There’s a controversy brewing in Texas.  An employer, the Baylor Health Care System, has decided that it will not hire smokers.  Period.  End of story.  If you use tobacco, in any form, you will not get a job with their company.  The reason?  Healthcare costs.  Smokers cost employers $200 billion a year in lost productivity and higher medical costs.  So in a tough economy, or in any economy, can you blame them? 

One person interviewed about the policy says that she doesn’t like it because she doesn’t think it is fair.  Cassie Grooms says, “We all have the right to smoke a cigarette.  I can understand not [smoking] on their property, but to not hire somebody for smoking…”.  Trust me, Cassie Grooms is not alone.

Cassie Grooms has as much of a right to smoke as this company has not to hire her because of it.  The fact is that Cassie Grooms does not have a right to a job.  The job belongs to the employer.  When hiring, the employer is making an investment, and what good business person wouldn’t want to make the best possible investment?  Hiring a smoker will likely cost you more, they won’t be as productive and what does their choice to smoke say about their ability to make wise decisions?  

Facts --- and I know that these are generalizations and that there are exceptions, but the generalization rules: 

• Smokers test lower in intelligence tests than non-smokers
• Smokers have poorer work habits than non-smokers
• Smokers incur higher health costs than non-smokers
• Smokers stink up the workplace
• Smokers are less productive than non-smokers

The question here is not why Baylor Medical would decide not to hire smokers.  The question is why anyone would hire them in the first place. 

We need more companies like the Baylor Health Care System.