Mandatory employee excercise

[DebbieL]

Originally Posted by Scanner

I see no problem with giving employees the freedom but applying a Fat Surcharge and Smoking Surcharge on their premiums.

Fair to all.

I agree. Maintain a healthy body weight and a healthy lifestyle and the odds are you will cost the employer much less in premiums. That should be passed on. If you want to smoke and be fat, that is your choice - but you should pay a more proportional premium. Yes, I do realize that slim, healthy eating, exercising people also get diseases sometimes, but working with the odds (and insurance is a numbers game) they are far more likely to stay healthy than a smoker or a fat person.

[snafu]

Most of the larger employers here offer a gym in the building. One in particular has their gym replacing a traditional lobby. They also have a slide joining 3rd & 2nd floors to the lobby along with conventional elevator and back staircase.

The benefit that gets people in the gym by 7:00 AM is the opportunity to talk informally to decision makers and those in the power chairs while you sweat. You get to know colleagues from other work groups and often there is potential to smooth out problem areas.

[Frugal]

Hm...sounds odd, and I have never heard of anything like it. I guess they could call it an "exercise clause"...just kidding.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by pearlieq

As long as I'm abiding by the law, my employer has no business meddling in my private life.

But what if what you do in your private life impacts your employer? Smokers and obese people have higher absentee rates and higher medical costs. I have no problem with employers incentivizing employees to lose weight and quit smoking. It improves productivity and lowers operating costs. That benefits everyone. Many employers will no longer hire smokers at all and I'm just fine with that. I wouldn't hire a smoker in my office.

[cschin4]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

But what if what you do in your private life impacts your employer? Smokers and obese people have higher absentee rates and higher medical costs. I have no problem with employers incentivizing employees to lose weight and quit smoking. It improves productivity and lowers operating costs. That benefits everyone. Many employers will no longer hire smokers at all and I'm just fine with that. I wouldn't hire a smoker in my office.

How people live their lives or what they do isn't any business of an employer. What matters is the employee doing the job you hired them to do and that's it. If they come to work and do what you hired them, that is ALL that you are owed as an employer. Period. If they aren't doing their job, you can fire them.

[happygirl]

I once worked for a company that gave employees the opportunity to take various health/fitness tests. If you passed x number of tests or your score added up to a particular number, you were given discounts on your health insurance. The tests were not mandatory, but most people of reasonable fitness took them because of the potential discount.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by cschin4

How people live their lives or what they do isn't any business of an employer.

If they aren't doing their job, you can fire them.

It is the employer's business if it affects the job, even if it is something that isn't being done on company time.

It isn't so simple to say you can fire someone if they aren't doing the job. What if an employee has frequent absences but they are all for doctor-documented medical reasons? You can't just fire someone because of a medical condition. There are laws against that. Smokers, obese people, people who are simply out of shape all have higher absentee rates. What is wrong with offering incentives to employees to get healthier? Free gym membership, smoking cessation classes, employee assistance programs for mental health issues, etc. These are all perks that can help encourage people to live healthier lives which benefits both the employee and the employer.

[cschin4]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

It is the employer's business if it affects the job, even if it is something that isn't being done on company time.

It isn't so simple to say you can fire someone if they aren't doing the job. What if an employee has frequent absences but they are all for doctor-documented medical reasons? You can't just fire someone because of a medical condition. There are laws against that. Smokers, obese people, people who are simply out of shape all have higher absentee rates. What is wrong with offering incentives to employees to get healthier? Free gym membership, smoking cessation classes, employee assistance programs for mental health issues, etc. These are all perks that can help encourage people to live healthier lives which benefits both the employee and the employer.

If it affects their job performance, you address their job performance. Most states have "at will" employment and it is easy to fire people.
But, you as an employer have no right to dictate or have any say in how i live my personal life.
What i do or don't do is simply none of your business. Just because you are paying someone to file records doesn't mean you have control over their lives.

[cschin4]

I have no problem with employers offering perks or gym memberships or whatever. I do have a problem with an employer mandating how i must live my life or spend my time. If i don't want to go to a gym and work out that is none of your business. And, just because i don't doesn't mean i don't exercise or take care of myself.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by cschin4

What i do or don't do is simply none of your business.

Originally Posted by cschin4

I have no problem with employers offering perks or gym memberships or whatever. I do have a problem with an employer mandating how i must live my life or spend my time.

I'm sorry. I may have misunderstood your objection. I agree with you. I do not think employers should require gym attendance. I do think incentivizing it is a great idea. Encourage people to live healthier lives and reward them if they do.

I do think that employers have every right to limit who they hire, though. If they want to not hire smokers or do drug testing on employees, I have no problem with that.

[photo]

Originally Posted by cschin4

Most states have "at will" employment and it is easy to fire people.

Not as easy as you think. If the person has any kind of minority status, and the person was not caught blatantly stealing or found to be completely incompetent, the onus is on the employer is justify the firing.

[Scanner]

If they aren't doing their job, you can fire them.

But a smoker isn't. . .they, by virtue of their smell and often their public display, are failing to represent my place of business, which represents health and wellbeing.

Here's your cardboard box. I expect your stuff in it by 5 p.m.

We actually had this issue come up years ago. We had an assistant who puffed on cigarettes outside our door during breaks and lunch hour as traffic passed by and gawked at us. My partner was the "heavy" at the time, becuase he signed her paycheck, and we didn't specifically give that reason, just told her she wasn't catching on to the billing, but you can bet she was dismissed probably mostly because of that nasty habit. That was the consensus of 2 other doctors in the practice besides him.

You can try to change Corporate America/small business or try to change yourself, I guess.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Scanner

But a smoker isn't. . .they, by virtue of their smell and often their public display, are failing to represent my place of business, which represents health and wellbeing.

That's one that should be handled at the time of hiring. Do you smoke? Sorry, we don't hire smokers. Do you use drugs? Sorry, we don't hire drug addicts.

[Scanner]

Actually, I agree - it's fuzzy why she was hired in the first place - he kinda knew her, that sort of thing.

[Dseals]

In search of attempting on the internet for one high-quality read pertaining to the following topic . Scouting in Yahoo I lastly discovered this blog post. Reading this info I’m just glad to mention that I’ve got a really good feeling I came across the very things I was ready for. I’ll ensure to remember this blog and go here consistently.

[cschin4]

Originally Posted by photo

Not as easy as you think. If the person has any kind of minority status, and the person was not caught blatantly stealing or found to be completely incompetent, the onus is on the employer is justify the firing.

My employer could fire me today for any reason. Maybe they don't like my socks or the look on my face or my haircut or whatever. It isn't very often that someone is going to file a suit and win. Employment is at the courtesy of the employer.
As for a smoker, if they smell like smoke, then you warn them that is not acceptable. If they continue to smoke on a break and smell like smoke, you fire them. You can fire whomever you wish. That still doesn't give you license into my personal life or control over my personal life. You have control over your business and whom you hire for the extent that they are on your watch and that's it.