11 Dec 2011

Sample Essay: The Influence of Smoking on Hiring Decisions

Employers always find themselves in a dilemma when conducting recruitment drives. This dilemma becomes further complicated when ethical standards and values such as smoking and nonsmoking are imported into the recruitment exercise. As others remain undecided about the prospects of restricting the recruitment exercise to nonsmokers, the gains to be accrued from such a consideration are becoming increasingly apparent. It is becoming clearer that preferring nonsmokers to smokers in employment is more advantageous than being ambivalent towards the idea.

In the first place, Dalsey and Park (2009) quote the Center for American Progress, which was released in 2006 to explain that employers who do not hire smokers will have dramatically lower health care and health insurance costs. This is because; smoking increases the risks of respiratory infections yet the organization may have to settle the medical bills of the clients. This will heighten the organization’s expenditure.  The same development allays even the claims of rebuttals who maintain that adopting an indiscriminate recruitment approach ensures multiplicity of talents and skills.

Conversely, Dewees and Daniels refer to Tomkowicz and Lessack report of 2006 to argue that it is apparent that employers who do not hire smokers are motivated by their ability to reduce the resentment of smokers by non-smokers arising from the perception that smokers take breaks that are more frequent at work and increase the health care burden on non-smokers. The gravity behind this above claim is verified by the fact that smoking divides the personnel into two camps: while the nonsmokers will feel that, they are being polluted and being exposed to the dangers of passing smoking, the smoker will always see the assertion that he walks away when smoking as a needless bother. This eventually brews discord in an organization and eventually interferes with organizational performance. The smoke that lingers around the smoker will also widen this chasm further, as nonsmokers and the smoker will differ on the idea that the smoker remains outside for some minutes after smoking.

At the same time, while referring to the Arizona Republic and Sulzberger 2011 report, McShulskis (2011) waxes polemical that it must be remembered by employers that they can provide a safer and healthier workplace for all employees by ensuring the workplace will be smoke-free. Although opponents of this idea are likely to cite discrimination and the contravention of the rights of the smoker, yet, it remains an indisputable fact that by keeping smokers away from recruitment exercise, the entire workplace is guaranteed of fresh air and is totally freed from the dangers that accost passive smoking.

Greenberg (2009) remains poignant that as is elaborated by Center for American Progress (2006), Sulzberger (2011), and the Proactive Employer (2011), it has been discovered that employers who do not hire smokers will benefit from higher productivity among workers. In the first place, the time spent by smoking employees as they excuse themselves out of the working area for a smoking session will have been totally extirpated.  Similarly, the ability of smoking to drive a wedge between smoking and nonsmoking employees will have entirely been annulled. On the other hand, there is no benefit that can be accrued, by incorporating smokers into the recruitment exercise. While the positive attributes that are extant among smokers can be found among nonsmokers, the positive attributes that are spotted among nonsmokers cannot be found in smokers.


Any reason that would be advanced to gainsay the standpoint above cannot stand, given that all the propositions are feasible. Likewise, citing the locking out of smokers during recruitment drives as being tantamount to discrimination is in itself a fallacy since smoking is not a disability. Smokers can make resolutions to emancipate themselves from addictions, since smoking is a habit that can be both learned and unlearned.


Dalsey, Elizabeth & Park, H. Sun. “Implication of Organizational Health Policy on  Organizational Attraction,” Health Communication. 24 No. 1 (2009): 71-81.

Dewees, N. Donald and Daniels, J. Ronald. The Cost of Protecting Occupational Health, Journal  of Human Resources, 21 No. 3 (2010): 381-396.

Greenberg, Mark. Center for American Progress (CAP). Congressional Digest, 88 No. 7 (2009):   200-208.

McShulskis, Elaine. Workplace bans help employees quit. HRMagazine, 41 No. 8 (2011): 20.

Filed under: Sample essays — Tags: , , , — admin @ 3:21 pm
Place Your Order Now
Academic Writing Services:

Business / Professional Writing Services:

Free Essay Tips / Writing Guides:
100% Satisfaction Guarantee

We will revise your paper until you are completely satisfied. Moreover, you are free to request a different writer to rewrite your paper entirely, should you be unhappy with the writing style, level of research, communication, etc.

100% Authentic Research & Writing Guarantee

We guarantee that you will receive a fully authentic, 100% non-plagiarized work. Otherwise, we will just give you your money back.

100% Confidentiality & Privacy Guarantee

No one will ever find out that you have used our service. We guarantee that your personal information as well as any other data related to your order(s) will remain confidential to the extent allowed by law. It will not be shared with any third party unless you provide a written consent.