AMERICAN EXPRESS SMOKING CASE
American express consideration of the policy of smoking employers seems to be farfetched even the reality emanating from the effects is quite clear. The rationale we see here is the adoption of a non-faction issue which should never be deemed part and parcel of job obligations. There are a number of several issues related to the ethical principles which can be adopted by American Express just to make sure that they make a sound decision on this issue which it will go a long way in affecting the personnel performance. Personal virtue and religious injunction carry a huge junk in a number of several key factors, managers are encouraged managers as well as employees to make their decision based on the ethical point of view (Janofsky, 2006). According to the principle of personal long-term, self-interest means that one should consider various things before taking action which you have no authority whatsoever (Azfzal, 2010). This can look like putting selfish interest first rather than the job itself you have been hired for but in consideration of what really makes us happy. The principle which requires us to abide by the law in the context itself has little representation in the moral standards of the society but as personnel, we are not in any way allowed to violate the existing law (Janofsky, 2006). American Express should be considerate enough to see that it does not infringe either side again is it legal to hire smokes? The answer is yes or merely no depending on the facts you give. The American Federal law seems to be void to tackle this question straight forward, it clear that unlike race, gender, ethnicity and so forth smokers are not in the anywhere near the category of protected class. Conversely, big organizations which happen to have several branches cutting across different states have been discriminating lifestyles and we hope America Express should not join such bandwagon. The freedom of discrete privileges states that employee would not ever any step which it would infringe the rights of the other.
First of all, American Express should consider the fact that ethics comprises a set of moral principles that is bound to define what could be right or wrong for a person. Society includes the employees which their decision will also affect them economically and socially, what difference will it incur in hire nonsmokers from the ethical accountability perspective (Janofsky, 2006). This might be the framing of the issue in regards to social responsibility will mean that American Express will incline to focus on benefits to the firm itself and society left aside. The individuals will have minimized cost and burden which might cause discomfort for a while, indeed, we want to drive the health care cost down but I am certain that this will not go down alone. How about setting up fines and time frame for these smokers so as to avoid constant wrangles, for sure it is discriminatory not to hire smokers (Azfzal, 2010). Let us acknowledge the fact that it a personal choice and the smokers who obviously are aware of the effects of it, it is an ill-advised choice but at the end of the day, it is personal; the choice which ought to be respected.
Reference
“Right to Smoke?” CFO, February 2006, 54; M. Janofsky, “Ban on Employees Who Smoke Faces Challenges of Bias,” The New York Times
- Azfzal, “Smokers Need Not Apply: Is Hiring Ban Trend of the Future?” The Christian Science Monitor, 17 November 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1117/Smokers-need-not-apply-Is-hiring-ban-trend-of-the-future [accessed 4 March 2011]; M. Hennessy
