Employers Penalize Obesity in Employees
By: Matt, August 7th, 2007
So, Mick’s on vacation, and that means I have to write some blog posts. No problem, there’s always something floating around in my head and occasionally that something offers the added bonus of being meaningful. In Mick’s absence, I will toil tirelessly toward blogging excellence; I’ll carry the torch, if you will, for a week until it’s my turn to hit the beach. Oh…I will also resort to the flagrant use of alliteration whenever it catches my fancy. But for now, and without further ado…
I read the strangest thing the other day - from the Baltimore Sun:
Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers’ health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don’t slim down. Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off health care premiums.
In one of the boldest moves yet, an Indiana-based hospital chain said last month that it had decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners said it will charge employees up to $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol and blood pressure guidelines the company deems healthy.
I have mixed emotions about this one. On one hand, I’m all about accountability, and this initiative certainly makes employees more accountable. On the other hand, I have some vague notion that I’ve seen something like this in a movie before, except in the movie you had to be genetically engineered to perfection in order to be employable (or even considered a first class citizen). Sure, there are many out there who will continue to eat too much (and unhealthy foods) regardless of the consequences, but I’m quite certain that there are others who make legitimate efforts at physical health who are thwarted by everyone’s friend “genetics.”
Some folks are simply burdened with bad genes - they can diet, exercise, meditate, pray (you get my drift) and they’ll not lose weight. Even if weight is not the problem, others will be faced with high cholesterol and blood pressure despite healthy diets. It happens…
Also, there may be an age factor to this initiative that is not being properly considered. The young employees affected by this specific plan, for example, will likely eat whatever they want and then remain thin and with low blood pressure and cholesterol levels. It’s a perk of youth. So, “employee A”, who’s 25-year-old, grabs a few Egg McMuffins and a half-dozen hash browns for breakfast, takes the bi-monthly test immediately thereafter, and everything’s fine. “Employee B”, 50-years-old, gags down his oatmeal for breakfast and hauls his carrot sticks to work (the mid-afternoon snack) and is flummoxed to find that all the numbers are still out of whack.
To an extent, then, the new initiative is ageism - all other things being equal, younger people (without any additional effort) will be thinner, have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol levels. That’s just how it is. If this type of initiative is instituted broadly, it’s only a matter of time (a very short time) before special exceptions are requested (and granted) and the lawsuits begin flying around.
It’s not that I disagree with the initiative really, just that I can see the perspective of those negatively affected by it and I can see animosity resulting. I also see the impractical side of things, i.e. - the lawsuits. I also think that targeting smokers would be a better idea. Smoking has a more serious overall effect on health than obesity (some would argue) and, what’s worse, “smoke breaks” take away directly from time spent working.
When I was with Legg Mason, I went so far as to take smoke breaks, even though I don’t smoke. When my boss asked what I was doing, I told him I was taking a smoke break. He replied “but you don’t smoke.” Sure, I said, but why should I be penalized for NOT smoking? I want a break too…
Tags: ageism, labor issues, obesity in the workplace, smoke breaks
Entries