A year ago, a 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.
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.
