Everything for People Concerned About Smoking & Nonsmokers' Rights
FIRST on the Internet for Smoking News and Documents
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
 
 
 Home  Search  About ASH  Why Join  Comment  Email page

ASHPR: CBS Holds Up Story After ASH Questions its Accuracy,

Then Reports Anti-Smoker Employment Policy Favorably as a "National Model"and "New Reality" [01/21/06-1]

The CBS Evening News, which held up for two days a planned report on firing smokers after ASH publicly suggested that it might be inaccurate or misleading, finally aired it Friday evening [1/20/06].
FOR ASH's EARLIER RELEASE, ASH PR: CBS-TV Holds Smoker Piece Following Complaint [01/19/06-5], see:
http://no-smoking.org/jan06/01-19-06-5.html

As then aired after the delay, the piece was generally quite favorable in reporting on a new policy by Scotts Miracle-Gro to fire all employees who smoke, even off the job, pointing out how unnecessarily expensive it is to employ them.  CBS closed by suggesting that firing employees who smoke may be a "national model" and a "new reality."  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/eveningnews/main1227183.shtml

The CBS broadcast pointed out that "it's estimated that smokers cost an extra $4,000 a year each for health care costs and lost productivity," and that "thirty percent of Scotts' 5,300 U.S. workers smoke."

This means that, although smoking is prohibited on Scotts premises, off-the-job smoking by Scotts' 1590 smoking employees still costs Scotts over $6.3 million each year – according to the figures reported by CBS.  This amounts to over 25% of the company's annual health care cost of $24 million.

That (also according to CBS's figures) works out to over $1,700 for each nonsmoking employee -- money which could otherwise be used to reduce the health care premiums these workers pay, add more comprehensive drug coverage, or for other purposes.  This, Scotts' CEO Jim Hagedorn is quoted as saying, is a major reason why the company is moving to establish a smoke-free work force.

Since responsible broadcasters always try to feature quotes from both sides on controversial issues, it is interesting that the only employee who is quoted in the report is a smoker who doesn't object to the new policy.  Instead she says that "he is giving [employees] a choice." 

Interestingly, the only person who is quoted  in opposition to the policy is an attorney who, at least according to the piece, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the company or any of its employees, and doesn't suggest that the policy of firing employees who smoke is illegal in any way.

The piece now correctly reports that so-called smokers' rights'  laws simply prevent employees from being fired because they smoke; not that the laws necessarily prevent discrimination against smokers in hiring, promotion, salaries, etc. – the very point ASH had made in its press release.  Indeed, CBS notes that in states where they cannot be fired for smoking, employees who smoke off the job can still be required to pay more for health insurance.

The CBS piece also notes that Scotts is taking other steps to try to reduce its employees' enormous health care costs.  These include an on-site clinic with a doctor for the workers, a drive-through pharmacy, a new gym etc. – all of which cost millions of dollars a year.  Interestingly, the only health-promoting and cost-saving program which does not cost the company any money is firing smokers. Yet, as CBS's figures show, the payoff is enormous – 25% of its total health care bill, perhaps far more than from all the other company-sponsored wellness measures.

CBS concludes its report with words which seemingly lend support to the position ASH and many other antismoking and nonsmokers' rights groups have taken –  that firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees.

“Some smokers try to complain that their rights are being violated by these policies, but every court which has even considered the issue has held that there is no right to smoke” says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).  Clearly, smokers have no legal or moral right to force others to pay for the enormous health care and other costs of their smoking, he argues.

In closing, CBS seems somewhat supportive of the new policy, and suggests – as ASH does – that it represents the long-overdue wave of the future: "Change is never easy, but it's the new reality for these workers.  And, if it works, everyone's bottom line will look better."

 


footer
 Home Web Page  Search This Site  Learn About ASH  Why Join ASH  Comment on This  Email This Page

Raising Smoking in a Custody Dispute
Smoking in Condos and
Apartments 

File Complaints Against Smoking
Toxins in Tobacco Smoke
Dangers of Secondhand Smoke
Govt. Rpt. on Secondhand Smoke
Tobacco Class-Action Law Suits 
Sue-Big-Tobacco List of Lawyers
Tobacco Settlement, Multistate
ASH's New  International Site
Smoking Facts & Statistics
Children and Smoking


Presented as a public service by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
2013 H Street, N.W., Wash., DC 20006, USA, (202) 659-4310.
ASH is a 36-year-old national legal-action antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization which is entirely supported by tax-deductible contributions.
  Please credit ASH, and include ASH's web address: http://ash.org