Smoking and other health considerations on the job

[Wes Bucey]

Browsing the news this morning, I came across this item

Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, Company Says
Email this Story

Jan 27, 9:03 AM (ET)

By Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.

John Challenger, placement specialist quoted in the item, is a very well-respected professional in the "outplacement" business.

At first glance, this might seem to be merely some crackpot indulging his own prejudices against smoking, but I have an idea other organizations would home in on the idea of saving money on health care costs by getting rid of ALL folks who can possibly increase the health care insurance rates. This means that next on the list of unwanted employees will be women of child bearing age. Next might be folks with high blood pressure or diabetes. Soon, folks with allergies and those who have grandmothers who had breast cancer will also be verboten. Maybe people of African descent because they have a predisposition to sickle cell anemia? [I used the German word on purpose to evoke the Nazi eugenics programs.]

What do you think, Cove Reader? Will this isolated instance develop into a trend or will it blow over? I don't want to debate what categories of "disability" are OK or not OK to ban - that could be too incendiary. I'd like to limit the comments to your perception of whether other organizations will jump on the bandwagon with Mr. Weyers and why.

[little__cee]

My former employer "discriminates" with insurance by charging an employee 5% more if he/she smokes, and 5% more if he/she is overweight. Yes, an overweight smoker would pay 10% more than a non-smoker of average weight.

Is it fair? I don't know, but apparently it is legal. It is very similar to the story posted by Wes but not exactly the same.

[CarolX]

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

What do you think, Cove Reader? Will this isolated instance develop into a trend or will it blow over? I don't want to debate what categories of "disability" are OK or not OK to ban - that could be too incendiary. I'd like to limit the comments to your perception of whether other organizations will jump on the bandwagon with Mr. Weyers and why.

I think others will try to jump on the bandwagon to help reduce insurance costs, to the point that someone (the government) may have to finally address this growing problem once and for all.

JMHO

[Mike S.]

Ahhh, the specter of the old slippery slope! Yes, I think other organizations will try similar things until something (probably a court ruling or new law) gets in the way.

As an ex-smoker (I'm trying to maintain that "ex"-part) I can sympathize with those in the story. Heck, I'm probably overweight depending on what definition of that you use. And I drink. Now, throw in an employer who says quit and/or slim down or you're fired and I can imagine the overwhelming desire to have a few beers, a few smokes, and a few fattening foods to soothe the nerves!

(Comments about cigarettes deleted as to the thread in this Forum. Such topics belong in the coffee break Forum.-Wes Bucey, Moderator)

[Wes Bucey]

Yeah, Mike. I feel many employees caught in such a situation would be stressed enough to overindulge.

What do you imagine is the thinking of corporate honchos in pursuing such a program? Do you think they feel they are "superior" to the employee? Something else?

If I had my druthers, I'd want Winston Churchill as my boss. He never would have condoned penalties against smokers, drinkers, and overeaters!

[Ron Rompen]

I'm not familiar with the laws in the US regarding this topic, but I can't see how this can POSSIBLY be legeal.

To regulate a persons behaviour in the workplace is one thing; I have no problem with workplaces banning smoking (although I am a smoker myself).

But to tell a person that they risk being discharged or penalized for indulging in a LEGAL pastime, at their own expense, while not at work, is a totally different thing.

Yes, it could lower health care costs for the employer; at least initially. But what's next? Do you drive a sports car to work? (Define sports car). Better not allow that; you might get in an accident. How about sports? Do you play hockey? Scuba dive or parachute? Maybe hang-gliding? All high-risk sports, and ones which may result in enormous health care costs.

Somewhere the line has to be drawn, and this should be the place. If it is legal, and off-duty, then your employer should not be allowed to regulate it.

I could accept (just barely) the increase in health care premiums (if supported by independent financial analysis), but I would also demand that the same type of penalties be applied to anyone who indulges in any OTHER activity that might lead to a health care claim.

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by Ron Rompen

I could accept (just barely) the increase in health care premiums (if supported by independent financial analysis), but I would also demand that the same type of penalties be applied to anyone who indulges in any OTHER activity that might lead to a health care claim.

This may be the crux of the topic. If the employer can discriminate against smokers and fat folks, how soon will it lead to discriminating against folks whose families have a history of cancer or heart disease? (Insurance underwriters certainly make those distinctions now.)

Now consider this:

1. Would you just avoid working for an employer like this?
2. Would you buy from an employer who discriminated against his employees like this?
3. If you would refuse to buy from a company that did this to its employees, how about refusing to buy from companies that discriminate against their workers in other ways (sweat shops, child labor, slave wages, etc.)?
4. If the employer discriminates against its employees to gain a competitive edge with its insurance companies, how about boycotting those insurance companies that do business with that employer because they encourage that activity?
5. How about boycotting the companies that buy their goods from the company because they reward and encourage that activity by giving the company business?

• What else can we do to create a wave of moral revulsion against companies that do this if we are appalled at such activity?
• How can we encourage the company if we think its actions are correct and justifiable?

What do we tell our daughters when a majority of companies following this policy refuse to hire them for the simple reason they "might" get pregnant and run up the company insurance bills or that they can get a job, but no health insurance?

For those of us in countries with socialized medicine, could our governments take a lead from this discrimination and refuse to care for smokers, fat people, alcoholics, unwed mothers, diabetics? Would we agree?

Ponder this quote from 1945 on this, the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[Al Rosen]

Great points and excellent argument against socialized anything.

I know that I will be discriminated against next since I am vertically challenged. I am too short for my weight. I will be put on the rack until I am "adjusted" to the appropriate height of about 7' 3" tall. Pardon the kibbitz, but I couldn't resist.

BTW, I almost forgot to mention that single people are being discriminated in the workplace when the company pays for Health Insurance. The cost for a family is higher.