Discussion on:

Could your employer fine you for being unhealthy?

I try to look at issues from both sides.

This idea will benefit the insurance company by reducing costs and improving people?s health. IF their costs are reduced this SHOULD reduce the premiums that the company and employees pay (assuming the savings are passed on).

I know people that, because of genetics, have weight issues, high cholesterol, hearing loss, etc. Should they be punished because of something they cannot control? I think not. Before you know it, the human genome will be completely mapped and our insurance bill will be rated on that. Heck, we may not get a job because of our genes.

Should Bob, the burger-eating smoker who slugs down a 12 pack a night be charged more? I say yes.

There's a huge gray area where people could be panelized for something they cannot control. I think this needs to thought out thoroughly and seriously considered before being implemented.

EMD

As employers limit rights to employees with health issues, the laws will change to protect the same people. Look at the rights required for handicapped people now. This could easily be legislated to include cholesterol, weight, and other physical issues.

There is a more dastardly action that will happen with the genome examination results in the future. At birth, a baby's genome will be mapped and not only given to the parents, but to a national database that insurance companies can use. The idea is to give warnings to parents and individuals on potential of development of health problems. If a great potential of having heart attacks is found, then the individual can live his/her life to counter act this potential. The problem is the insurance companies will have access to this data; which will affect this person's life from birth. Depending on severity of this potential, insurance premiums could be high or the person might even be uninsurable. Jobs could be affected by insurability.

What employers can do brought to mind serveral things.

Sexual harassment and a Tampa radio station.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/04/30/clear_channel/index3.html

and more information on employment and your health.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:8gSBue9mb6sJ:www.benicompadvantage.com/about/news/Healthplan%2520News/Workers_unhealthy_habits_could_cost_them.doc+firing+unhealthy+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Now employers see us as walking (or rolling, as the case may be) lawsuits.

I've already been caught up in a 'purge' hidden in layoffs where every last person in IT that had any sort of disability was let go.

The whole "reasonable accomodations" bit is so vague that any idiot with an axe to grind can tie up a business for years.

ANSWER: Don't hire the disabled, and they don't.

Employment for the disabled has actually fallen since the passage of the ADA.

Most places I have been was more accomodating, except for age.

The folks who hung on have been miserable.

If they've become so impersonal so as to initiate a layoff that was apparently disabled-targeted, it's almost guaranteed that their attitude will expand to other groups.

...but the whole bit was stirred up because someone with a color deficiency started a union action over the colors in a software app.

She went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the line, and after that, if you had any disability at all, you were marked.

i think that smokers shouldn't b given breaks to smoke it wastes time and money whic has an effect on the company so this is unfair, there should be an healthy option within the work place to incourage well-being, but bieng ill for something you cannot change should not be punished peopel with an illness that cannot be helped should be given le-way were neccasery to help them give the compnay the most they can give in terms of effort and efficiency

I smoke, and I am at work 9 hours a day and I am on salary. Are you saying because I smoke, I should be not be able to take breaks? What a load of BS. You take breaks, why can I not!!

Get your act together. I do work hard, better than the non smokers that were here with me (before they were all let go). Hmm, why were they let go???
how about laziness... Yes, to a good degree this is correct.

Many smokers that I have worked with work hard.

I've worked in I.T. for a very long time and the smokers I've worked with take a hell of a lot more AND much longer breaks than the non-smokers. Sometimes they disappear for more than 20 minutes. I guess it takes "awhile" for them to hit the restroom, get their coffee or other beverage, and have their smoke. Wouldn't want to let WORK interfere with that routine, eh?

It is my observation that medically and physically unhealthy employees are not only more expensive to employers but are a detriment to the team effort and often detract from the objectives. A perfect example is absentism. To subdivide a project that requires each member to carry a certain amount of responsibility to complete each piece can be a real showstopper if a teammember that is always sick or smokes or drinks (too much) cannot carry there load.

that smoke but do not take time off, and still happen to work hard?
I get told that I have to use vacation hours. The health nuts that I worked with took lots of time off, and were often too lazy to do their jobs, shoving more stuff my way.
It is not all about who smokes, who drinks, etc.. It is about work ethics. A lazy person or someone upset enough not to carry their load, will not. It does not mean that the unhealthy ones should be targeted, nor smokers, nor drinkers, nor burger eaters, nor 'insert other unhealthy lifestyle choice here'.

being able to do the job should be the factor, not what someone does on their spare time. And what about employers that treat their employees badly? I Know people who work in very poor environments with crappy bosses/owners. These scum managers would surely fine people or make them skip benefits after causing health issues.

In my observations the issues that cause the biggest impediments to even-sharing of workload in a team situation are childcare and divorce. The people who can't work late, can't work on weekends, oh it's a snow day, can't come in at all, must get to day care at x past 5 each and every day...yada yada yada. Yes, you made a decision to have a kid, and now your team has to carry the weight... And when someone is having a divorce - might as well put them out to pasture 'til it's over. They won't perform and probably won't admit it.
Forget the health issues - self-focused teammates who expect their co-workers to pick up the slack caused by their lifestyle decsions will steal productivity and undermine team spirit far more than a fat chain smoker.

The attitude displayed in your post doesn't help to mend the wall building between smokers and the non-smokers.

Most non-smokers are tired of the perceived attitude many smokers seem to have - that being, "It's my right to smoke, and you have to deal with it, like it or not!"

It seems smokers don't care that their addiction affects many others beyond the addict - and it does, whether you want to admit it or not.

I do smoke a lot, and I do take quite a few breaks. But they are mostly very short, and I dont stand around chatting much either.

But I also skip lunch altogether or eat at my desk. There is a cafeteria here, so it only takes a few minutes to grab a sandwich and come back to work.

I work a min. of 9 hours, sometimes 10 or even 11. I go outside to smoke, I do not like indoor smoking (not even in my truck with the windows down).
When in a crunch, I am less likely to have smoke time, and I try to appreciate the non-smokers around as they do not need to be subjected to it.
When in public places, when I smoke, I carry the butts with me as to not litter.

But constantly smokers are targeted for many reasons. Just look at the tax on cigarettes these days. Then look at all of the state, county and city restrictions in Ca.. Every couple of months I hear about another group looking for more restrictions and/or taxes as well.

The taxes that smokers pay are supposed to go into a fund for health care. So this should not even be considered in this case. If we are paying the extra taxes for this reason, then why should it even matter for health care costs later?
This is a bunch of crap.
But, my point was directed at the poster which attacked all smokers about 'wasting time'. Does not everyone waste time whether on break or not? I have worked at many places, and people find reasons to waste time everywhere. But often smokers get singled out because they are more visible doing it, or are a bit more antisocial.

People are stereotyping in this post - BIG TIME. Not all smokers take frequent and long breaks, blow smoke in people's faces, and are rude and smelly. I will be the first to stand up and say, Yeah, so many smokers are jerks. But don't sit here and stereotype this post saying that all smokers are "bad workers" when that flat out is not true!

Smoker or not, it is the LAW that every employee get a 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked (amount of time worked can vary by state). What a non-smoker decides to do on their break (if they take a break) is their right; the same is true for smokers. If there are more frequent breaks it can affect productivity and that is a problem that should be dealt with by the employee and their manager.

Believe it or not, there are those of us who only take our one 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon (and this is if everything is running smooth). When there is a deadline or some serious issue at work, I go without all together. Just Friday, our Active Directory crashed - I was in the office from 5:30 AM to after 7:00 that night trying to fix it...and not once did I take a break for a cigarette!!! We had people bringing us food and keeping us well-supplied with water, soda, and coffee. I didn't even get to see the sun that day. I was no different than any of the non-smokers I was working with that day.

Remember that there are smokers who do not let smoking rule their lives - and those are the smokers who get pissed off when people stereotype.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has the right to take away breaks, treat us like second-hand citizens, or bad-mouth us on a post. Unless you have stood in our shoes and lived our lives, do not assume you know, and can therefore judge, us!

I've known a few polite smokers, few and far between.

I've worked in places where you got 1 1/2 hr break in 9 hours.

The smokers managed to at LEAST double that.

I smoke too, W2k and I'm sick of the attitude that I get from the "pious" if I have a cigarette outside of my workplace. I'm wasting precious company time on my 5 minute smoke break? My company owes me time. They get at least 5 hours more a week than they pay me for in my salary.

I think it has little to do with smoking and more to do with work ethic. If the same people that hang out for 20 minutes smoking were to give it up, they would still waste 20 minutes doing something else because they're just plain lazy.

If you look around any workplace, there is enough dead wood to make a huge fire, and they aren't all smokers.

AV

I am part of a small group of people working on a special project. Well, just one of the many, many things I am doing. This project takes little time to work on. Basically it is keeping track of digital certs for people, at most it has taken 2 hours a month. The training for it took about 25 min. as was pretty self explanatory (my opinion). Anyway, its been going fine for about 8 months. Allk of a sudden I was requested for a meeting on it. Ok, I spent 2 hours and provided suggestions and feedback. After which I found out that due to complaints they are trying to figure out the best way to handle it. It was suggested that we have a weekly hour long meeting. And this was not suggested by 1 person, it was suggested by half of the people in this project.
Talk about a waste of time... Meetings are the problem. Too many people without half a brain call meetings for everything. In this case I cannot even conceive of what we could talk about for an hour a week. ok, open the web page, press the button next to the user who's cert is about to expire, the one that says "renew".

I'm with you on this. Meetings = big waste of time. Meetings = food.

Meetings are a big black hole for time. I've had to go into meetings that were inane even if a critical system was down. How stupid is that?

To have meetings about digital certificates on a weekly basis is just unbelievable. I can't believe anyone you work with doesn't see that its a total waste of time. Some people must have too much time on their hands or they're hungry.

AV

online meetings rarely have food. And meetings for non executives very rarely have food. Double whammy, no food. At least if there was I would not have declined and made a counter offer to have the info on a sharepoint site that we can go to and look at (or add to). This way it is much less a waste of time.

In missouri, it is now illegal to smoke on the property of any hospital, clinic, nursing home, or any other health care organization. No, they are not going to arrest or fine the person, but if the hospital does not enforce the ruling, the hospital can lose its licensure. On the one hand, as a nonsmoker, I like it because when I'm in a meeting, I don't have an allergic reaction to the smokestack sitting next to me, that smells like a smoked ham and looks like a 100 year old dessicated piece of tanned leather. On the other hand, I think, as long as they are outside, and not forcing me to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into the building, they should be allowed to smoke if they want.

Smokers DO have the right to smoke, but I also have the right to clear, smoke-free air.

Illogical as the habit is to me, I'm perfectly willing to let smokers smoke as much as they want, as long as I'm not forced to breathe it in with them.

I've had many friends who are smokers, and for the most part, those people were very sensitive of non-smokers. They tried to stay downwind, blow the smoke straight up, stepped away from the group for their fix, or, if the situation suggested it, they refrained from smoking altogether for a time. (That's not to say I haven't met smokers who are completely rude about their smoking. However, I tend not to include among my friends rude behavior of any type...)

Cigar smoke is far stronger in odor than cigarette smoke and many people who can tolerate cigarette smoke are absolutely bothered by cigar smoke. I always make it a priority to smoke my cigars in designated areas or away from groups of people who I know are non-smokers and may be allergic to or bothered by the smoke and smell. It's too bad that other smokers are often rude and downright abnoxious when asked to smoke away from non-smokers.

Because it seems okay for smokers to go down for a smoke when their stressed, but it's not okay for a non-smoker to go for a quick walk around the building (assuming it would take the same amount of time).

So it made it harder for me to quit because when you need to get away from the desk for 10 minutes, if you don't smoke, you're not allowed that luxury (they had done away with coffee breaks).

n/t

What if Bob, the burger-eating smoker who slugs down a 12 pack a night is perfectly healthy? There is so much we don't know about the human body - why do some smokers not get lung cancer, why do some non-smokers get it?

What about people that don't wear seat belts or speed? Are the companies going to put monitors in our cars to make sure we are driving safely?

The list can go on and on. What people do outside of work should be their own business. I think the whole thing boils down to greed - companies don't care if their employees are healthy or not, they just want to make more money

I dare you to show me one healthy person who, for the past five years, has smoked regularly AND drank 12 beers every night.

No set of lungs and liver can deal with that kind of abuse for long. Eventually, habits like these WILL catch up, in the form of lessened ability to absorb oxygen, diminished liver functions, and high blood pressure, not to mention many other complications. He who has these habits and believes he can stay healthy is in deep denial.

As to the cancer angle: it's common knowledge that lung cancer doesn't restrict itself to smokers, nor is it a 100% risk for smokers. However, the risk is MUCH greater if you smoke.

Why would you shoot yourself in the stomach if you didn't want to die? It's very likely you'd survive the wound, but there's a much better chance of dying than if you didn't shoot yourself. Plus, you'd have health complications for the rest of your life because of the damage done by the bullet. Believe it or not, this is a very good analogy - the long term effects would be about the same, relating to diminished capacity and life expectancy, although you stand a much better chance of recovering completely from the bullet wound than from smoking and drinking 12 beers a day.



(edited for misspelling)

genetics are a big part of the equation.

Remember, business is business. The goal is profits.

Benefits are HR tools, nothing more.

Insurance companies MAKE money by collecting it and NOT paying it out.

Employers MAKE money the same way. If benefits can be promised but not have to be paid (either currently or deferred) the bottom line shows it.

Businesses are successful, NOT because of generosity towards employees, but by closely watching the bottom line.

Perceived generosity is a means of attracting potential employees. Consider it.

Yes, screening of employee health will become a means of filtering out expensive employees in lieu of cheaper new-hires. The bottom line demands it.

It will become a means of justifying employee demographics. Consider it.

This is true! I never understood people who seem to think that businesses "owe" them unlimited benefits, pensions, etc.

As you said, business exist to make money. and the bottom line is their main motivation for everything they do.

just checking

I find it very chilling that many of the subjects in the movie Gattaca seem to be coming about. How long will it be until our very genetic code will be used to oppress us as far as obtaining a good job, housing, etc.? It will become a class based society with haves and have nots determined by probabilities of getting disease(s) based on your genetic makeup as in the movie. This is the first step.

As scientific and medical advances continue to show, the best course of action for the betterment of the human race is simply to improve the gene pool by killing off every non-perfect specimen and selectively breeding the rest to emphasize particular traits. After all, we have been doing this with plants and animals for a very long time, most recently resorting to gene splicing and modification. How could anyone argue that the same benefits should NOT be applied to people?
Insurance companies are just ahead of the curve in parsing actuary data and applying it to a creation of classes based on physical factors. Of course, since this is done by business in the name of profit, it?s all a very above the board and accepted form of discrimination.

I think I?ll go watch Gattaca now.

I hope you are kidding or going for some sort of sarcasm that I am missing.

Hitler was right?! Seriously?

You really advocate for selective breeding? I think Hitler's, and the Nazi's actions showed the danger of that attitude.

You cannot simply kill off every "non-perfect specimen". Further, who decides who is and is not a "non-perfect specimen"? You? I don't think so.

....A term that I first heard from James Heriot's "All creatures" books.

It basically argues that selective breeding in dogs has lead to some dangerous health issues - Dalmations have higher incidence of deafness, Labs have bad hips etc.

I don't think Shraven was advocating, I really hope he was being sarcastic.

James

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY don't some of these pendejos GET it??????
EH

Do you know about the genetic problems that are caused by inbreeding? in dogs for example hip-dysplacia, cherry-eye, breathing, cardiac, elbows, etc, etc, etc.

Plus who decides what the "perfect" specemin is? You? Hitler? George Bush?

Then when we start breeding to get those eyes a 1/4" closer together, or for longer more wavy hair (yes this is what dog breeders look for when breeding) Either we end up with dogs like poodles, which were a hunting dog until us humans turned them into brainless hair pieces, or we end up with dual lines the "working line" bred to be bigger, larger, smarter..... and the "show line" bred to be beautiful.

Seems to me I just wrote out the plot to Brave New World.

These actions "should" reduce costs for the consumer, but, history shows us that it wont.

We had "lawsuit reform" in Texas about five years ago, The insurance companies supported it because they said "outrageous lawsuit awards" were responsible for our higher premiums. They also said that if it passed that bill into law that our premiums would go down. Well we passed the law, but, years later our premiums have went way up...looks like another lie from the insurance racket, as their savings were definitely not passed on (well, at least not to the consumer).

The truth is that insurance companies are in business to not pay claims and charge as much as they can get away with. Competition doesnt seem to exist to drive prices down. Powerful insurance lobbyists keep laws protecting consumers from being passed. These companies will do or say anything to improve their bottom line, ethical or not. Your health is not their concern. Realize this and know their true motivation before giving in to their demands.

The other point is that you cannot control genetics. Sure, you can control your environment and take care of yourself by taking certain actions (eating good healthy foods, drinking alcohol moderately, getting exercise, not smoking, etc.), but, some people are still genetically pre-disposed to have certain health ailments (others are not), and that includes obesity, diabetes, heart disease, various cancers, etc. There is an old saying: you can choose your friends, but, you cant choose your family. Well, your family (parents) is where you get your genes from. Your environment is only half the battle, as your genes are the other half.

Genes are invisible, and so you cant tell if the person you procreate with carries bad genes. So, fining people because they have bad genes will not stop the problems since they are unknowingly passed on.

It's really not something we currently understand very well. For example: my grandfather lived to be 96 years old. From age 14 on he smoked two packs of unfiltered cigarettes every day until he was in his 70's. His doctor advised him to quit (he did), but, he also never got cancer, emphysema, heart disease or any other "smoking" related disease. He also had a horrible diet his whole life, and continued eating high fat/ high sodium foods (mostly fried chicken and cold cuts) and drank alcohol heavily well into his 90's before he was finally moved to a nursing home. How could someone with such horrible health habits live such a long and productive life while others with similar habits only live about half as long? Nobody knows, except the fact remains that everyone is not created equal in the health game. Because of this everyone should not be treated as such.

Unless you engage in some type of selective breeding program or genetic manipulation, you will always have health issues that come from genetics. I do not advocate either, and I also do not support taking punitive actions against those who have bad genes because they cannot control it. What's next, fining someone for being ugly? Having bad skin/ hair? Being old?

I was trying to find a way to say something very similar. I know people and relatives that did not live the life they say will deteriorate our lives and they lived a long healthy life.

I only question your statement that genes account for half of our potential of contracting health problems. In my opinion, genes have gone to the forefront of this, accounting for more than environment. One needs only to research their genetic history to see if there is frequency of certain health problems. If, say, diabetes is prevalent in you family, it will be something you need to watch for. You may even end up diabetic, inspite of all attempts to prevent it.

Genetic manipulation, I don't see how this can be prevented. Already they seem to be close on choosing the sex of a child; how far behind that is selecting eye color, hair color, height, etc.? What parent does not want a healthy, beautiful baby? The good part is it will not be a govenment project. This will mean the gene pool would still be good.

great minds think alike, no?

I only used the half genes/ half environment theory based upon what once was (at least it was some years back) a prevailing sentiment. This school of thought was based upon studies of separated identical twins, which ruled out genetic variability (and therefore the differences in the two must be attributed to environment). Seemed reasonable to me.

Regardless, with everything we do know there is so much that we still dont know. Philosophical/ ethical issues aside, the science just isnt quite there yet. Still, like you I can see a future where babies are custom built to order like a car or computer (blue eyes, attached earlobes, blond hair, full lips, small nose, tall height, fair skin, mesomorph, etc.), and all done in a lab with convenient home delivery service (Huxley would be proud!). Not what I really want, but, I think there would be a strong demand for such a thing.

My company offers a paid gym membership as one of it's perks.

I am overweight and diabetic and I JUMPED at the chance to improve my health. The added bonus from an employer perspective is the goodwill you get from your employees when you offer such perks.

I wonder how long until workers will be punished for drinking too many soft drinks or beverages with too much caffine?

Nothing is healthy!

So by this we should no nothing, which is unhealthy!

You cant win.

Is the company going to provide health education? Nutrition, exercise, gym memberships, full medical screenings? If they aren't willing to meet their employees partway then I say stay out of my personal life! What I eat, sports, etc is my private life.

OTOH; many insurance companies offer discounts for not smoking, drinking, etc. Instead of calling it "fining the unhealthy" call it discounts for those who keep themselves healthy. I realize that I am mincing words. But for some reason that "feels" better.

Health costs are already rising. My insurance premiums at work have gone up a lot in the last few years. Like it or not they will get higher. When I was a kid, before most people had insurance, we rarely went to the Doctor. We went to Mom or Grandma. The kitchen was my OR for more than one accident. Is that going to be our future?

Fine the employer for being unhealthy. I do my best to keep healthy myself, but am hampered by terrible foul smelling air inside the office. It is even worse in the area the account reps work in next door.

Airlines now use 50% recycled air in planes rather than fresh air, and I think that the ventilation system recycles air rather than bringing in fresh air. Many other places people work for could be fined for 1) long hours, 2) toxic fumes and many other reasons.

n/t