Coercion in the workplace
Here's a topic for discussion:
Does a company have the right to tell its employees how to live their lives outside of the workplace?
Can a company prohibit its workers from engaging in unhealthy practices such as smoking or drinking or gaining a lot of weight?
Can that company penalize employees who smoke or become overweight by making them pay substantially higher healthcare premiums than other employees?
My own company requires all of its employees to either participate in a Wellness program or pay double in health insurance premiums. Variations of that are a growing trend.
Starting in 2008, Tribune Co., which owns newspapers including the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun, will apply a monthly surcharge of $100 to family premiums of workers — or dependents — who use tobacco.
Clarian Health, an Indianapolis-based hospital chain, will fine employees who are smokers $5 a paycheck.
There is a question of whether this violates federal law:
In most states, people with health problems already pay more for health policies in the individual insurance market. But for employer- sponsored plans, federal law dictates that all workers covered under the same plan must pay the same premium irrespective of their health.
Recent legislation granted some exceptions to this standard through the vehicle of wellness programs. Critics say employees will be hurt. Indeed, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it is looking into wellness programs to see whether they sometimes violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“If we allow employers to control off-duty behavior when it’s related to health, then we’ve given them the authority to control virtually everything in our private lives,” says Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a New Jersey group that advocates for workers.
Therein lies the problem -- the slippery slope.
Meddling in an employee's life by telling him/her he can't smoke is often justified because that employee is adding to society's costs, the company's costs, etc., in health care. But where does it stop? There are all manner of personal activities about which one could make an argument in favor of intervention and justify it based on expense.
Can your employer require that you not engage in risky sexual activity? Can your employer prohibit you from drinking or eating cheeseburgers?
It might seem crazy to suggest such things, but 20 years ago it was crazy to suggest the government would prohibit smoking in bars.
- quaoar's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
I don't think companies should tell employees
how to live their lives... so my solution is for the government to do it =P
A federal ban on the manufacture and sale of cigarettes would go a long way towards taking care of the health issue while keeping companies from trying to control the private lives of their workers.
Seriously, a federal statute on these issues would eliminate the capricious nature of individual companies deciding what is or isn't healthy, and would also act as a brake against the adoption of overly restrictive standards (for example, Congress isn't actually going to ban tobacco anytime soon, regardless of my wishes).
I would guess that as long as we as a society choose to tie health care to employment, the format (and requirements) for health insurance will be basically part of the at-will employment, subject to some minimal federal oversight.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How would a ban on tobacco
be any more successful than a ban on marijuana or cocaine?
Banning cigarettes would create a huge black market, especially since they are still readily available all over the world.
qui tacet consentire
The inconvenience factor
Cigarettes would be harder to obtain and if this program were coupled with free smoking cessation programs I would guess a lot of people would just quit rather than deal with the hassle and drawbacks of purchasing from the black market or trying to grow their own tobacco.
I don't like our war on drugs and would be in favor of legalizing marijuana, since I think it is less harmful than some other substances, but I bet if it was legal for 50 years or so and was widely grown for commercial purposes and was at least initially advertised as a healthy product ("great for stress!"), and then after those 50 years the government banned it, use would drop dramatically. The most negative aspects of keeping marijuana illegal IMO are the ridiculous extremes to which we go to enforce the law and the draconian penalties for petty offenders, which I would not be in favor of applying to (post-ban) closet cigarette smokers -- the goal is just to make it inconvenient enough that the majority quit while still not overreacting to the point of wrecking lives.
Regarding your last sentence, that's a fair point, although there's got to be more profitable things to smuggle than cigarettes even with a post-ban increase in value. Also, I wonder how many of the cigarettes in other countries are sold by American companies...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The key would be
to criminalize the production and distribution *not* the possession.
A huge amount of tobacco is grown here in the US. We could put a big crimp in that. Not to mention shut down the common sales points.
Of course a lot of people will manage to get cigarettes other ways, but it should eat into the habit quite a lot.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
allow demand, criminalize supply
This exactly how you produce violent drug dealing cartels. The lack of punishment for possession means that a lot of people are willing to buy the product. This pushes up the price, encouraging people to sell. However, selling is illegal, so it only attracts people who are willing to take serious risks (such as jail time) and it eliminates the regular legal system as a dispute resolution system.
All of these factors conspire to produce a violent drug market. Dealers will attack others on various grounds:
1) Informants
2) Competition
3) Broken contracts/theft
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
State governments would also balk
Cigarette taxes are the most popular to raise.
qui tacet consentire
Yep
In all their regressive glory.
Of course if we took away the cig taxes states would probably look to increase lottery income
or some other bad way of raising revenue.
I realize a ban isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The only regressive taxes I like
Cigarette and lottery taxes are a tax on stupid people. I don't have a problem with either.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I saw a bumper sticker
"the lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A tax on stupid people....
Can we tax Republicans at a higher rate then?
Passing tax cuts during a Time of War, then putting the cost of the War on the US credit card........ now that's stupid!
It is the economy, stupid.
I think that employers have the right to set up "No Smoking"
I think that employers have the right to and should set up No Smoking rules in their workplaces. There's no reason what. so. ever that anybody should have to inhale t he secondhand smoke of a smoker, imo.
this is a tough one.
At first, my opinion is to say that employers should not have that right since it's none of their business.
On second thought, one could say that the employment contract is a private matter and the employer has the right to make that a requirement if he/she so chooses. The reasons could one of many...productivity, heath insurance implications, general health environment of the work place etc....
If you are a parent hiring a baby sitter, you would think that you have every right to screen potential sitters and demand certain qualities of your baby sitter in terms of lifestyle. You may even prefer someone for their gender or age.
One choice is a young girl who smells of smoke, has piercings and admits that she drinks. She of course promises that she will not smoke or drink while baby sitting your child but you seem unsatisfied.
The second choice is a 39 year old women and mother of three who's looking for part time work. She is non smoker and has an appearance and aura that you prefer.
Are you illegally discriminating and imposing your values if you choose the older woman? After all, this is about employment.
If the employer makes that a criteria and it works for him/her in the business, he/she should be able to do it. But if this employer finds that it is now too difficult to hire people, the practice of selecting this way may cease. Restaurants and bars would have a much harder time finding employees this way...plus they may not be concerned with such qualities. But that may not be the case for other employers.
So, is this a positive occurrence of free exchange through private contract or meddling in privacy?
Like I said, it's a tough call.
I usually lean toward simplicity. I'd rather try a hands-off, "laissez faire" approach and let people act and react in these scenarios. I think the long term results will be better and less messy.
A well-intended yet overly simplistic law here to protect the privacy of the employee may seem like the right thing to do but it may lead to perversions and get misapplied, which may lead to new unforeseen problems , which will spawn newer laws. I dunno.
Like I said, tough call. There are defensible positions on the grounds of privacy here on both sides.
We don't need no damn nanny corporations
telling us how to live our lives.
First the insurance companies overcharge the hell out of us for insurance, now they are worried they might have to pay if people get sick.
I think they should start charging a suger fee. Eat too much sugar you pay more cause it causes diabetes and obsesity.
Then they should start charging a Fritos & Coke fee. Eat Frito's and coke for lunch and you are fer sure gonna get fat and need heart surgery and cost the insurance companies more money.
Why not approach it by rewarding good health with !$!discounts!$!, instead of punsihing bad habits, which are nobody's business.
It is the economy, stupid.
However, missliberties,
if people's bad habits (smoking, for example) impinge on the rights of others, then something has to be done. Quite frankly, I'm glad that smoking has been banned in many, many public places and places of employment. Why should non-smokers be forced to pay for other's bad habits by being forced to inhale second-hand smoke? They shouldn't, imho.
I am absolutely in favor...
...of companies doing this.
I changed my lifestyle to lose 20 pounds and am in the best shape of my life. It was just a matter of setting priorities in my life. I decided that I was going to eat less and eat healthier; I decided that I was going to start exercising regularly. It turned out to be far easier than I had feared. In fact, now I actually think it's *fun* to go to the gym, and I go 3-5 times per week.
I feel better, I sleep and breathe better, I look better, and I imagine my health is better too. All evidence from my relatives seems to indicate that I have good longevity genes, so if I keep it up, and if medical technology continues to improve, maybe I'll live to be 100!
I did it. It wasn't that hard. So I don't have a ton of patience for the excuses of people who don't take health and fitness seriously.
If a company wants to charge its employees a health care surcharge for smoking, I say go for it. Why should us non-smokers have to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of smokers?
If a company wants to charge its employees a health care surcharge for being fat (say, BMI >30, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to significantly increase your risk of numerous health conditions), I say go for it. Why should us normal-weight folks have to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of obese folks?
Much better for the private sector to figure out ways to solve these problems, rather than a government nanny-state telling us how to live our lives.
Wow. Double-take award.
I wasn't expecting that from you, LZ.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As long as it is private enterpirse
the free marketeers have no problem, with corporations regulating your life..... it's all for profit, and that is all they care about.
It is the economy, stupid.
Maybe
they they strong corporate father figure to the effeminate nanny-state?
Sic semper tyrannis
What does that make unions.....
the over protective mother in law?
It is the economy, stupid.
They're more
like that big, burly cousin who will kick ass if anyone tries to mess with you :)
Sic semper tyrannis
Quality of life, not profit
I don't go to the gym to make money. I go because it has other, non-financial benefits. I just wouldn't complain if some financial benefits were tacked on on top of all that!
Hard as it may be to believe from my comments on this site, I don't think money is everything. I just happen to get pissed off when I believe that I'm being ripped off (by the government or otherwise). And I do happen to believe that the government is ripping me off on an everyday basis.
I feel that way
every time Congress authorizes another $50 billion for the war.
qui tacet consentire
You're
not alone, you know :)
Sic semper tyrannis
That just means
that you'll probably get run over by a truck.
So you might as well pig out.
qui tacet consentire
You're sliding down that slippery slope
If employers can do all that, then why shouldn't they be allowed to regulate other potentially dangerous or unhealthy behaviors of their employees -- like skydiving or mountain climbing.
Can your company prohibit you from riding a motorcycle?
qui tacet consentire
If they can find out
I say yes, although I'm not sure how they'd know. And at some point people might not want to work for a company if the company's policies were too draconion.
It's easy (logistically) to do BMI screenings of your employees.
I'm not sure how you'd do it for smoking, either, actually. Are there blood markers or something they can use to see whether you've had nicotine in your system?
Dude...
if you smoked in the last three days I can tell by getting within 10' of you. No blood markers needed. That stuff is not subtle.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I guess that shows how much I avoid smokers
Or maybe I just have a terrible sense of smell. :) I don't notice these things...
I like smokers.....
Generally such folks are more tolerant, relaxed, open minded, interesting and better tippers. IN other words they are not afraid to take risks!
Much worse is the decaying body odor, of those with bad digestive systems from a diet of snickers, coke, dead cows, and doritos! These people are to be avoided at all costs! You can smell the gastro-intestinal distress from miles away.
It is the economy, stupid.
Snickers, Coke, dead cows and Doritos
Add beer and you have the five major food groups.
qui tacet consentire
Beer or Bourbon
depending on your economic status!
Salt, Sugar, Lard, and Bourbon (Beer) the four staples of a healthy diet.
I will still be able to smell your gastro-intestinal distress for miles.... ;)
It is the economy, stupid.
hahahahahaha!!
Oh, really??!? Since when?!?
Why should I be prohibited from riding a motorcycle?
Because I might wreck and die and then the company has to replace me? Or, worse yet, I linger in the hospital and the company's insurance skyrockets?
If that's the argument, then maybe the company can also tell me I can't climb a ladder or operate a chain saw. Maybe the company can attach a device to my car to make sure I don't speed.
qui tacet consentire
I'll again
point out the illogical coupling of employment and insurance that gives rise to this issue. Employers shouldn't have much of a stake in their employees health, but the reality is that they do.
Something we agree on
sweeeeeeeet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yea.....
If you'd like, I can make a similar comment about government. ;-)
Don't wreck the mood. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.