EVERETT – Starting next month, if you want a job at the Snohomish Health District you better not smoke, or at least be prepared to kick butt.

Those applying for a job at the countywide public health agency will be asked to sign an affidavit during their interview saying that they don’t use tobacco. Current employees will not be affected.

The new policy, which goes into effect Sept. 1, was approved by the health district board by an 8-4 vote Tuesday, but not without strong debate.

Opponents, including board member Jim Smith, a Lynnwood City Council member and a self-described nonsmoker, criticized the policy as “social engineering for an absolutely legal activity.”

“For us to discriminate against someone just because they smoke is going over the line,” he said. “I believe it’s going well beyond what a government agency should do.”

Proponents, such as Annie Peterson, an educator in the health district’s Tobacco Prevention and Control program, point to increased health care and other employee benefits costs racked up by smokers.

Studies show that on average, smokers are absent from work 60 percent more than nonsmokers, she said, and smokers use health care 50 percent more than nonsmokers.

Just as importantly for Peterson, the county’s public health agency should set an example of a healthy work force.

Follow the leaders

By taking this step, the health district follows the lead of others in the area, such as Index Sensors &Controls in Stanwood, The Everett Clinic and Fire District 1 in unincorporated southwest Snohomish County, in taking steps to ban employee smoking.

Yet the issue raises philosophical questions about how far employers can go in limiting what some consider risky behaviors by employees and whether workers should be encouraged or forced to stop using tobacco.

“I don’t know where you stop with this,” said County Councilman John Koster. “People who don’t use sunscreen, motorcycle riding, sky diving?

“Incentives work a whole lot better than being punitive,” he said.

County Councilman Dave Gossett said he supports tobacco-use prevention programs and having a smoke-free workplace but couldn’t vote for a ban on hiring new employees who use tobacco.

There are a whole series of things that affect people’s health, he said: “Weight, do you get enough exercise, do you eat enough vegetables?”

However, other members of the board strongly backed the change. One of those was Jim Flower, a Sultan city councilman.

“I don’t like the idea of a nanny state,” he said, adding that he participates in behaviors some might consider risky. “I climb rock walls. I drag race and ride motorcycles.

“But when I come here, I have to represent the interests of a healthier community,” he said. “Working here is a choice. If you choose to work for the Snohomish Health District, you choose to have a healthy lifestyle. If you choose to work for the city of Sultan, go outside and have a cigarette.”

Smoking unprotected

Nationally and internationally, the law appears stacked against people who may contend that anti-smoking policies constitute discrimination.

“I can’t think of any federal statute it would violate,” said Eric Schnapper, a professor of law at the University of Washington.

“As far as I’m aware, there currently is no legal protection for employees who face such restrictions on off-the-job conduct unrelated to performance of job duties,” said Doug Honig, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

The organization pushed for approval of a state law in the early 1990s that would have barred employers from firing or refusing to hire employees because of legal conduct off the job, he said.

Although approved by the Legislature, it was vetoed by then-Gov. Booth Gardner, he said.

It’s the same in Europe. Companies in the European Union may legally refuse to hire smokers without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

The health district first considered a ban on hiring employees who use tobacco in 2004, Peterson said.

Dr. M. Ward Hinds, the agency’s top official, said that if a new employee at some point began smoking, “we would do everything we could to get them to stop smoking,” rather than firing the employee.

Jenifer Lambert, legislative director for the Washington State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management, said that Alaska Airlines is among the region’s major businesses that have had a long-standing ban on hiring tobacco-using employees.

Last year, the Legislature considered a law that would have made such bans illegal, Lambert said.

In Snohomish County, The Everett Clinic was in the vanguard of banning new employees from smoking, approving its policy in March 1984. A handful of employees do smoke, said spokeswoman Catherine Russell, resuming or taking up the habit after they were hired.

“No one has lost their job because of it,” she said.

New employees hired for Fire District 1 cannot use tobacco. “It’s part of drug screening they go through; we test for tobacco,” said spokeswoman Leslie Hynes.

Index Sensors &Controls in Stanwood announced 14 months ago that it would ban all employees from smoking, said Marianne Kaufmann, who oversees human resources.

The ban goes into effect in October. Employees will be required to sign a statement “that they’re choosing to remain an Index employee as a nonsmoker,” she said.

It’s part of an overall wellness plan that also includes gym memberships, cholesterol checks, tips on healthy eating and other health-conscious measures.

The Stanwood company’s move to improve employee health came after double-digit annual increases in health care costs. About 10 percent of its 50-member work force smoked, she said. Since announcing the health programs, annual health insurance increases have dipped to single digits, Kaufmann said.

“Benefits are typically more (costly) for smokers,” she said. “We are recognizing a real bottom-line return on investment with this policy.”

Reporter Sharon Salyer: 425-339-3486 or salyer@heraldnet.com.