Can boss insist on healthy habits?
Randy Dotinga, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
A year ago, the Weyco medical benefits
firm in Michigan made news
nationwide by sacking employees
who refused to try to quit smoking.
But that was just the beginning. Now, the
company is working even harder to force its
workers to take better care of themselves.
In 2006, Weyco employees who refuse to
take mandated medical tests and physical
examinations will see their monthly health
insurance premiums jump by $65. By next
year, their annual insurance bills will grow by
more than $1,000 if they still fail to follow
instructions.
«The cost of healthcare is frustrating everybody,
and we believe at Weyco that we have to
heal ourselves,» says Howard Weyers, company
president and founder. «We think it’s vital.»
But at what price? Should bosses like
Mr. Weyers worry about whether workers are
getting annual dental exams, eating healthy,
or jogging regularly? Or should employees
have a basic right to live their personal lives
without interference?
These questions are gaining resonance as
more American companies try to convince
employees to watch their health.
Interest in ‘wellness’ programs
Smokers, not surprisingly, are often the
targets, with some companies going as far as
testing their workers for tobacco use. In addition,
some employees are being told to shape
up or pay up, including those who are overweight,
avoid exercise, have high blood pressure
or high cholesterol.
«A lot of employers are wrestling with this
internally,» says Glenn Patton, an employment
attorney in Atlanta.
In some cases, bosses are telling workers
to take part in preventive «wellness» programs – a nutrition class, for example – or
face higher premiums.
«You can’t require someone to get better…
or lose weight,» says Mila Kofman, assistant
research professor at Georgetown University
Health Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. «But [employers] can require you to participate
in [a health program].»
At Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North
Carolina, for example, company employees with
health conditions such as obesity will automatically
get socked with higher insurance premiums –
as much as $480 a year – unless they agree to take
part in wellness programs. The higher premiums
began last year for the company’s own employees;
this year, employers who contract with Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina for insurance
can choose to impose the higher fees on their
workers, too.
«We give people an alternative to not pay
the higher rates if they work on their problems, » says executive medical director Dr.Don Bradley, who says more than half of his
company’s employees are overweight. «Folks
respond far better to carrots than they do to
sticks, so the secret here is to keep this as an
incentive rather than a punishment.»
The approach makes sense for employers,
says Lisa Horn, manager of healthcare at the
Society for Human Resource Management in
Alexandria, Va., which advises personnel
managers. «They’re really trying to
improve the health of their employees
overall, and not just reduce costs for the
employer, but also for employees,»
Ms. Horn says. «It certainly seems like
their intentions are in the right place.»
An invasion of privacy?
Workers’ rights groups don’t agree. They’re
appalled by the pushy-employer trend, which
they have seen growing over the past couple
of years.
«This isn’t about smokers,» says Jeremy
Gruber, legal director of the National
Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. «This
is about all of us being able to go about our
private lives without employers making decisions
based on what we do off the job.»
Some observers worry that employers
will let their interest in health get out of
hand. «My biggest fear,» Ms. Kofman
says, «is that… companies will try to use
these wellness programs as a subterfuge
to discriminate against unhealthy people.»
Currently, federal law forbids employers
from discriminating against workers if
genetic testing suggests they’re susceptible to
certain diseases. But could employers refuse
to hire applicants because they smell like
smoke?
«It’s probably legal,» Kofman says.
Some lawmakers want to change that. In
Michigan, an outcry against the firing of
smokers at Weyco sparked a state senator to
push for a law that would prevent employers from firing workers for engaging in legal
activities outside the workplace. About 30
other states have similar laws protecting the
private lives of employees, although their protections
differ.
Mr. Weyers, the Weyco president, doesn’t
have regrets. «I tell people that this was not a
privacy situation, this was a company policy,» he says. «Employees are adults, and we
expect them to make adult decisions about
things like drugs or tobacco. What’s more
important: your job or the use of those
things?»
The company was generous enough to give
employees 15 months to make a decision
about whether to quit smoking, Weyers adds.
Some workers «decided tobacco was more
important, and that’s fine. They can go someplace
else and work.»
Workplaces often lack private-life
protections
The color of your eyes, the car you drive,
and your weight may all sound like private
matters. But in many states, employers can
take those facts – and many more – into
account when they decide whether to hire or
fire you.
Some groups are protected on the federal level:
Employers can’t discriminate against workers
based on age, gender, race, disability, national origin,
or religion. But unless state law says differently,
all other characteristics are fair game,
including your political leanings and even what
you wear outside of work.
In 2004, for example, an Alabama housing
insulation company reportedly fired a
woman for sticking a Kerry-Edwards
bumper sticker on her Chevy Lumina. In
2002, Goodwill Industries sacked a man
who ran for mayor of Miami as a member
of the Socialist Workers Party. Also that
year, a federal court ruled that the
Winn-Dixie grocery chain had the right to
fire a Louisiana employee because he
wore women’s clothing off the job.
These firings didn’t violate the law thanks
to «at-will employment,» a legal concept in 49
states that allows bosses to fire workers for
virtually any reason – or none at all.
(Montana is the sole exception.)
Even a seemingly arcane factor like your
weight can come into play. «To be honest,
generally speaking there is no law that prohibits
an employer from saying, ‘You look
about 15-20 pounds too heavy, you’re
fired,’» says Atlanta employment attorney
Glenn Patton.
There are some exceptions. Almost all
states protect employees from being fired
for «exercising a right of public policy,»
such as voting, says Camille Olson, an
employment attorney in Chicago. Government
employees have special protections,
as do many union members and others
with contracts.
As of 2003, 29 states and the District of
Columbia forbade bosses from firing workers
for engaging in certain legal off-duty activities,
according to the Society for Human
Resource Management. Tobacco use is the
most widely protected activity; four states
protect employees who do anything legal outside
the workplace.
Outside those states, workers can still get
pink slips for engaging in private activities.
Full HTML version of this story which may
include photos, graphics, and related links
www.csmonitor.com
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
From the January 11, 2006 edition – http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p15s01-ussc.html
© 2006 UN Special |