Smokers Cost Employers Thousands More Than Nonsmokers

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

TUESDAY, June 4 -- Compared to nonsmoking employees, every staff member who lights up costs their employer nearly $6,000 more each year, according to a new report.

The researchers found that more time off, smoking breaks and added health care costs were to blame for this discrepancy. The findings could have implications for smoking policies in the workplace, they suggested.

"Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers," Micah Berman, of the College of Public Health & Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, and colleagues wrote. "The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies."

For the study, the investigators analyzed previous studies in order to estimate the costs associated with employing a smoker. In making their calculation, they also analyzed absenteeism, presenteeism (lower productivity while working due to smoking-related health problems), smoking breaks, health care costs and pension benefits for smokers.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/jobs/HealthDay676990_20130604_Smokers_Cost_Employers_Thousands_More_Than_Nonsmokers.html

[msongs]

1. low productivity as people use cellphones and netsurf on the job is way more costly than ciggies nt

[frylock]

14. don't have to leave the desk for that..

I can stare blankly at my active directory console waiting for the server to replicate, or I can check the box scores on espn while waiting for the server to replicate.

[RoccoR5955]

30. You can also

get lost on your box scores, while your AD console is done replicating.

My pet peeve is when someone gets on their cell phone at work, and speaks for an hour in broken English, very loudly. It drives me to a point where I have to go out and have a smoke or something, until said co-worker gets off the damn phone, and gets back to work.

[frylock]

41. i'm too damn busy to get lost in scorecenter or facebook

[Deep13]

53. Yes, but way more fun. nt

[Autumn]

2. I've never worked at a job where cigarette smokers got "extra" breaks.

It seems to me smokers get the same pension as non smokers. And I have known smokers who could work circles around non smokers too.

[OKNancy]

5. I must be an anomaly

I've smoked for a long time and haven't been sick in 30 years. No kidding. I haven't had to go to the doctor for a cold or flu or anything other than a bump on my shin.

[Autumn]

8. Same here Nancy

I haven't had a cold in 10 years and never get the flu, knock on wood. I go to the Dr. for my arthritis and check ups. And I can work circles around anyone half my age.

[Bonhomme Richard]

19. Same here. I don't miss work n/t

[RobinA]

28. This Article is Nonsense

EVERY smoker? This smoker misses maybe one day a year, doesn't even smoke at work, and doesn't use $6000 a year in health cost, let alone $6000 MORE than somebody else.

[leftynyc]

56. Same here

The only sick day I took in the last 5 years was after falling down some concrete subway stairs and not being able to walk.

[AAO]

16. Do you get 10-15 minute breaks every hour at your job?

I see the smokers out my window, I see how much time they take. One guy sits real close to me, and I've seen his behavior for years. These are salaried positions, very loose supervision, and where there are multiple locations you could be at anyone time. Still, I'm not the only one that notices. I think management let's it fly because they don't want to hurt productivity by being too strict.

My company, starting this month will enforce a new no-smoking on the property (large campus) policy, which was announced many months ago, along with smoking cessation options. It will be interesting to see how some people handle it.

[Autumn]

18. Nope. We got a 15 minute break in the morning, 30 minutes for lunch

and a 15 minute break in the afternoon. However management and office would get more breaks and some of our engineers went out for smokes real often. This was working in a manufacturing plant and shipping warehouse.

[pmorlan1]

48. Silly article

I've never worked at a job where smokers got more breaks than non-smokers. I'm sure any employer has people who go for an extra smoke just like you have those who make many trips to the bathroom, coke machine, coffee pot, etc. That is an employee who is breaking the rules and we all know that not all of them are smokers.

[AAO]

58. So you know what goes on in all companies/corporations? You don't speak for mine.

[Bonx]

61. We must be looking out the same window. -nt

[Warpy]

52. They sure do in hospitals

The smokers were always running off the floor for smoke breaks, leaving other already overworked staff members to watch their patients for the 10 minutes or so it took for them to suck as much nicotine into their lungs as possible, hoping no one coded while they were off the floor because they could get terminated for a poor outcome if one did.

An experiment done years ago did cognitive testing on non smokers, satisfied smokers, and deprived smokers. What they found surprised them. Nonsmokers did best, which everyone expected. Deprived smokers did poorly, which everyone expected. What they hadn't expected was that satisfied smokers did almost as poorly as the Jonesing smokers.

So yes, while some people might look like smoking tornadoes at work, their performance is impaired compared to what it could be if they didn't smoke.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. What about drinkers?

.
.
.

I know I have not showed up for work because of drinking.

Also, I've seen more than a few that DO show up obviously impaired, some even continuing to drink on the job.

And then there's the anal white hats that neither drink nor smoke, but don't produce a damn thing.

Then there is our harper-dude and his gang - now THERE's a waste of money . . .

and so on . . .

CC

[xchrom]

4. Shit happens when you hire human beings.

People probably should not smoke - but its none of the employers business.

[dbackjon]

24. When it costs the employer extra money

Yes, it becomes there business

[Gormy Cuss]

59. +1 n/t

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

6. At my own worksite,

there's a smoking area to the side of the two campus buildings. My office window faces on this area. I see the same people every 45 minutes. They stay there, chatting, for about 15 minutes. An average workday is 8 hours. This means that these employees are taking 8 15-minute smoking breaks. This is equivalent to 2 hours of work. Now, this time is not inclusive of bathroom breaks or lunch. It is simply the time they take to smoke, which I can easily verify from my office window.

For this aggregate time of 2 hours, no one else is doing the work these employees are supposed to be doing. I and everyone else in my office who does not smoke do not get the luxury of 15-minute breaks every hour on the hour.

This time does not even include going from desk to elevator or stairs (if the office is on the second floor), or walking to the smoking area, which is nowhere near a door.

[RebelOne]

12. I am a smoker and when I was working,

I took about 5 smoke breaks a day. I was doing the work of 3 people and always got my job done despite my smoke breaks.

[RoccoR5955]

31. So let's do some math.

They take 8 fifteen minute breaks, that would be 2 hours. Let's say three 5 minute bathroom breaks for another half hour, and a half hour lunch. Let's also take into account that they probably chat with their co-workers for about a half hour total each day, and it takes them 5 minutes to clock in and clock out each day. Elevators, and stairs... add another five minutes. That would come out to them working
That would mean that they are working 4 hours and 20 minutes each day, and those who didn't smoke, 6 hours and 20 minutes each day... How inefficient.

[kyeshinka]

7. what about the overweight?

Our business practically banned smoking a year ago. Nobody is ever absent for smoking, but our help desk tech takes 3-4 days off a month for being sick, and he's seriously obese, and the other help desk staff are working longer hours because he's no longer reliable. This being America, we'll continue to go after the smokers and ignore the more obvious problem.
Nothing personal against the obese, but I'm sick of the double standard.

[oberliner]

9. Smoking is a choice

Obesity is a condition.

[former9thward]

20. No.

Most of the time it is a choice. If it was a condition it would have existed 60 years ago in the same proportion as it does now. Human genetics have not changed.

[oberliner]

23. Yes

Obesity existed 60 years ago. It is not a choice. It is a human condition.

[Mosby]

42. smoking is an addiction.

It starts as a choice at a young age usually.

[former9thward]

43. It did not exist in the proportions is does now.

So is not a human condition. Stop making excuses.

[RoccoR5955]

33. Personally, from my experience

Help Desk workers, should get hazard pay, for the stress that they are under. They are constantly being bombarded by irate users, who refuse to read manuals or help files, and demand instant results. Many users have poor communication skills, and cannot iterate their issues, often just saying that something "doesn't work," and demanding that it get fixed pronto!
This leads to more stress, which can lead to obesity, more absences, and other issues.

[BillyRibs]

60. I call B.S.!

Haven't used a sick day in 2 years.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

10. Obesity is not the same as smoking

Frankly, it's tiring to see 'What about the obese?' on DU. The main difference between obesity and smoking is that obesity is sometimes caused by factors that have nothing to do with a person's eating habits or willpower. Smoking is 100% a choice that a person makes. Such a 'choice' becomes often a necessity, due to the addictive properties of chemicals contained in cigarettes, but it is still a choice.

A person whose thyroid has stopped working properly or whose estrogen levels are in hyperdrive, for example, has very little control over weight gain.

There is no doubt that obesity is costly and the negative effects of obesity lead to shorter lifespans and reduced productivity. But the underlying causes of obesity are not necessarily due to poor choices or someone's inability to stop eating.

Smoking does cause health problems, it does cause productivity issues and the side effects of it - particularly the smell - can irritate other workers. Unlike obesity, smoking is not due to hormonal imbalance, thyroid issues, pancreas/liver functions, etc.

I'm glad some of you smokers have been healthy so far. But you are a small number of lucky individuals who have not been affected by smoking, directly or indirectly. I wish my dad could claim his 20 years of chain smoking didn't contribute to arterosclerosis or bladder cancer. I wish I could say that my mom and dad's many years of smoking didn't contribute to my asthma.

Some have used drinking as another example of a tolerated vice. Well, I don't know about your workplace, but in my workplace I do not see anyone going on breaks to chug on a beer bottle. Drinking in moderation is also not going to make an average person into an impaired and dangerous human being. More importantly, there is no such thing as second-hand drinking.

[Aristus]

11. To say nothing of the fact that obesity is the result of something that is perfectly natural and

biologically necessary: eating. Sure, eat too much, and exercise too little, and you're going to be obese. (The thyroid and other factors I leave for another discussion). But smoking is a choice. And a bad one, at that. Certainly not biologically necessary, like eating.

So: false equivalence of a kind not uncommon among smokers when trying to justify their habit. And I see it took no time for the super-smokers to start beating their chests. "I've smoked 4 packs a day since I was 5! Never been sick a day in my life!"

Or:

"I smoke, and I work hard; ergo: all smokers are hard workers. Every non-smoker I know goldbricks his way through life!"

I should know better than to comment on these "Smoking is a gift from God, and everybody should do it, just like me!" threads. I'm going to get savaged. Just you watch...

[RILib]

13. thyroid

Unless they can't afford the med, at about $3 a month, a bad thyroid is no excuse.

[former9thward]

21. Excuses.

None of them valid. How come we did not have obesity in the same proportions 60 years ago?

[alarimer]

25. Try putting blame where it belongs, on the corporations.

These mega-giant corporations selling giant portions, for one, with little accountability for what is actually in the food.

I place a large share of the blame for smoking deaths also on the corporations.

[former9thward]

44. Of course you do.

Because you think people are mindless and have no choice in life.

[Hugabear]

40. You make it sound so easy

Yep. It's all simple choice. Americans just CHOSE to get fat. That's all there is to it.

[former9thward]

45. Yes they do.

I suspect you are in that category. There is a reason so you are so defensive.

[RoccoR5955]

35. The smell from smokers,

in many instances is less offensive than some of the "fragrances" that some people seem to bathe in.

Smoking can sometimes be triggered by the need to relieve stress. I am not saying that it is a healthy relief for stress, but it is one none the less.

Not all obesity is a condition. Much of it comes from the choice of what and when people eat. Again, eating is sometimes a stress relief mechanism. It also may not be a totally healthy one, but it does exist.

[Politicalboi]

15. Most jobs don't have

"Smoke breaks" anymore. You have to wait till break. I've worked with so many lazy people who don't smoke. Those are the ones who need the ax.

[quadrature]

17. needed... pre-employment fitness test

to get rid of the obese.

everybody wins with fitness

[RoccoR5955]

37. No they don't

What about those who are physically challenged in some way or another, but can do their jobs better than those who are "physically fit?"

[totodeinhere]

46. If they can do their jobs better than those who are physically fit then I'm sure

that employers will hire them. After all, they want the best employees they can find.

[madville]

22. I work in multiple locations at times

One location has a no smoking policy, the smokers have to walk 100 yards down the road off company property or drive off in their car to smoke.

Another place is more lax, there is a core group of 4-5 smokers who take 5 minutes about every 30-45 minutes for a smoke break. But the boss smokes as well at that location and is right there with them.

[onehandle]

29. '5 minutes about every 30-45 minutes for a smoke break'

That certainly supports parts of the study.

[Bonx]

62. Our smokers smoke right outside the building entrances.

Including one who had open heart surgery last year.

[alarimer]

26. There is an awful lot of defensiveness regarding smoking on this thread.

By diverting attention from the facts, that smokers, in the aggregate, cost employers money, one way or another. You can try to change the subject but facts are facts.

I don't believe that employers should have the right to dictate what people do in their free time, nor do I believe they have the right to punish employees for perfectly legal behavior, for the simple reason it costs them money. I believe they should offer incentives for changing some of these things (classes, gym memberships, whatever). More of a carrot than a stick, but it should not be mandatory.

[onehandle]

27. Shh...

Don't provide solutions. Be reactionary. It's more entertaining.

[RobinA]

34. Well, Except

I don't buy this "fact." Some people use more health insurance dollars. Some of these people are smokers, some drink, some just get sick more and some are parents.

[RoccoR5955]

36. Pregnancy can cost businesses money too...

Are you saying that it should be banned in the workplace as well, or should the employers provide free birth control for those who might need it?

Please note a little bit of sarcasm in my reply.

[davidthegnome]

32. I'd be interested in a comparative analysis...

that statistically determines how much money your average smoking employee earns as opposed to your average non-smoking employee. In my experience, people who are comfortably upper middle class or wealthy tend not to smoke as much. I don't know why this is - you'd think it would be the opposite, considering how expensive they are. Visit your standard hospital, generally, smoking is no longer so popular among administrators. However, check out the nursing staff. The housekeeping staff is also likely to have more smokers.

The primary difference that the zero tolerance (for smoking on company/hospital/whatever grounds) policies are making is that smokers now have to walk a greater distance away from their workplace in order to smoke - which requires more time, which will actually cost the employer a little more money, if we're going to be specific. That is, of course, unless the breaks are limited very precisely - I find that that's rarely the case in work settings that aren't too terribly corporate or federal.

I'm curious as to what exactly this "research" is attempting to prove. Is it simply pointing out the obvious? The obvious, being, of course, that, yes, smokers cost a bit more money than non-smokers in regards to health related issues and break time - on average. So now that we have established what we already knew, what exactly is going to be done about it? Will employers start to overlook potential employees who smoke? Because, if they do, then they might start with alcohol next, or marijuana, or any other personal habits that people have varying opinions about.

What really annoys me, isn't the issue of whether or not smoking is bad for you, or more expensive for employers, of course it is.

What annoys me, is that people feel the need to make ignorant assertions about the apparent character flaws of anyone who may smoke. Even as a child, some of the anti-smoking crusaders that came to visit the school said outright that smokers were dumb, that you shouldn't be friends with anyone who smokes.

It's a great load of crap. Pretending that being a non-smoker makes one morally superior is absurdly idiotic.

[RobinA]

38. At This Moment

In time it's righteous to bash smokers. At another moment it will be OK to bash some other group. The fact is, people have been smoking for centuries and civilization has somehow survived. Society seems to need groups to bash. One day women who show their ankles, today smokers, tomorrow...

[totodeinhere]

47. It's not a matter of bashing smokers. We can all agree that it's an addiction

that most smokers acquired at a young impressionable age that they wish they could kick. But I don't think it's bashing them to try to work to mitigate some of the problems that smoking can cause including its effect on non smokers who come in contact with it.

And if indeed smokers cost employers more money then it's not bashing smokers to want to discuss the issue and look for solutions.

[Kablooie]

39. I wonder if Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce knew that?

[pmorlan1]

49. More precedent

Sounds to me like employers are stressing their employees out so much that employees are now turning on each other. What are you guys, who find it so easy to go after your fellow workers, going to do when the only one's left for your employers to go after is YOU? After you throw your fellow employees under the bus what makes you think it will save you money? This isn't about saving you money, it's about setting precedent for other cost cutting measures. Smokers are just the easiest target because they are a minority. Once you buy into discriminating against smokers they can then move on to making up studies about other things people do that THEY SAY cost them money. Why are you helping them?

[Live and Learn]

51. +1 nt

[suffragette]

57. +1,000

[pmorlan1]

50. Go After Walmart

You want to save money. Don't go after smokers go after Walmart. They're the ones REALLY costing you money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022938869

[Deep13]

54. Are you sure this is "late breaking news?"

Haven't we known this for decades?

[onehandle]

64. That was my first thought.

However, studies should be done on subjects occasionally to confirm that what we knew then, is still correct.

Which in this case, it is.

Which is why the NRA is suppressing studies on guns. It's clear that gun culture is a greater danger to the common good than ever, and they don't want us to see exactly how bad it's gotten.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. Well that's it then, all the good people should just start shooting smokers on sight! n/t

[MrSlayer]

63. I never cost anyone an extra dime.

I quit smoking but I never cost anyone a single penny more than anyone else. I never get sick, I didn't take undue breaks (you can smoke on construction sites) and I never took any more days off than anyone else. in fact, I never take off at all when I'm working. This is such horseshit.

Maybe it's just that sickly, genetically inferior people get sick more often and smoking has nothing to do with it. I'll bet you non-smokers with allergies miss way more time than smokers without them.