banzhaf, executive director of an anti-smoking group, Action on Smoking and Heath, who states that, "Smoking adds to the cost of health and disability insurance, and that expense is ultimately borne by the employer and fellow employees." In addition to bearing additional health care costs, non-smoking employees may also be bothered to hear that "smokers take about 6.5 more sick days a year than nonsmokers" (Lacy, E., Lee, A., and, Schultz, M 2005). Absenteeism from work causes lower productivity and more stress and frustration for the employees who are at work trying to pick up the slack.
Identify Key Problems and Issues
* An Okemos, Michigan company bans tobacco use among its employees, even when they are not at work. Have employers gone too far in trying to
...
...