A board member for American Express has brought up the fact that some companies are starting to refuse hiring smokers and that the same should be discussed at the next month’s meeting. He brought this to attention due to the fact that medical costs are rising 10 to 15 percent a year. Employing a smoker, on average, cost about $4000 more a year because of higher Health-Care cost and lost productivity. Smokers will have 50 percent more absenteeism and because of smoke break will work 1,817 hour less a year, that’s 39 minutes of lost productivity per day even when they’re present.
Would it be ethical for American Express to not only refuse smokers but to fire current employees that smoke, or is it the choice of the person to make whatever decision they please? There are a lot of people this decision could either detriment or benefit. The stakeholders that would be directly affected are the employees, smokers or not, and potential employees, and customers. The company’s competitors are even affected in that American Express might make the wrong decision therefore impeding the harmony of the company and causing the competitors to flourish.
Shareholders could possibly see changes happening as well. If they are active and involved with the company they could be upset with whatever decision is made. That would make them think twice about investing in American Express again. But on the other hand is they are happy with the decision they might even invest more in the company because they believe in what values and morals the company and investor have in common. The first option to bring up in the meeting would be to simply do nothing and go on hire as the company always has.
The Business plan on Enterprise Architecture at American Express
Critical facts American Express, located in New York City, was founded in 1850 (Corporate Profile, 2015). It is one of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (Corporate Profile, 2015). American provides services such as credit cards, charge cards, and traveler’s checks (Corporate Profile, 2015). American Express cards account for 24% of credit card transactions in the U.S. (Corporate ...
If there is no reason to worry about smokers in the company there is no reason to make any changes that might have bad affects. Secondly American Express could do the opposite and take every action needed to not hire smokers and get rid of current ones. This would be in the best interest of the monetary value of the company. Hours would not go wasted, productivity would most likely increase, medical and insurance premiums would decrease which would increase the company’s net income.
This extra income could be given back to shareholders, and employees in the form of dividends and/or bonuses. The bad aspect about this decision is that the company’s Public Relations could take a hit and have people like Jay Whitehead and Paul Sherer on their back making bad remarks about the company. A third option is to continue considering every eligible applicant whether they are a smoker or not but ask for that information on the application and take it into more consideration then it already is.
If two people apply for the same job and are equally qualified for the job but one is a smoker and one is not, the nonsmoker would be hired. Taking this approach would limit the amount of smokers that come into the business at the same time not causing any discrimination problems. Lastly American Express could tell potential employees that smoking is prohibited at the firm due to legitimate reason such as past expenses in property damage and other costs.
If a smoker is hired and is able to work efficiently without smoking then it all works out. If the persons work is affected by not being able to smoke then the company could give them a period of time to quit smoking. This gives people that smoke a greater chance to be and stay hired. I believe the decision should be based on a hybrid the interests of the firm and the interests of people’s individual rights. This also goes for what type of decision is being made at hand. This decision is an ethical one as well as a social.
It would not be ethical to just refuse smokers without even knowing how they work and what they have accomplished, it would be socially moral either. Not hiring smokers is absolutely discrimination but to a certain degree. People that smoke have chosen themselves to smoke; it is not like race whereas people cannot decide their ethnicity. That all being said I would go with the third choice because it is the only decision that lets everyone feel like they won. The firm improves their business, smokers are still considered for hire, and no one looks like the fool in the end.
The Dissertation on Is John Lewis the Best Company in Britain to Work for.
Is John Lewis the best company in Britain to work for? It is owned by its employees – or partners – who have a say in how it is run, and receive a share of the profits. Surely this is the way every organisation should be run . . . * * * Jon Henley * The Guardian, Tuesday 16 March 2010 * Article history John Lewis's flagship store in central London Photograph: Alex Segre / Alamy/Alamy It's just ...
