Det kostar nära 6.000 dollar (knappt 40.000 kronor) mer per år att ha en rökare anställd än någon som inte röker, visar en studie i USA.
Skälet är rökares större sjukfrånvaro, dyrare hälsovård och lägre produktivitet på grund av rökpauser.
Studien har tagit med i beräkningen att rökare har kortare livslängd och får ut mindre pension.
Smokers cost close to 6000 dollars more per year than non-smokers, according to an american study.
The reason is that smokers have higher amount of sick days, more expensive health care and lower productivity because of smoke pauses.
The study have included into the calculation, the fact that smokers have shorter lifespan, and get lower pension.
Is there any truth to the study?
Is it really that big difference between smokers and non-smokers?
This is a study from the US, does it apply to rest of the world as well?
I know there is a HUGE difference in work situation between Sweden and the US. In Sweden everyone is allowed to take pauses from work, to eat, drink coffee etc. It's written down in a nationwide contract every employer is supposed to follow. If you don't follow it, you get workers union, media and in some cases even the government breathing down your neck.
What I am looking for is not anecdotes, but something more substantial. Smoking is harmful, and the effects of smoking is fairly well documented. While details on that might be used as circumstantial evidence, this question is about if it's more expensive to hire a smoker than a non-smoker.