Ethical Issue at Work

Ethical Argument: Smoking in the Workplace

In 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defined second- hand tobacco smoke as a potential workplace hazard, estimating that as many as 14,000 workers die each year from the effects of exposure to passive tobacco smoke. The National Cancer

Institute endorsed much higher estimates, according to which as many as 65,000 Americans die each year from heart disease and lung cancer caused by inhaling secondhand smoke (Washington Post, 2004). Since then, many states have instituted legislation prohibiting smoking in the workplace and the FAA has imposed an outright smoking ban on commercial aircraft, which many smokers view as an infringement of their rights.

Argument:

While anti-smoking legislation certainly does affect the rights of smokers, it is justified on the basis of comparing the relative imposition on smokers to the rights of non-smokers to a healthy work environment. Certainly, smokers have the same rights to be comfortable at work as non-smokers, but it is simply not possible to accommodate the respective preferences of smokers and non-smokers to their equal satisfaction. In the absence of a perfect compromise, one must balance the relative harm(s) associated with both points-of-view and then err on the safe side wherever possible, in order to do the greatest good for the most people affected one way or the other.

In the case of smoking, the right to avoid constant exposure to a toxic agent (and proven carcinogen) outweighs the comparative imposition of the inconvenience of smoking prohibition in the workplace. Smoking advocates challenge the accuracy of the medical evidence of disease actually caused by secondhand smoke as though they have a presumed right to smoke at work unless and until it is proven to cause disease, in fact. Tobacco smoke is universally and conclusively understood to cause heart disease, emphysema and cancer of the lungs and throat.

So, if any presumption is justified by the uncontroverted medical facts of the matter, it is the presumption that avoidance of (all) tobacco smoke is probably more healthy a practice than repeated regular exposure to it (even "passively") for eight or twelve hours at a time.

The mere fact that non-smokers experience secondhand smoke as unpleasant is sufficient to outweigh any right to expose them to it involuntarily, regardless whether it has been proven as a valid health concern on their part. Very few workplaces allow employees sharing office space to play loud music on their desktop computers without using headphones for the exact same reason: not because exposure to music is necessarily a health risk, but simply because it is unpleasant and annoying to some other employees.

Many non-smokers dislike the mere odor of tobacco smoke, while others may experience acute respiratory irritation and other symptomatic reactions. The prevailing ethical principle is simply that all employees have a right to avoid exposure to unpleasant environmental elements in the form(s) of voluntary behaviors, habits or choices of other employees sharing the same work environment.

Conclusion: