Employers’ war on smoking goes ballistic
May 1, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Dubious decisions, Special Report
Depending on how long you’ve been in the working world, you’ve seen anti-smoking policies gradually become more stringent. But just when some employees thought these rules were as tough as they could get, another wrinkle comes along.
The history of workplace anti-smoking policies in 20 words or less: designated smoking rooms; no smoking indoors; must be 20 feet from entrance; only in designated outdoor areas.
Most recently, some companies have started no-tobacco policies. Employees must sign documents that they don’t use any tobacco products. Reason: An effort to reduce ever-growing healthcare costs.
Ever wonder how these companies would enforce these policies? Well, one Whirlpool factory in Evansville, IN, has decided to suspend employees the company claims lied about smoking.
Whirlpool has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance documents that they don’t use tobacco products.
No blood tests or lab analysis was required. Whirlpool says the 39 were observed smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. A company spokeswoman says some could be fired for lying, according to wire service reports.
Whirlpool uses various financial incentives - and disincentives - to encourage its employees to give up smoking or chewing.
In Evansville, the factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums.
The employees will each get to present their cases to management before a final decision is made whether to fire them.
Growing trend
A 2007 national survey of employers with more than 20,000 employees shows 16% adjust healthcare premiums according to workers’ tobacco use.
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker’s unhealthy habits. However, there’s no limit on the penalty if employees lie about their status.
For employers that want to use a more definitive approach, there’s the option of testing applicants before they join the company to see if they are tobacco users. The Cleveland Clinic, for example, now tests applicants for a compound found in nicotine. If the test comes up positive, the applicants will be offered help quitting - but not the job.
As you might expect, these policies are being watched closely - and criticized. Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute doesn’t have a problem with employers trying to discourage employees from smoking. But he sees this as a slippery slope.
Maltby worries that the health police will soon extend beyond tobacco use and into other unhealthy behaviors.
“We shouldn’t have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care,” he said in an interview.
Someone should tell him it may already be too late. Weyco, a medical benefits firm in Michigan, has increased the monthly health insurance premiums of employees who refuse to take mandated medical tests and physical exams.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina gives employees who participate in wellness programs a discount in their health insurance payments. Workers who don’t participate have to pay full price.
Companies thinking of instituting some of these policies should be careful. About 30 states have laws that forbid companies from firing employees who participate in legal activities - and smoking is legal.
But Whirlpool has found a way around that. Remember, if it fires any of the 39 suspended employees, it won’t be for smoking. It will be for lying about whether they use tobacco.
So, are you ready to tell your employees, “Drop the bacon double-cheeseburger, or else”?
Let’s hear what you think about these policies. And if your company has one, let us know about that, too.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
I think this is discrimination at it’s finest. Either pick on everyone or leave well enough alone.
Do we charge motorcycle riders more for health insurance? Do we charge alcholics more for health insurance? No, so leave the smokers alone.
karen
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’m sorry, that is sort of Stallenistic isn’t it. America is overweight, but that is people’s choice, people are not going to get sick because their co-worker is fat from over eating. Smoking is different, I don’t want to breathe in second hand smoke, I don’t care if co-worker A is eating a double bacon cheese burger for his lunch. Have them pay a portion of their health care, if that is the issue. I think corporate America is making a stretch here.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Companies need to stay out of my personal life.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
1. When you designate an area as a “designated smoke area”, do you have to provide seating to smokers.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
As a manager in HR, I handle the health insurance. I see our monthly premium increase at least 17% every single year. And this increase is NOT due to smokers but rather a large number of medical claims by employees who have diabetes, cardo disease, pregnancies……and ALL are non-smokers. Are the same limitations and “rules” going to be applied to them eventually? At what point are the insurance companies going to be stopped? Each year we listen to reasons/excuses as to why our premium is increasing. Each year we see the insurance company cover less and increase our deductible amounts…..when will someone stop this cycle? To blame one group for the constant drastic increase in health insurance costs is ridiculous. For employers to “punish” one group in order to cut costs is unfair. My husband works for a corporation that has this policy in place. He is forced to take a physical each year and is required to participate in at least 3 wellness programs. How is this legal and not a violation of the HIPPA rules?
It needs to be stopped at the source - insurance companies.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
In certain fields of industry, some personal activities could be detrimental to the industry like a alcoholic policeman or a teacher who is a pediphile, But to regulate a persons health issues when it doesn’t really affect the product or industry, is giving employers way too much control. They can’t automate the task so now they seek to automate people.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I am a former smoker and I found this article to be quite disturbing. While I understand the pressure of companies to minimize their healthcare premiums, I am not convinced that smoking is the primary cause of rising healthcare costs. After having smoked for 18 years, I’ve only ever been to the doctor for regular checkups and I’ve NEVER had any health complications from smoking. In my company, our premiums have SOARED due to some of our non-smoking employees with conditions like colon cancer, neck surgeries, diabetes, and other ailments which continually require medical attention. While smoking is unattractive, stinky, and unhealthy, I seriously doubt that it will drive down the cost of healthcare to the extent which these companies claim. I also agree with the author that this is a slippery slope issue that will lead to companies monitoring my personal life for any unsavory habits or activities. Who knows, I might lose my insurance if I don’t purchase organic produce - those pesticides have been known to cause cancer you know.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Isn’t obesity just as much as a health risk as smoking? Are employees over weight going to be fired because they weigh too much. They certainly can’t “hide” the fact that they are eating too much. Obesity leads to Type II diabetes. Besides this, I thought communism was dead, but I think it is alive and well in the U.S.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
What about alcohol - that is a health problem - and of course, as mentioned - how about the extremely overweight employee and their health problems due to a “risky diet” - choosing smoking is discrimitory if you are not including bad eating habits and alcohol.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Doesn’t alcohol cause more damage (physical, emtional, and property) than tobacco? It also kills more “kids”! Why are we not going crazy about drinking? Because we still like to do it?
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Once you set a precedent, you open the door for any type of exclusions. Within time, you will either be refused coverage or forced to pay higher premiums because your child is a juvenile diabetic, or has cerebal palsy. How does this affect coverage of a spouse. IF your spouse survived breast cancer, you need to pay very high premiums because she might “catch it again”. Will you have to take a family physical in order to be offered a position?? How about employer forcing your 14 year old into mandatory drug testing or you have to pay higher premiums?
Once a precedent has been set, they can keep chipping away at it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Just more problems because employers provide their employee’s medical insurance… isn’t it enough that when you lose your job you lose your insurance? Isn’t it enough that the cost burden rests on the employer for medical expenses of employees that they have (had) no control over? Isn’t it enough that private employee medical information is available to the employer because they provide the insurance?
Now we have employers waging war on the legal choices employees make on the job and off the job, all because they are the medical insurance provider. I’m pretty conservative, but employers should never have been responsible for health insurance in the first place, and frankly it’s time for it to end. I don’t know if national health care will be better, but this surely isn’t working.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I totally agree with the comment “that we should not have to give over complete control of our private life to employers”.
I work for my employer and do a good job. I’ve been here 10+ years. If my employer started trying to control whether I smoke or eat too much or drink too much (which are all legal by the way) I would have to say….bye bye! They already get 40+ hours a week out of me at which they can dictate how I behave, I certainly dont want to allow them to dictate my private functions as well!
I’ve been in HR over 20 years, and I believe companies are doing a major “cop-out” here. If they choose to offer health care to their employees then it is a expense of doing business. If American companies would stop with the GREED thing and go back to being concerned with its country, community, and personal care of ee’s along with producing a quality product, I dont think we would have these type of issues.
There once was a time when values outweighed the dollar but no more it seems. How sad for America.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I think if employers are going to regulate health that they should provide a means for the employee to comply. If they are to stop smoking, provide the doctor visit and share the cost of the cure. If an employee is obese, provide information on healthy eating habits and share the cost of a gym membership, and reward the behavior changes by extra benefits of some sort, such as an extra afternoon off, or a weekend at a state park.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I agree that Wellness Programs and some initiatives are a good thing to help with the insanity of increasing healthcare costs, but I certainly do not believe that we should get so involved that we are causing more issues by unemployment rates rising because someone has a bad habit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so frustrating that employers are getting so involved in employee’s lives that we have to act as parents and punish them for things that we should have absolutely no say in! Last I checked….everyone in this country has “rights” and I’m waiting for the first lawsuit for infringements of rights. Smoking may not be a good thing, but it is a right…not unlawful and does not affect the ability to work! Whether I like it or not….the bottom line is, people still have the right to smoke and not be treated like a criminal for it… and when it becomes illegal (which is where it’s going…), I wish everyone good luck policing it. I hope I don’t have to!
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I find it interesting that a company would spend so much time and effort to try to control a behavior that has so little if anything to do with the jobs essential functions. It is interesting how the whole phenomonem of the smoke free campaign started and has developed to this day. Everyone has been indoctrinated to not accept any research that was funded in whole or part by a tobacco company. And yet we have also been indoctrinated to accept without question any research promoting the dangers of tobacco which is funded by the cancer society, which seems to profit the most from the controversy and devotes most of its resources in promoting anti smoking campaigns rather than curing or treating cancer.
Nicotene has been said to be more addictive than heroin. So under the DSM-IV, would they be eligible for ADA protections and accommodations (a smoking area and scheduled breaks). It is interesting that many of these health care insurance companies do not provide medical treatment for chronic smokers to quit. They are usually sent for counseling, when there is a strong physical component that goes unaddressed. The vast majority of persons who undergo treatment for addiction to nicotene are unsuccessful. Many of those that do complete tend to be unsuccessful over the next few years after treatment. And I would guess that many of those who are “successful” then might have problems with over eating or alcohol/drugs, or anger management. Of course there seems to be more acceptance today for an employee to smoke a marijuana cigarette than a tobacco cigarette.
The claim that they are keeping down healthcare costs does lead to the slippery slope of controlling any behavior that could lead to increased medical treatment/ costs. Next we will have employees weigh in and be measured to ensure that they have an ideal BMI. We will give them pedometers to ensure that they are getting enough exercise. We will require that they submit their meal menus to ensure a proper diet. We will fine people who are demanding because they stress co-workers. And then when all is said and done, there will probably be very little change in health and healthcare costs to the company. But I wonder what the cost of turn over, lawsuits, and making business decisions not on a persons skills and abilities to make the company profitable will effect the viability of the company. The employees who are terminated because of their smoking will end up collecting unemployment and if they cannot get employed, will be on public assistance and taxes will be raised across the board. The workplace will be filled with many chronic nonsmoking complainers who will have to find something else to complain about lest they be expected to actually perform work on the job. Productivity and profitability will be sacrificed.
At some point someone may notice that the French European company is more productive and cost effective. The American company will be downsized and then closed. And the smoking Frenchman with universal healthcare and 5 weeks vacation each year, can vacation in the states and we can ask if he would like American Fries with his order.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It is what it is. Health care costs continue to rise each year and employers are bound to reach a point where they can no longer continue to incur the burden of the increased cost. Instead of whining about the increase premium deductions for health insurance, we must take the initiative to be accountable for our own health — exercising, making healthier food choices, preventative health care and yes, not smoking. If we are not willing to take steps as individuals to try to control the cost of insurance than we leave employers no choice but to find ways to do so. I agree that smoking is just area and that a full wellness program should include incentives for maintaining weight within a certain BMI%, for getting routine physicals and exercising regularly but we have to start somewhere. Life insurance policies and independent medical policy applications ask about whether the person is a tobacco user and rate the premiums accordingly…why shouldn’t employers do the same for group health plans?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I agree that smoking isn’t healthy. Neither is driving to fast, eatting too much, mountian climbing or bull riding… presumably all on our own time not the employers. But we are still covered by our employment health insurance.
Besides it is a KNOWN fact that obesity and the other health issues that come from over or under eatting are far more costly to health insurance.
Stop with the witch hunt already.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I don’t think this is a “cop-out” at all.
Employees who do not smoke shouldn’t be subjected to higher premiums because a select group of smokers continue to raise the experience rating for the entire company. Increasing premiums for smokers, or providing discounts to non-smokers is necessary in order to start driving some of these costs down.
Health Care plans have been reactive for too long, and they need to be more proactive. Individuals need to start thinking about how their poor choices, and avoidable health conditions are affecting the overall health care costs. It’s not possible to combat every poor health decision our employees make, but there are some that can be tackled. Smoking is one of them. Other areas can be controlled or reduced through use of health and wellness incentives, resources, and education.
While many smokers are hard-working individuals, I think most companies see some of their smokers taking extended and more frequent breaks, contributing to poor health and lack of productivity. For companies without designated areas away from the building, the health risks to non-smokers are just as bad with the presence of second-hand smoke.
The cost of high premiums, combined with poor productivity should not be the employer’s burden. And, remember…benefits are not a mandatory offering. Companies offering benefits have a right to try to reduce risky behaviors, just like any other type of insurance that exists!
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Connie, You and Mr. Maltby are missing the point. These employees are not being fired for smoking, they are being fired for lying to their employer. The reason they lied is so they wouldn’t pay as much for their coverage. This is theft, they were stilling from the company.
When will you and the rest of America wake up and realize that unhealthy lifestyles by a few are costing the rest of us. On most health plans in the US, 50% of the dollars spent on claims is for about 5% of the people. Obesity is probably the number 1 cause, when you consider it causes heart disease, diabetes, and numerous other preventable and maintainable diseases.
Melony, What are you smoking? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You dont want your employer asking about your tobacco use, but in the very next sentence you want them to take care for you. Your employer doesn’t have to offer you benefits at all. Whether you think it is greed or not shows that you are not thinking of the whole situation. Companies are in business to make money. If they dont make money you dont have a job. They should be able to ask if you smoke. If you do, you pay more than the person who doesn’t.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think the only people who would have a problem with this are the one’s who do smoke. I smoked for about 20 years and quit three years ago and I do not want to smell smoke anymore. It bothers me to no end when I have my window open at work for fresh air and instead get a room full of cigarette or cigar odor. The people who are smoking outside don’t realize how bad it smells or how long it lingers once they’ve finished. I applaud the no-smoking policies and I am trying to have one implemented at my place of employment. I don’t believe it should be a consideration of employment, but at least ban it while you are clocked in on company property. If you want to smoke, do it in your car in the parking lot, with the windows rolled up.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I work in a pharmacy and smoke. I eat healthy, work out, take vitamins and DON’T get sick!
Most of the workers here who have been sick in the past year; flu, colds, etc. don’t smoke. The majority of the customers who take prescriptions, have diabetis, heart disease, high blood pressure, high chlestorel, crohn’s disease, arthritis and numerous other ailments, that don’t have anything to do with smoking. The majority of these diseases come from in adequate healthy diet, lack of excercise, and over eating. The problem lies with insurance companies thinking that smoking related illnesses are preventable and that all of the other diseases just happen. I believe obesity causes more health risks than smoking. If you smoke, overeat, and don’t get any exercise, smoking is blamed for any cancer you may get. In reality your whole life style is to blame. And let’s not forget genetics.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Our company has provided an incentive reduction in health insurance cost of 20% for employees and spouses (if married) provided they don’t smoke and have a physical once a year. The physical can be done either confidential on-site or at their own medical care provider (and we cover $500 a year for physicals without co-pay). We’ve offered this for 5 years now, and, so far, only found one person who lied about not using tobacco. We required them to pay back the incentives they received but took no further negative action. We seem to have a vibrant grapevine so it is likely other employees are aware of this. Personnally, I think the person should have had some further disciplinary action because if all that happens if you get caught is that you have to pay the money back, why not take the chance? Basically, we choose to believe that our employees are honest. However, when the HR person responsible for entering the program deductions “forgot” they were receiving the incentive, we did let them go.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I have been smoking for 44 years (cigarettes for 30 -then switched to cigars). I’m still in better health then a lot of the people I work with that don’t smoke. That’s what group coverage is all about. You take the good with the bad and it all averages out in the end.
Next thing you know the employer will be DNA testing to determine if you have a gene that would increase you risk factor for a major disease. The technology is already available. I’m surprised the insurance companies haven’t insisted on it already.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Companies that do not exhibit GREED? Ha! That’s a funny one. America is all about the almighty dollar. Until government steps in and regulates what companies can and cannot do to it’s employees and consumers, the almighty dollar will always be a priority. Not long from now we will have two classes of citizens, wealthy and working class poor. Exxon Mobil posted a first quater NET PROFIT of 10.89 BILLION DOLLARS. While gas is up to $4.00 a gallon. The price of gas and food continues to rise and yet no one is getting cost of living increases and health insurance premiums continue to rise. The average worker has less money in their pockets.
So, if I can have less insurance premiums because I lead a healthy lifestyle then I am all for it. I rarely go to the doctors and everyone in my family is healthy. Why should I have to pay for higher premiums because my co-workers eat, drink and smoke to excess? I should have to sacrifice my net income because others choose to do things they know are destructive to their health? Things they willingly choice to do and pay about $3.50 a pack? I don’t think so. Companies and businesses are not raising the premiums, health insurance companies are. Again, for the almighty dollar.
I say put down the bacon cheeseburger and the cigarette and go for a walk!
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Why do we think that companies and other employees should pay for our choices. If employees paid 100% of their own health costs then it would be no issue….other than lost time and productivity for missed work…but even putting that aside — every employee pays a percentage of the total health costs - that means employees who have chosen lifestyles and behaviors that lead to higher health costs are impacting all the other employees - not to mention shareholders — over time. When did we all get entitled to live however we wanted and expect the rest of the universe to pay for the consequences. Here’s another option - smoke if you want but you only get to enroll in the health benefits program if you are a non-smoker - or just charge more for smokers — thats a step in the right direction - this is certainly a tough issue and a very slippery slope as there are many conditions that will cause a big debate about whether its lifestyle or genetics (which are not the person’s fault)…..so this is a very hard topic - but chalking this up to ‘greed’ from the company is completely missing the issue that we have a health crisis in this country that in large part is being driven by choices that we are making in how we live - and the fact that our insurance structure gives us the ability to think that individually we have no accountabiliy for the cost of those choices - this structure is probably making this problem bigger every day….so lets not be so quick to argue against some changes that push accountability back to he indiviudal making the choice.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Objections like those above are always couched in terms of liberty and rights, which are red herrings. It is about risk management and associated costs. Risk management is an established and prudent activity of companies that is sensibly moving into health care policy design.
What many employees want is the right to do what they want risk-free; that is, they do not want to bear the consequences of their own actions. Eat your cake and have it too behavior. (Think about driving a gas-guzzling SUV to work and then complaining about the cost of gasoline; it’s absurd.)
Offering an employee an incentive (discounts on premiums or extra benefits) to manage or eliminate commonly known health risks, such as obesity and smoking presents employees with a reasonable choice: manage your health or pay for the risks you choose to incur. That’s fair. (There are situations in which this would be unfair, but obesity and smoking are not such situations.)
Lying about your own behavior in order to get the benefits reserved for those who manage the targeted risks is dishonest. Falsifying records (application, I-9, etc) is a commonplace and sensible prohibition. In most companies, the employee is terminated for this dishonest behavior. That’s fair too.
Choosing to work at a company that doesn’t care to manage health risks, rather than one that does, is an employee choice, as well. That’s fair.
A well thought out and reasonable program presents an employee with a reasonable choice; both the employee and employeer are well served by it.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
SO MANY COMMENTS ARE ON THE MONEY!! OUR FAMILY STATES IT WILL NO DOUBT BE THE LIKES OF HERSHEY AND NESTLES THAT WILL DO US IN WHEN THE TIME COMES. WE DO LOVE OUR CHOCOLATE.
FREEDOM FREEDOM
MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDMOTHER LOST HER FIRST TWO HUSBANDS TO THE AMERICAN REV. WAR. THEY WERE FIGHTING FOR OUR COLLECTIVE FREEDOMS THAT EVERY DAY SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A STOP TO HAVING THE ABILITY TO USE.
IF WE STOP PURCHASING ANY WHIRLPOOL APPLIANCE AND MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT ALL COMPANYS THAT HAVE RULES MUST PUBLISH THEM FOR ALL TO SEE THE TABLES MIGHT CHANGE!!!
May 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The issue of a smoke-free workplace is an important one as it relates to NON-smokers. Employees eating habits or drinking habits do not have a direct impact on others…smoking does! The US Surgeon General confirmed what was long suspected: secondhand smoke is dangerous, leading to about 50,000 deaths a year in the US. Smoking can cause or aggravate diseases such as lung cancer, breast cancer, childhood cancers, asthma and heart disease. It has also been associated with sudden infant death syndrome.
Why should non-smoking co-workers have to pay for an individual’s “right” to smoke? If you want to smoke, then choose to work for a company that allows it.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The states are already requiring business’ to ban smoking in their establishments, and this is ok because non-smokers do not have a choice in breathing the smoke when indoors. But there comes a time when a line is being crossed…and that line is being crossed when employers are trying to patrol what an employee does in his/her own time or health. I agree with the majority of comments…if smokers are already not allowed to smoke indoors, what does it matter to employers, government or whoever else what this person does on their own time and in their own space?? I just have a big problem with the whole thing on trying to “make” someone give up something legal! I don’t agree with diabetics eating a lot of sugar when I/they know the harm it will cause (even possible loss of limb!!!!)…but I don’t want to monitor them! It’s all about “choice” and freedom to make the choice as long as no one else is harmed by that choice.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
For all the hype about smoking over the past thirty years, one would expect that there would be a dramatic increase in the health of the US population with the decline in smoking and the increase of bans. However, that has not been the case.
Smoking has become a hot button distraction issue. It is politically correct today to villify a smoker at every opportunity. How the non-smoking movement movement began and who was involved would make many people disgusted when it was discovered what their motivations were and how they profitted. Very few people have actually reviewed any of the research that has been bantered around as proof of the dangers of secondhand smoke. It’s a movement where lawyers get rich, politiicians get elected, the cancer society gains donations, and people gain a group they can look down on. But when push comes to shove, there are far greater dangers in our environment than secondhand smoke, but those that produce those danger have lawyers, doctors, and the support of politicians and are not half as vulnerable as a smoker to attack.
We live in a society where people don’t critically think. They don’t seek facts but blurt out whatever mantra supports their current beliefs. And one by one, individual liberties are lost and personal responsibility is handed over to institutions. As long as we are okay with the mob mentality that singles out small groups of people for ridicule and punishment, then when the small groups we are a member of are singled out, we should not be surprised.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
But, what those people who think this is simply invasion of personal choice don’t seem to consider important is that we DO pay for the personal choices others make… in increased medical premiums.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Mr. Dugan has it! Amazing, some of these responses! Turn it around, folks. If the lion’s share of the premiums were coming from YOUR pocket, I’m thinking there might be some alternative thought here. Since when does anyone we work for owe us anything but a job. But then, being Americans, we expect our vast menu of benefits just for showing up for work. Accountability be damned, we say! I’m not interested in a common sense contribution to the collective good! I have my rights! (I just want someone else to pay for the “down side” of those rights when I abuse them).
Let’s all cast our votes to ban maturity and her evil twin, responsiblity!
May 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
What might really fix this problem is if the health insurance companies would base their premiums on the individuals covered, rather than aggregating employees all together. My not smoking, eating right, and exercising would then make my premiums cost less than currently being lumped in with other women my age in the organization that do smoke, eat junk, and get winded just walking to their cars at the end of the work day. As it stands, one person cannot make much of a difference.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Let’s face it…this conversation has two very strong sides and endless ideas on what to do about it. The fact of the matter is: Companies are going where they don’t belong because they can and they feel it will make a difference. But in all reality, if we look at the whole situation with “open eyes”…we would see that the insurance companies are costing companies more money in time spent on policing the efforts to make employees choose the “healthier life” and the administration of wellness initiatives, and all for what? To save less than was spent on all of the implemetation of programs. Has anyone tracked the cost of wellness programs vs the benefit? Wellness programs take years to create a return on investment and many times, by the time we get to employees, the damage is done! I feel the whole system is messed up, and I don’t feel for one minute that employers are the ones who should try to fix it! How can companies possibly control smokers, heart attacks, overeating, diabetes, cancer, and the rest of the endless list. If one unhealthy lifestyle is going to be attacked…they should all be attacked, so I say (at most) educate; then leave the employees alone when they walk off of the job site. However, in the specific article that started this whole discussion, I feel the employer was right. Becaus the employees “lied” on an application. No matter what the lie was about, it was no better than lying on an application…so I do not fault the company on their reason.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
This discussion has uncovered a lot of personal feelings and values, but has gotten away from the primary issue: Can (and should) an employer be able to regulate their employees personal behavior when there is no strong business rationale? In the current climate, I think the answer is yes they can, but they really should not.
The issues about smoking and non-smoking are social issues where the facts have been thrown out and now the majority can persecute the minority with impunity and under the guise of self protection and self righteousness.
The issue about costs for healthcare forgets some real basic principles. From an ethical and religious stance, it is immoral to commit suicide. Therefore, not getting healthcare is immoral. A moral and ethical person would spend anything to get healthcare, and any system that takes a person’s humanity and self determination by making them a slave to healthcare costs is immoral.
The second issue that is missed is that insurance is based on a socialism model, mainly because it is a moral imperative that we take care of the sick and infirmed. The system is designed to spread the risk of a few to a large pool with the idea that over a lifetime, most will need to dip into the pool. Ideally, all would pay into the system the same throughout there life and would use it as needed.
However, the system we have has been “capitalized” in that everyone does not participate and the economic model of supply and demand is applied to medical decisions. The young and healthy opt out and the sick are left to bear more of the costs. At some point, only the wealthy or well connected can afford coverage/treatment. The sick are excluded by cost, the healthy are excluded by choice. Those who are in the system are the “gamblers” who can afford the coverage and are hedging their bet that they will need care. To keep us all from facing the reality that our society is immoral in this regard, we have through our leadership forced companies to offer healthcare and created welfare programs like medicare/ medicaid to give the illusion that we are trying to take care of everyone. To add to the problem, the healthcare system is run as a business where the administrative costs are huge. Those who make the big bucks make decisions on how to deny claims to save money.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
WOW! I just don’t think anyone realizes how many skinny non smoking non drinking people with high blood pressure and typ II diabetes are really out there. I for one know some of these people. I am wondering what the employers will do to penalize them. No bacon cheese burgers for you Bones. Until the medical industry can explain why skinny non smokers have the same problems then they should shut up. Until they can explain why someone that has never smoked a day in their life, nor been exposed to cigarettes in any way then everyone should shut up. I know for a fact that my cousin who died at 43 riddled with cancer that there was no reason for her to have gotten cancer other than the luck of the draw. She never smoked, never drank, didn’t hang out where any of it was being done, didn’t work outside her home. I guess you think I smoke; nope, guit 3 years ago, however, I am a firm believer in everyone staying out of my personal life.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Perhaps this is a sign we need universal health care. Not universal “health care insurance”. I am an ex 3 pack a day smoker, who quit 40 years ago. Needless to say, I’ve lived. Yes, it is unhealthy, but so is breathing smog, etc. Insurance companies play the odds to make money. Employers are being sucked in to bad decisions because of the premium costs. Since insurance companies are the culprits, let’s get rid of them.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I notice comments that obesity is worse on health than tobacco use. I understand that may be true but smokers, as a group, are much more susceptible to illness that keeps them off work than non smokers. Would that not be the employers business as it cost the employer money to have an employee ill, even if no medical direct expenses are incurred. I find it hard to defend smokers and their claim to be free from interference, just like motorcyclist do not want to wear helmets or driers to wear seat belts. Voluntary risky behavior need not be accepted.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I think that Robert Brown has identified the crux of the problem by stating that “voluntary risky behavior need not be accepted.”
We end up arguing about what is “risky behavior” which always ends up in an argument of two or more subjective views. The question is what is the risk? Smoking has been around for many years and many successful people have smoked. Someone proposed that “smoking is evil” and now the belief is that “smokers are stupid and evil.” Once that barrier is crossed, then we give ourselves license to “control, manipulate, and denigrate smokers for their own good.” We have done this with many people before based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and handicap, so it should work for smokers. It helped Hitler rise to power in 1938.
Robert points out that he believes that “smokers are more susceptible to illness that keeps them off work more than non-smokers.” It is obvious that he accepts as fact that the act of smoking alone results in increased absenteeism. However, if a smoker is continually ridiculed by co-workers and managers and made to stand out in the cold for breaks, isn’t it possible by the added stress and exposure to the elements contribute to illness and absenteeism?
So to really decrease absenteism, is to create a supportive work environment. It may even be possible that in such an environment, that smokers may then “choose” to quit smoking and “ask” for support from co-workers in their efforts.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I am amazed at the number of people rallying to support smokers and insist that employers be responsible for the associated costs. I am willing to bet that most of these people are or have been smokers, and feel this is some kind of entitlement. My close “smoking friends” get it…they know this is their choice and didn’t complain when their health premiums were increased. Some continue to smoke, while others have quit and praised their employers for the extra nudge to make it happen!
If you get a speeding ticket, your car insurance goes up. If you build a home in a flood zone, your homeowners insurance goes up. If you participate in risky behaviors, ie smoking, what is wrong with your insurance premiums going up? You may still continue to smoke, nobody has argued that….but why should this be the burden of employers? If you were running the company, would you want to pay for this activity to continue?
There are many forms of illness and health conditions that cannot be prevented, but the costs and health conditions related to smoking can be prevented. To say that this means employers will manage every move an employee makes is a bit far fetched. For years, smoking related illnesses have been leading causes of death. Employers are trying to do their part to lower these costs AND keep their employees healthy!! They need to start somewhere. Does this make them big bad corporate wolfs?
Employers are also offering health incentives to try to combat other risky areas. As long as they are footing the bill…then you can either take responsibility of your own actions, or gain insurance somewhere else! I have learned to change some of my health behaviors simply because of the incentives and benefits my employer has offered. With the ever-growing amount of confusing advertising, fast food joints, and all the other poor health choices available in the world, I am thankful to have an employer who helps provide the resources and tools to make better choices. And, if they can help create a better and healthy work environment by limiting poor health choices, including smoking on-site, then I say THANK YOU!
Let me remind you…smoking is not a “right”. I don’t recall ever seeing this mentioned in the Bill of Rights listed in any of the Ten Amendments to the Constitution. ….Freedom of speech, press, religion, right to bear arms….and right to smoke?? Smoking is a privilege, and you may do so at your own risk. Why should your employers and coworkers have to pay for you to smoke?
And this is not “discrimination.” Smokers are not a “protected class.” Did Title VII of the Civil Rights Act say you can’t discriminate based on gender, race, religion, national origin, and “Smoking status?” I don’t remember it that way.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
WOW! I am so surprised at how many people feel that it is their god given right to look down on others. I just noticed that some confuse what is “legal” with what is “right.” Elizabeth makes the point that there is no “Right to smoke” in the constitution and that smokers have not been designated by the government as a “protected class” by the government. She fails to recognize that these laws only legalize the “right to smoke” or the “right to discriminate against smokers.”
If we look to the government to establish what is right and wrong, we are all in trouble. Look at how government officials quickly point out when their behavior is obviously wrong, that it was not “illegal.” Look at ENRON and many of our large corporation and how they defend their “wrong” practices.
In Germany in the 1930’s, the Nazi party, started a movement against Jews. They indoctrinated the people young and old to the idea that Jews were “stupid, evil, sub-human, etc.” Eventually it was seen as patriotic to turn in any Jew or Jew sympathizer to the authorities. Children were encouraged to turn in their parents. This was done to gain political power and to distract people from the economic and social problems that the government refused to address. The result was a movement against a class of people and a very authoritarian government that trampled on the rights of individuals. This in not unlike what is going on today with smokers while the government fails to deal effectively with the healthcare system.
If one wants to find the “right to smoke” in the constitution, one must look at the constitution and read it. Article X states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” City, State, and Federal governments fight over this all the time. Very few “people” get to challenge or defend their rights established in our Consitution. Freedom is not a “priviledge” but a right in this country. That is the freedom to choose, to make mistakes, to learn, etc.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Thanks for making my point stronger Mike!
Smokers are “free” to choose to smoke if they’d like….when it does not interfere with the health of those around them!!
Thus coworkers and employers are “free” to decide not to cover the costs of these mistakes that smokers choose to make.
By comparing this to Nazi camps, I think that is an ignorant statement. Nobody is comparing smokers to Jews and saying they should be persecuted. But, how are the non-smokers being protected when they can’t breathe clean air in their workplace or in many public places, and pay only their portion of the health costs based on their own decisions.
Wake up - this IS happening! There isn’t a law or even a precedent to say that it should not happen. Employers have freedome to offer the benefits they choose…if changes aren’t made, whether by consumer behavior changes, or a national health care program (not tied to work), then employers can and will continue to cut costs or cut jobs! There are many great employers who have been left with little choice. I’m not referring to the companies with over-paid executives, I’m referring to the thousands of small businesses that simply can’t afford to pay for your “right” to make risky, frequent, ongoing mistakes!
Everyone, including smokers and non-smokers are free to make their own healthy or unhealthy choices, but we should all do our part to try to curb these costs, and pay for our OWN mistakes!
May 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
You are welcome Elizabeth! This argument is not about a co-worker smoking in the workplace and endangering the health of co-workers. I don’t want smokers blowing smoke in my face on the job. I also don’t want to have to tolerate co-workers who wear heavy cologne or perfume that irritates my eyes and asthma. I also don’t want to tolerate the co-worker who comes into work even when sick to maintain their “perfect” attendance record. Yet, it is only the smoker who has had laws passed against them. It is still okay to wear heavy perfume and come to work sick. Of all three behaviors by co-workers, the last two have made me more ill than any smoker.
This discussion has been about the cost to employers and the employer’s attempt to mitigate those costs. The premise is that smokers are the reason for high healthcare costs and that the smoker should pay the difference. I submit that the premise is wrong. First, smokers pay additional taxes when they purchase tobacco products because of the lawsuit the attorneys generals brought stating that smokers add to healthcare costs. Of course, that flies in the fact that smokers live less and therefore result in a savings in healthcare dollars. Those taxes are not applied to healthcare, either when they are collected. The Tobacco Settlement is not being spent on healthcare. I further submit that employers should not have to pay for healthcare in a democratic society; that it is immoral and unethical to deny healthcare and therefore the society should provide it to all; and that the discussion of smokers, fat people, etc. is just a “smoke screen” to keep our representatives in government from dealing with this issue. The problems with Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, VA, etc. were not created by smokers, and eventually will have to be addressed. When other industrialized nations can provide healthcare to everyone at a cheaper cost than what we provide to a few in this country, one wonders why we don’t look at what they are doing right.
Concerning your characterization of my statements about the similarities of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany as “ignorant”; I am not sure how you define “ignorant.” I didn’t talk about about Nazi camps. Nazi camps occurred many years later, after they had established the the Jews as a scapegoat. Most Germans just went along with the rhetoric, many companies benefitted from “slave labor” like Bayer and Volkswagon, and even some prominent organizations such as the America Psychiatric Association praised the German government for their policies and practices. After WWII, however, everyone wondered how such attrocities could happen. Currently those who have been identified as modern day scapegoats are smokers, the over weight, those with addictions or other mental health problems, undocumented aliens, etc.
Companies should not be bearing the cost of healthcare. As a democratic society, we the people should require that every person has healthcare. It is more of a moral imperative than education, yet our government avoids its responsibility. Insurance works when everyone participates and risk is spread over a large group. Our insurance system today is set up so that the wealthy elite can have healthcare, the middle class think they have healthcare until they have to get it and are bankrupted, and the lowest on the economic ladder get dumped onto the street.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
It has been said the first person to analogize an argument with Nazi loses….
May 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
It has also been said that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
The tactics used were not isolated to the 1940s and 1950s or the Nazis. They exist in our political discussions today concerning immigration, the war on terror, healthcare, family values, etc. A group is selected as the scapegoat (illegal aliens, muslim extremists, smokers and fat people, gays and lesbians, etc.), license is given to vilify and dehumanize the group, laws are passed and a movement occurs that punish the group, and the original problem goes unaddressed and unsolved.
Unfortunately, when we don’t really look at and solve problems, everybody loses….
May 12th, 2008 at 6:01 am
[...] HR Blunders ran a story about how companies are cracking down on employee smoking even off the job, many of our readers [...]
June 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
My husband and I pay, in part, toward premium costs, co-pays for office and prescription, along with annual deductible to meet, through his employer. We just received notice that we must submit to an online, HRA (Health Risk Assessment) in order to be ‘participate’ in their new, full medical coverage. The catch then came, stating if we decided to decline participation, we would be required to higher costs toward the premium.
Under previous wellness initiatives I have ever participated in, HRA’s were required, but reported to independent wellness professionals that confidentially put information in a software program to provide a baseline for participants, of their health, with suggestions on behavioral options. The reports were not given to a insurance company, nor the employer, but rather sent confidentially to the employees homes.
Under HIPPA, are we REALLY required to do this? The State we reside in is Michigan, neither of us smoke or have any other serious illness. I guess this is a matter of principle. Anyone know where I might be able to find out more about OUR rights, if any.
Thanks.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
We have a policy of no smoking during working hours with the exception of our lunch period. Even then you cannot smoke on the company premises whether owned or rented. As a smoker, I had no problem with this change after the first couple of weeks (adjustment period). It makes me smoke less. The company is trying to help employees get healthier not just with smoking but eating smart, excercising, etc. but they don’t force it down our throats as they let us know that there are resources available to help us if we want it. With this said, our health care costs for our branch are not due to smokers but from things such as diabetes, allergies, etc. I think designated smoking areas are fine. If you do like smoking then avoid those areas. I think people talk more about smokers when we should be concentraing on many areas and not just smoking such as obesity which causes of many various health issues such as diabetes, heart attacks, etc.