Can your employer force you to be healthy?

Three years ago, Danilo Reyes, a test engineer for Intel, received a $50 gift card from his employer to take a health-assessment test. Reyes figured that he'd pass the test with flying colors -- he doesn't smoke or drink -- and Intel made it easy by offering the free test at his office in Hillsboro, Oregon.

But when Reyes received the results, the diagnosis was a complete shock: His cholesterol and blood-sugar levels were abnormally high.

"It turned out I was a borderline diabetic and at high risk for a heart attack," says Reyes, 41. "I was terrified."

Motivated by his diagnosis, Reyes consulted his family doctor, who put him on medicine to lower his cholesterol. A health coach at Intel, part of the company's wellness program, helped by advising Reyes on joining a gym and eating better. Over time, Reyes says, he's seen tangible benefits and shed some excess pounds.

"Getting healthy even inspired me to start up a hobby," he says. "I take karate now, as well as going to the gym. I'm happy and healthy."

Steps toward wellness

Almost a third of companies offering health insurance benefits to their employees also provide a wellness program of some sort. Fitness, smoking cessation and weight-loss programs are provided most frequently, according to 2006 employer health benefits survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The telephone survey contacted 2,122 randomly selected public and private employers.

While most companies say they have a genuine concern for their employees' well being, the rising cost of health care is obviously part of the equation. Obesity-related health issues, for example, cost American companies approximately $13 billion dollars per year, according to the Washington D.C.-based National Business Group on Health, a non-profit organization representing large employers on health policy issues.

"Health and wellness programs at work are a win/win situation for everybody," says Richard Taylor, vice president of human resources at Intel. "We keep our insurance costs down, and the employees are offered free health and wellness opportunities."

Alfred Sanchez, the CEO of the YMCA of Greater Miami, agrees. He started a free health and fitness program in March for his staff and their families that include weigh-ins, meetings with health counselors, nutritional guidance and exercise plans. Out of a staff of 170, all but 40 employees signed up.

"Our business is all about health and fitness," says Sanchez. "Losing weight is nice, so is lowering your cost of health insurance, but the real pay-off is helping your staff lower their cholesterol and stay healthy."

Invasion of privacy?

Some people, however, bristle at what they perceive as having lifestyle choices dictated by an employer.

This May, for example, the University of Massachusetts Medical School banned all tobacco use from their campus and hospital, including parking lots. If an employee is caught smoking, they risk being fired.

"They won't even allow people to smoke in their cars," says James LeBlanc, 45, an employee at the university and himself an ex-smoker who kicked the habit prior to the ban. "We all know smoking is bad for you, but last time I checked it was still legal in this country."

Some companies forbid their employees to light up at all -- even at home. There are at least 20 states that allow for this type of work policy, including Ohio, where the state's second-largest employer, the Cleveland Clinic, stopped hiring smokers in September.

In Massachusetts, Scott Rodrigues, was fired from Scotts Miracle-Gro Company -- which bans its workers from smoking at all -- after testing positive for nicotine. Rodrigues has sued the multibillion dollar corporation for an invasion of his privacy and civil rights. The case is still being decided in the Massachusetts courts. A spokesperson for Scotts Miracle-Gro said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

"We're really seeing a provocative attitude, like Scotts, towards smokers in the workplace, but there is concern about where employers might draw the line," says Glenn Patton, a partner in Alston & Bird's Labor & Employment Group in Atlanta, Georgia, and an authority on legal issues in the workplace.

Where companies draw that line is a particular concern for Chicago resident Paul McAleer. He runs the Web site BigFatBlog.com, which focuses on weight-related issues in the media and serves as a forum for its 2,600 members to write about and discuss "fat acceptance." He says members of his site fear companies may one day treat losing weight like they do quitting smoking, as something workers should be encouraged -- or required -- to do.

"[The term] 'health and wellness' has become a euphemism for 'not fat'," says McAleer, 30, whose site grew out of research he conducted on size-discrimination issues in the media and society while enrolled at Morton College in the mid-1990s. "When employers set up these programs, they shouldn't penalize people for not losing weight. Your weight shouldn't be anyone's business but your own."

Some commitment required

Of course, just having a wellness program in place is no guarantee that employees will become healthier -- or even that the program will succeed. When the Austin, Texas-based brokerage firm, Resource Financial Group initially offered their employees a program, it was a flop.

"No one really knew about it. It was just an online program," says Shannon Scott, 42, an account manager.

As it turns out, maintaining a successful wellness program can require the same sort of commitment from a company as working to stay healthy does from an employee.

"Now we have a program that offers us incentives like a gym pass when we sign up for the company health program online. We even have a subcommittee that organizes trips to hear nutritionists or guest lecturers," Scott says. "What we learned is that it's not enough to offer a program, you have to promote it to get people involved."

http://us.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/workl...lthy/index.html

It's really just a short step from not hiring smokers to not hiring Catholics, or Jews, etc.

Nobody is saying smoking is good for you, but as the guy said in the article, it's legal. Your employer has no right to bar you from employment for enjoying a legal activity in your free time, especially one that has no bearing on your ability to do your job.

Well, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I mean, hardly any one objects to employers discriminating against people who take other forms of recreational drugs, or even who abuse alcohol. I guess I have mixed feeling on the smoking thing. I think making it more difficult for people to smoke is going to help them quit in the long run but again, I believe we should have the ability to destroy ourselves if we want to... sort of. Eh, I'm still debating that one with myself. Someone has to pick up the tab for others self-destructive behaviors. It might be taxpayers or it might be other people in your insurance pool.

I wonder what employers would do to people who chewed betel nuts and showed up with bright red teeth? Heh! That'd be almost fun to test out.

Well I think the difference between recreational drugs, alcohol and smoking is that two of them are pretty likely to impair your ability to work, while one won't.

I once was planning on taking a part time second job for the holidays. The hiring manager raved about my qualifications and offered me the job. She then told me it was a non-smoking company. I said "Not even on my break in my car on my own time?" "No ma'am. No smoking whatsoever" and then took back the job offer when she realized I was a smoker. It made me very happy. If you feel the need to dictate that much of my life, I don't want to work for you anyway.

Now, if you want to get into insurance, I am quite sure that my premiums have gone to pay for conditions of other people caused by things I'm not overly happy with... but thats what group insurance is.

Making it more difficult for me to smoke has not made me quit... if anything, it's just made me more creative. I have quit in the past, I have started again, I will quit again, but I will do it when I am ready to do it, not for a job... especially not for a job.

As my employer you rent my time and my expertise, not my life.

I could see this having huge class implications. For example, a lot of major health systems have programs in place to provide treatment to doctors and nurses who abuse drugs and they keep their jobs all the while, but Joe Schmoe Shelfstocker with his WalMart random drug test is screwed out of a job a lot less serious than neurosurgery. I could see it playing out the same way - people in jobs with more protections like those working at a university would be better off than lower-income workers working at huge chains.

But, in the end, I just can't imagine this ever happening just because demographically the people in charge of implementing the policies would be challenged to fulfill the requirements. It's true that as you climb the socioeconomic ladder in the city, people tend to get thinner and thinner, but there have been a lot of studies showing that middle and upper class suburbanites are getting bigger and bigger, along with their kids. There are just too many fat people in charge.

Janine

It is so shocking to see red teeth. It made me burst out laughing.

The reason employers feel they have the right to dictate whether you can smoke or not is because they pick up the tab for your bad habit related health insurance costs. For other recreational drugs it is probably protecting themselves should you harm yourself or someone else while working under the influence.

Another reason might be is smokers miss work more often, although I'm sure we'll have smokers exclaiming how they never miss work, it is a statistic that is nonetheless true. I know many years ago when the smokers would huddle together outside smoking, I sometimes envied their 10 minute breaks every 90 minutes or so. That seems to have changed though and at least the last place I worked you weren't allowed to smoke anywhere on company grounds.

From a strictly business point of view, I think employers have something at stake when an employee smokes. I guess you kind of have to expect that whoever provides you with your health coverage is going to look askance at that.

I don't smoke and never have, and I feel the same way. That is NOT a company I'd be happy working for.

So would you be okay with an employer regulating our diets? Excercise habits? Failure to wear sunscreen? How far would you be willing for them to take it?

Boy - I wouldn't want my employer to dictate my diet. I'm pretty sure they would require the same diet that made me fat -low fat, high carb.

Then I guess from a strictly business point of view, you'd agree they could dictate what type of fats you consume, what your LDL must be and if it's not within an acceptable range, then you need to take statins, how much fiber you consume each day, how many servings of vegetables and fruits you eat and that you strictly limit red meat too.....and clock in to exercise at the gym at least 1-hour everyday, clock in via computer and allow yourself to be on video to prove you did your mandatory "healthy" excercise, right?

IMO, on corporate property, I think an employer can say "no smoking" even in your own car if it's parked on their property.....what I find offensive in this whole line of thinking is that once you leave work, the employer extends their reach into ones personal time and life and dictates what they feel is acceptable behavior.

An employer pays you to do a job - you do it....they offer in full, or in part, or not at all, health insurance coverage as a benefit to you for doing your job and to keep you happy enough to not go elsewhere to work - it is NOT a gift, charity or something they "give" you - it is an employee benefit with monetary value as part of your COMPENSATION PACKAGE, and that IMO makes it yours to do with as you wish.....use it, don't use it, whatever.....but as part of your compensation, it isn't with strings that allow an employer to dictate anything about how your conduct your life outside of work if that something does not effect your doing your job - it's part of your pay, period.

Everyone has to eat and there's a lot of debate about what is healthy and what isn't, but smoking is purely optional and there really is no question it is harmful to health and has an expense to companies that perhaps they shouldn't have to foot.

Plus, while smokers don't like it one bit, it does help get them to quit in the long run by making smoking socially unacceptable and now even hitting them even harder in the pocketbook. Those things helped me to quit smoking. I'd probably be breathing from an oxygen container by now otherwise.

True....but if they can dictate one engaging outside of work in a perfectly legal thing like smoking, then what's to stop them from dictating exactly what is appropriate for you to eat or not eat outside of work and/or how much exercise you must engage in each week to remain employed. Seriously, butter and frendh fries are legal and foods - so if an employer makes abstaining from either a condition of employment, you'd have no problem, right? After all, the powers that be are in consensus that fatty food is bad for your health!

Employers are not giving you health insurance, nor are they technically, by law, paying your health insurance - they are including it as part of your compensation for your work - the IRS defines it as part of your compensation, a part which is not taxed, but nonetheless part of an employees compensation when provided in full or in part.....it is not a gift or charity, thus it is none of an employers business what you do outside of work that may or may not effect your use of that health insurance IMO if the thing in question, like smoking, has no bearing on your job performance. If a smoker misses more work, fire them for failure to perform job in a timely manner - if a smoker never misses work and their work is exemplary, then it's their life outside of work.

Very interesting thread.

I tend to agree with Regina. If they can enforce the non-smoking issue because it isn't healthy then what will keep them from trying to enforce some sort of dietary restriction if someone is overweight? Slippery slope here.

Also, I know that I pay a huge chunk of my insurance premium so it isn't like I'm getting a free pass on insurance either. Between premium payments coming out of each check and deductibles etc there is no such thing as a free ride.