John Maevski

12/6/15
Case Study Final Paper

Moral Judgement for the Ford Meter Box Hiring Policy

In this case study analysis paper I will be arguing that Ford Meter Boxs no
smoking on or off the job policy is not morally acceptable. This policy was created
by Ford Meter Box because the health risks that are involved with smoking are well
known in todays society and they did not want to be responsible for any of the
consequences that came along with employees who smoke. Although the company
is able to their own hiring policies, this particular policy is morally unacceptable
based upon the five moral standards: utilitarianism, rights theory, justice theory,
care theory and Catholic social teachings.
Utilitarianism is defined as: an action/policy is morally correct if the sum total
of benefits produced by that action/policy is greater than the sum total of benefits
produced by any other action that could have been performed in that place. One
relevant fact that supports my moral judgement through utilitarianism is that the
hiring pool becomes smaller after this policy is enforced. Because the company no
longer considers smokers for employment, the hiring pool size automatically
decreases. As stated in the case reading, Columbia University professor and
privacy expert Alan F. Westin worries that if the trend toward lifestyle discrimination
persists, employers will eventually hire from a narrow group, those that are
healthiest and cost us less. Eventually, we could become a two-class society,
Westin argues, with one that is perceived as fit and healthy and the unhealthy rest
who would be unemployed or marginally employed. (BusinessWeek) A smaller

hiring pool can lead to potentially less skilled new hires and lead to further
discrimination amongst the work place. This negatively affects the company
because without the best workers, more resources would have to be used in order
to train the employees and provide the best product or service. This could
potentially hurt business and profits for the company. Additionally, some civil rights
laws are have been created to protect the privacy of an employee while outside of
the work place as long as it does not affect the work that the employee provides.
Since the 1980s, The U. S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that prohibits
discrimination by federal contractors against persons with communicable diseases
such as AIDS. Ten states have restricted drug testing. (BusinessWeek) Because of
this, Ford Meter Box has the potential to become involved in lawsuits if someone not
hired feels discriminated against based on their personal habits. Even if the
company wins the lawsuit, there are still court and lawyer fees that the company
must pay, thus losing the company money in the process. In terms of the total
benefits produced, there are options other than completely banning smokers that
would be better. Other companies have charged smokers extra on their health
insurance premiums or offered benefits to those who follow a healthy life style.
Some examples as presented in the reading are as follows: Half of the 22,000
persons covered by Southern California Edison Co.'s medical plan have reduced
their annual premium by $120 under the corporation's good-health rebate program.
They qualify if their weight, cholesterol, and other statistics are within certain
bounds. At Atco Properties & Management Inc., a small New York City real estate
firm, CEO H. Dale Hemmerdinger pays employees for each pound they lose. And if
they walk up the 16 flights of stairs to the office all year, they win a $500 bonus.
(BusinessWeek) A positive approach to this situation can still prove to be beneficial

to a company while it encourages employees to maintain a healthier lifestyle. With

these policies, both parties can possibly benefit.
Though some relevant facts support the immorality of the policy, there are
also some relevant facts that help explain why the policy is morally acceptable. One
of the most important relevant facts that support this is the fact that smoking has
been proven to be very unhealthy and the consequence is an increase in health
insurance rates for the company. The reading states, Johnson & Johnson Health
Management Inc. of New Brunswick, N. J., which sells wellness programs to
companies, estimates that 15% to 25% of corporate health care costs stem from
employees' unhealthy lifestyle conditions. (BusinessWeek) Because a rather large
portion of health care expenses come from unhealthy life choices, if they were to be
eliminated, the company would save a large amount of money on health insurance
costs alone. This seems to be a relatively simple way to decrease spending and
increase profits for the company, which is one of the companys ultimate goals. A
study was conducted in order to determine the amount saved through health
insurance when not employing smokers. The article states, Smokers who work for
the state of Kansas spent 69% more time in the hospital than nonsmokers did last
year and cost an average $1,137, vs. $854 for nonsmokers. (BusinessWeek).
According to this study, smokers spend far more time in the hospital and cost
marginally more per year than non-smokers. While this is not an exact causation
study, it does show a correlation between smoking habits and the expenses of
health insurance for that individual. Not only do health care costs rise by employing
more smokers causing the company to lose money, but productivity and profits can
also decrease due to more missed days of work by smokers. As stated in the second
reading for this case study, A study by DuPont in the late 1980s showed that

smokers cost the company an additional $960 each in medical bills and days lost
from work. (Reading 2) As the companys costs increase and productivity
decreases, some substantial losses can be identified within the company.
In the final analysis of the relevant facts that make up the utilitarianism
category, I have determined that the facts support the claim that Ford Meter Boxs
new smoking policy is not morally correct. The most relevant fact supporting the
opposite claim is that health insurance costs are increased by including employees
who smoke in the company rates. However, a policy that bans all smokers from a
work place is discriminatory and can be replaced with less harsh alternatives. The
benefits of decreasing health insurance costs do not outweigh the potential losses
due to a less skilled workforce and potential lawsuits. Though the policy saves the
company money, the morality of the policy should not be heavily supported by
monetary gains that a company stands to receive. Even with decreases in spending,
the article suggests that as much as companies can associate unhealthy habits
with higher costs, there's precious little data proving that they can significantly
lower costs by inducing employees to change those habits. (BusinessWeek) If
having employees lead a healthy lifestyle is high on a companys priority list for
whatever reason, there are better ways to achieve that other than a company-wide
ban on smoking. The more positive and encouraging policies have similar monetary
effects and are much less harsh for the employees.
There are a few natural human rights that are violated by the application of
this policy that make it not morally correct; these rights are the right to privacy,
liberty and sufficient health care. Privacy can be defined as the state of separation
of one person from the other persons. An employee has a right to maintain this
privacy from his employer in most cases. However, areas of an employees private

sphere that an employer is morally justified in examining must influence work

performance in a significant way. (Definitions of Basic Terms) Smoking cigarettes
does not classify as one of the mind-altering drugs that can significantly alter an
employees work performance. This policy forces employees to disclose information
about their personal lives away from work in order to save the company money.
There are laws in place in many states to prevent this precise occurrence and the
reading from BusinessWeek states, The backers of such laws are tapping a
wellspring of sentiment that employers have no business telling employees how to
run their private lives, as long as what they do doesn't interfere with how they do
their jobs. (BusinessWeek) Breaking this right to privacy has no precedent in the
working world. Once this policy is in place to eliminate unhealthy lifestyles from the
company, a slippery slope is soon to follow. The lifestyles of employees could then
potentially be put under a microscope in order for employers to be able to weed out
any employees who might cost the company slightly more in the health insurance
coverage. Critics of the policy commented on the direction that it might lead
employers in the future: Why would an employer tell you to knock off smoking at
home and not tell you to knock off the beer, if the beer is bad for you, too? asks
Lewis L. Maltby, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Task Force on
Civil Liberties in the Work Place. Muses Michael E. Miller, vice-president for
administration at Monsanto Co. in St. Louis: What about the guy who eats fried
chicken 20 times a month? I can hear it all coming. (BusinessWeek) This
infringement on an employees personal life can only lead to more trouble in the
future. Additionally to privacy, with this policy an employees right to liberty is not
respected. Even though smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle, smokers often have their
own reasons why they choose to smoke. Not allowing employees to smoke takes

away their right to make their own decisions about their lifestyle. When away from
the work place, an individual should be able to have the liberty to follow whatever
lifestyle they chose, as long as it does not hinder the individuals ability to perform
the job. Lastly the right to sufficient health care is diminished with this policy in
place. Although smokers may have a higher risk to become diagnosed with certain
diseases, this should not prohibit them from attaining any health insurance at all.
These people are the individuals who will be more likely down the road to need
more insurance. This Ford Meter Box policy is preventing people from gaining
sufficient health care in order to decrease the costs of the group health insurance
rates for the company. On the other hand, this policy affects only new hires so
individuals who do not want to follow these rules have the ability to search for
another job in order to preserve their rights to liberty and sufficient health care.
In the analysis of these relevant facts pertaining to the rights theory, I have
concluded that there is a legitimate claim that the rights of the employee have been
violated. Although the rights to liberty and sufficient health care have a valid
reasoning for how they are broken, they are heavily outweighed by the violation of
the right to privacy. Based upon the definition of privacy and when employers are
allowed to infringe upon it, this policy clearly disregards an employees right to
privacy. A hiring process should Be able to reject only applicants who can't perform
the job. Concern about medical costs won't be a reason for withdrawing a job offer.
(BusinessWeek) This obvious invasion of privacy heavily outweighs the potential
decrease in spending for a company in a morality sense. This policy might seem like
a benefit to the company in the long run; however, it also attacks the natural
human rights of the employees within the company. Therefore, the rights theory
suggests that the Ford Meter Box new hiring policy is morally unacceptable.

The justice theory states that similar individuals should be treated similarly in
relevant respects and vice versa for dissimilar individuals. According to this theory,
the Ford Meter Box hiring policy is not morally correct because this is not case. This
new hiring policy stated that no new employees would be hired if they were a
smoker; however, this policy only applied to new hires. In a specific instance,
BusinessWeek mentions the use of this policy with Janice Bone [who] was a payroll
clerk for the small manufacturer. When a urine test uncovered nicotine traces in
Bone's sample, Ford fired her. (BusinessWeek) This action holds up according to the
policy created, however, the policy also allowed employees hired prior to the policy
creation to continue smoking. The second reading stated, Employees hired before
the date of the policys adoption were permitted to continue smoking away from the
plant on their own time. (Reading 2). Because this new hiring policy grandfathered
certain employees in, the company was no longer treating their employees similarly.
Some employees were allowed to smoke away from the plant while others were not.
In this case, similar individuals were treated dissimilarly in relevant respects. All
employees were not expected to comply with the new policy, only those who had
been hired most recently. Additionally, smoking was the only unhealthy lifestyle to
be targeted in this new hiring policy. Although smoking is widely known to be
unhealthy, other lifestyle choices also fall directly into this category such as drinking
or over eating. Employees who are similar in the respect of leading unhealthy
lifestyles are treated dissimilarly in the sense that only those who smoke on their
free time are disregarded and potentially fired. A similar study conducted on health
concerns was conducted and mentioned in the BusinessWeek article: A four-year
study of Control Data Corp. employees found that people with hypertension spent
25% more days in the hospital than those with normal blood pressure and that

medical claims of overweight people were 11% higher than those of people who
weren't. (BusinessWeek) Studies have shown that there are many different things
that are linked to poor health and, in turn, higher health insurance rates. By
establishing this non-smoking hire policy, people are treated unfairly by banning
their personal habits when those habits are not the only source of the given
problem. In terms of job qualifications, job applicants are also treated dissimilarly
when they are similar in relevant respects. Because this company does not hire
smokers, an applicant with better job qualifications and more experience can
potentially be turned away for a far less qualified applicant simply because one
applicant chooses to smoke on their free time.
Proponents of the policy can state that the policy is fair and just because it
requires that all new employees be non-smokers. Therefore, similar people are
treated similarly in a relevant respect based on this new policy. Additionally, all new
hires are subjected to the same drug test to determine if the employee has been
following the new company policy. In the case of Janice Bone, she Agreed to quit
[smoking] and got the job, but a drug test, routinely administered to all new
employees after six weeks of service, revealed the presence of nicotine.
Subsequently, Ford Meter Box terminated her employment. (Reading 2) Although it
might seem unfair that Janice Bone was terminated, but she was done so because
she was treated equal to all other new hires. This drug test was not too intrusive
towards Janice and was also effective in revealing the necessary information. This
policy, in these regards, could be considered morally acceptable because it states
that all new hires must be non-smokers at and away from the work place.
The main reason to create a smoking ban for the company was to reduce the
rates for health insurance and decrease the company annual costs. With some

employees still able to smoke, it is unfair to create this ban on smoking even away
from the work place. It might seem fair to allow those who have already been
smoking to continue to do so, but the policy discriminates against smokers who
have had to quit in order to work for this company. The drug tests are routinely
administered to new employees; however, these tests were used in order to find
traces of nicotine in the system. There are several different ways that someone can
put nicotine in their system without actually smoking. There are patches and pills
that all provide a source of nicotine for smokers who are trying to quit. It is unfair to
administer a test for nicotine when it could test positive even when the employee
has quit smoking. Above all of this, the relevant fact that had the most weight was
the fact that not all applicants to this company are treated the same way. Future
employees can be completely ignored once it is discovered that they are a smoker,
even if they have better work qualifications. A job position should be awarded based
upon how well an applicant can perform the job, not by how much the applicant will
save the company on health insurance premiums.
According to the care theory, the relevant facts that support my moral
judgement are as follows: the employer has a relationship with the employee that is
being abused and the policy is not consistent with the obligations that flow naturally
from the relationship between the employer and those closest to him. The
relationship between the employer and the employee includes a contract that has
the employee perform a job or service for the employer in exchange for pay or a
salary. If this contract is broken, the employer may fire said employee. However,
with this new policy, even if an employee upholds his end of the contract he still has
the possibility of being fired from the company. Additionally an employer has close
relationships with friends and family, and the obligations that flow from those

relationships should be demonstrated in the hiring policy as well. An employer is

subjecting new applicants to break their right to privacy by controlling what is done
away from the work place. The same employer would not apply the same restraints
to his closest family and friends and, therefore, should not expect the same thing
from all applicants to the company.
On the other hand, the ban on smoking could potentially benefit the health of
all the employees and increase their lifespans. The obligations that stem from the
employers closest relationships would suggest that he look out for the best interest
of those individuals. The smoking ban could be seen as an attempt to give a solid
reason to end the deadly habit that these individuals have picked up over their
lifetimes.
Even though smoking is incredibly unhealthy, an employer should not be able
to ban it away from the work place. He might be looking out for the employees best
interest, but the employee most likely knows all of the health concerns that are
involved with smoking cigarettes. To ban smoking completely seems more selfish
than protective on the employers part. This policy oversteps the boundaries of an
employer and employee relationship. Because of this, the relevant facts associated
with the care theory validate the moral judgement that the new hiring policy from
Ford Meter Box is not morally acceptable.
According to the Catholic social teachings, this policy is not morally correct
because it is not guided by the fact that human beings have certain natural rights
and should be treated with justice. This is also mentioned in the discussion about
the rights theory and the justice theory respectfully. Additionally, it does not treat
the employee with dignity and worthy because it intrudes on the personal life of the

employee. After this intrusion, an employee is still subject to firing in which they
would not be compensated for any harm done because it was a rule in a newly
created policy. On the other hand, the policy does promote the common good by
banning smoking. Smoking is a very deadly habit to engage in and this ban would
strongly encourage those who have started smoking to stop and better their health.
With better health, one is more likely to be able to pursuit their own human
perfection.
Although the common good can be more easily achieved by this ban on
smoking, the employees rights are violated and they are not treated with justice
with the new hiring policy. Facts mentioned before in the discussion on the rights
theory and the justice theory heavily outweigh that the smoking ban would promote
the common good. This is especially true knowing that one of the main reasons the
company created this new policy was to reduce spending costs on their annual
health insurance fees. The employer is more worried about the profits of the
company than the common good of the employees working at the company.
All in all, the Ford Meter Box hiring policy that bans smoking all together is
not morally correct based upon utilitarianism, the rights theory, the justice theory,
the care theory and Catholic social teachings. The majority of the relevant facts that
support this claim in each moral standard outweigh those that reject it. The
company may have thought this would benefit the company in terms of spending
but they did not consider the morality of the policy. The employees should not be
punished for what they do at home away from work and this policy does precisely
that.