SURVEY SAYS: How About An Employment Policy Based on Non-Workplace Behaviors?

February 17, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A couple of weeks ago we covered the experience of Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company in Okemos, Michigan, that chose to impose an unusually restrictive no-smoking policy.

That policy not only barred smoking in the workplace, but also barred smoking by its workers outside the workplace as well – because the company wanted to shield the firm from high health care costs.   And yes, some workers lost those jobs (you can read more about the case  HERE ).   This week we asked readers what they thought of the policy.

Most of this week’s respondents thought the policy was “over the line”, but a plurality (nearly 45%) said that while it may have gone too far, it was, nonetheless a common sense approach, noticeably more than the 35% who said simply that it was over the line.   Roughly 18% said it was simply a common sense approach, while the remainder opted for “other” – and these were generally flavors of the policy being REALLY too far over the line.  

As for the verbatims this week – well, they were plentiful, thoughtful, sometimes strident, and, as usual, most interesting.   Here’s a sampling:

Among those who thought the policy was, quite simply, going too far, one Illinois reader observed, “Our jobs already interfere with our home-life to a certain degree (whether it be calling us at home on our day off or expecting us to work weekends) I don’t believe it’s right to tell someone they can’t smoke in their own homes on their own time….”   Another pointed out, “While we all want to encourage our employees to lead healthier lifestyles – for a myriad of reasons that impact the company’s bottom line – I don’t feel we have the right to dictate employee behaviors outside of the office.    Where does it go from here?     If you don’t park your car in the last row at the mall and walk, do we refuse to hire you?”   One spoke for many who wondered, “…And how in the world did they expect to administer/monitor this policy?”

Those in the plurality, the ones who saw the logic, but were concerned about where it would lead, included readers like the one who said, “Don’t you just know that the next policy will be:   “In order to avoid/reduce obesity among our employees, you’ll need a note from your doctor if you wish to take the elevator rather than walk up the stairs.”   Another predicted, “Companies could offer “informant” bonuses for turning in coworkers. My company wouldn’t institute Weyco’s policy — we’d have to fire our HR director, IT director, and COO.”   Another noted, “I doubt this will be a solution we adopt at our company, especially considering the fact that the HR Director is a smoker.”

“As a non smoker and benefits manager, I see both sides.   As an employer, our company is also trying to control health care costs and I can see how banning smoking may help do that.   However, as an individual, I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with my employer telling me what I can and cannot do outside work hours.”

There were those in favor of the approach, including the reader who said, “I think the smoking ban is a common sense, gutsy reaction from an employer who is footing a lot of the bill for healthcare.   Why should they, or their nonsmoking employees, help to pay for smoking-caused illnesses.   There is clear research on the effects of smoking.   The next “big” issue to tackle is obesity.”   Another noted, “It’s a GREAT policy!   Mr. Weyers obviously did not do this on a whim … but carefully implemented his company’s new policy of no smoking 24/7 with reasonable advanced notice to his employees so they could make their employment decision.   It’s too bad that more employers don’t have the courage to institute the same policy.   There is no question that smoking is a major contributor to diseases that drive up health care costs to both employers and employees.   Employers in the long term would save money on health care costs as compared to the threat of litigation.   Beyond the health reasons, it is also non-productive in that the people I’ve observed over the years take too many ‘breaks’ to go have a smoke … or two.   I know, as I did it for 25+ years.”

Another said, “Like any other employment criteria, if it is a valid, job/business-related differentiator, (in this case, if it can be proven to increase/decrease costs) that does not have a disparate impact on any protected class, why not?”  

We got a unique perspective from this reader who shared, “As a client of WEYCO, and knowing Howard Weyers, I completely understand his decision. Life is full of decisions, we all have to make them. Howard has given his employees the opportunity to make a decision. They can continue to work for WEYCO and not smoke or if they want to smoke they can work somewhere else. It’s a choice. Howard made the choice he does not want to pay for the high cost of smoking in his health care plan. How is that any different than the employer who offers absolutely no insurance coverage to his/her employees because it is too expensive? The media has not completely explained that Howard has offered incentives and cessation programs over the past two years to employees that want to quit smoking.”

Another unique perspective (whose comments had to be significantly abridged here for space, but he referenced data to make his points) pointed out, “In this case, a non-smoker actually costs $5,250 per year and a smoker costs $8,250 per year, so they lowered their health care costs from $6,000 to $5,250 per person per year, a one-time 12.5% decrease which probably made some HR director a hero that year.   The net impact on total compensation is less than 2% annually ($750 divided by $40,000) plus likely some impact on productivity for lost time due to smoking related illness.   Personally, with all the trouble many companies have finding good qualified job candidates today, I would rather pay a 2% premium for the best person who provides better results (maybe more than the 2% I just paid him).   So, I actually expect to net out no better or worse for the wear.   Sorry for the statistics, but I’m an actuary so this is how I think.”

  

Consider also these perspectives:

“I am an overweight individual who doesn’t smoke or drink but does work for an organization that a gives me high-stress long hours and closed the on-site gym as a cost-cutting maneuver. What do I do when they try to regulate the fast food that is the only meals I get on my 30 mile commute as I dash to pick up the kids and take them someplace?”

“I don’t smoke and I don’t like being around smoke, but I respect every smokers right to puff themselves into an early grave.   What shape would the Social Security system be in without smoking and obesity?!?”

One reader succinctly pointed out, “Isn’t the real “crisis” here the cost of health care?”

But this week’s Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who said, “As long as you have enough high quality, non-smoking candidates to fill your vacancies, I think it’s a great idea.”

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey!

Although I'm a non-smoker, I'd have to say (b) that it's over the line.   Our jobs already interfere with our home-life to a certain degree (whether it be calling us at home on our day off or expecting us to work weekends) I don't believe it's right to tell someone they can't smoke in their own homes on their own time....although I am anxiously waiting for Illinois to make all restaurants non-smoking!!


I think the smoking ban is a common sense, gutsy reaction from an employer who is footing a lot of the bill for healthcare.   Why should they, or their nonsmoking employees, help to pay for smoking-caused illnesses.   There is clear research on the effects of smoking.   The next "big" issue to tackle is obesity.   Medical costs are staggering and usually preventable.   I think employees need to at least make the effort to quit smoking and/or lose weight in order to pay lower premiums.   I understand that it's legal to smoke and/or be overweight, but these individuals need to take personal accountability for their actions and pay more for coverage.


B over the line. Banning smoking outside of the work place smacks of "big brotherism" and is an invasion of privacy. While I try to discourage smoking as an unhealthy life style, tobacco is a legal product, and the decision to smoke is up to the individual.


(A) A common sense approach.   It's a GREAT policy!   Mr. Weyers obviously did not do this on a whim ... but carefully implemented his company's new policy of no smoking 24/7 with reasonable advanced notice to his employees so they could make their employment decision.   It's too bad that more employers don't have the courage to institute the same policy.   There is no question that smoking is a major contributor to diseases that drive up health care costs to both employers and employees.   Employers in the long term would save money on health care costs as compared to the threat of litigation.   Beyond the health reasons, it is also non-productive in that the people I've observed over the years take too many 'breaks' to go have a smoke ... or two.   I know, as I did it for 25+ years.   There is nothing good about smoking.   Period!


Don't like that idea of not smoking anywhere. Is their next step to tell folks not job if you are overweight, which also increases the health care.   And how about all those people that don't exercise they will be next.


You sure you don't mean Wacko Inc?

Weyco's message is lost in the poor application of their policy.

Families with children increase the cost of insurance for company sponsored health plans but you don't see companies outlawing children.     Families use the lion share of health related benefits so the costs are subsequently passed on and adjusted to be higher for family units.  

If common sense prevailed, Weyco would simply institute the "you play you pay" policies administered by insurance companies and increase rates significantly for smokers.    Then those at risk (aka smokers), would assume the lions share of the rising costs.     Just pass the cost on.


c)   Commonsense, yet over the line.   Don't you just know that the next policy will be:   "In order to avoid/reduce obesity among our employees, you'll need a note from your doctor if you wish to take the elevator rather than walk up the stairs."


(c) A common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line.

I thought there were federal guidelines on employer smoking cessation programs that would come into play.   An employer can offer an incentive or reward to employees who do not smoke (rather than a penalty for smoking) as long as the incentive is de minimums and there is a bona fide wellness program in place to help employees stop smoking.   This policy seems to clearly step outside of these guidelines.


I know it is after 2:00 PM - wherever you are in the U.S. - but I think the federal government should outlaw ALL tobacco products - whether smoked or chewed.   Second-hand exposure is as deadly as first hand.   I do not understand why the products are legal when the results of their use are clearly known.


I would vote for C.   It makes common sense for the employer to want to have as healthy as a workforce as possible (especially given the nature of the employers business), but dictating behavior out of the workplace sounds a little "big brother-ish" to me.   What's next.....no drinking, no sex, no operating heavy equipment, no crossing the street.........any one of which could also have health ramifications!


b) Over the line

Shades of the future - the Big Corporation runs your life......what to eat and drink, how many kids to have, when to get up and go to bed etc,etc.....monitored by the Corporation police.

The fiction of the past is fast becoming reality!


I'll go with "C," common sense but over the line.

Companies could offer "informant" bonuses for turning in coworkers. My company wouldn't institute Weyco's policy -- we'd have to fire our HR director, IT director, and COO.


I'll go with "C," common sense but over the line.

Companies could offer "informant" bonuses for turning in coworkers. My company wouldn't institute Weyco's policy -- we'd have to fire our HR director, IT director, and COO.


c) a common sense approach that is over the line

I used to work for Tyco (yes, "that" Tyco!) and have friends there who alerted me that their corp. benefits office recently implemented health questionnaires that all employees must answer, and based on answering the questionnaire, you can receive "reduced" health premiums. The absurdity of it is that it's based on the honor principle, and my friend told me you're incented to lie about your health history because you don't want to negatively impact the rates.

I know health care costs are continuing to rise, but these stopgap measures aren't looking at the root causes, they're only trying to address the sexy, easy-to-find factors and ignoring the rest. I don't think the no-smoking measures or health questionnaires will have any measurable impact. Instead, we/someone needs to start at the beginning and come up with a broad-reaching proposal that addresses all of the issues. And let's include not just health care costs, but how and where it's delivered. Hospitals (at least in central PA) are experiencing such a nursing shortage that patients can wait for hours and hours and hours in emergency rooms until a bed is available up on a floor. And when you walk around the floors, you see many empty rooms, but they can't fill them because there aren't enough nurses to staff it. And heaven forbid you're ever in for an overnight stay - don't expect assistance with bathing, food, bathroom trips ... nurses and support staff just don't have time!

And, doctors continue to complain they're not receiving enough in reimbursements from insurance companies, barely covering the costs of providing care and their medmal insurance premiums. So, they're restricting or limiting the services they provide to limit their exposure and help control costs. On top of that, hospitals are closing or merging due to bankruptcy, greatly reducing the accessibility to care for people who live in rural areas.

If we're not spending enough to staff hospitals and not paying the nurses enough to attract and keep them in the hospitals, and if the doctors aren't receiving enough in reimbursements .... then where is all the money going?

Ok, I really didn't mean to get into this diatribe, but it's such a large issue and while I think some of these stopgap measures are admirable, at least the notion that employers are trying to look out for the greater good, there are just too many things not being addressed that should be fixed soon before baby boomers continue to get older and older - their healthcare needs will demolish the system!


I think that I'll go with C.   While I hate smoking - even though my husband is a smoker - I am an eater.   What's next, banish all fat people?   Will insurance pay for me to see a dietician?   An exercise trainer?   Most don't, but they do pay for smoking cessation classes.   Where do I go for help and support that is affordable?


I go with "c".      While we all want to encourage our employees to lead healthier lifestyles - for a myriad of reasons that impact the company's bottom line - I don't feel we have the right to dictate employee behaviors outside of the office.    Where does it go from here?     If you don't park your car in the last row at the mall and walk, do we refuse to hire you?     If I see you eating a Hardee's Angus burger for dinner every night, can I fire you?     Ridiculous!


I feel that it is definitely a common sense approach, since smoking can only raise health care costs and hence premiums.   However, a company may lose valuable employees whom happen to smoke.   It would be good if smoking employees could be put on a separate health policy and charged the difference in the premiums.   Maybe that would get them to stop smoking...


b) WAY over the line.   Are they going to fire overweight employees?   Or those who may consume alcohol in (what they may consider) excess?


I am going with c) a common sense approach that is nonetheless, over the line.   Rather than saying you cannot do it, maybe there is an alternative (possibly a surcharge on the medical program for those that smoke) that sends the message of "your life is yours, but it is going to cost you".


WAY OVER THE LINE!   And I'm not a smoker, never have been!   But it has me smokin' mad!   If it's legal to sell, it's legal to use!


in response to your survey, I guess I choose d) other.

As someone who smoked cigarettes - and I'm talking 2-3 packs a day - for over 25 years, tried to quit multiple times, and finally succeeded through using hypnosis, I am aware that the addiction to nicotine is one of the most powerful addictions on earth. So I have a lot of sympathy for the smokers out there.

As someone who has been nicotine-free for about 15 years, I absolutely can't stand the smell of the stuff anywhere near me and wish the entire world would be declared smoke-free.

But if an employer can dictate personal habits because of concerns over health care costs, I also question what's next. I finally won the battle against nicotine - but I've been on every diet known to man and am still (sigh) overweight as ever. So if my employer ever decides to ban obesity because of concerns over health care costs, I guess I'm unemployed!

Isn't the real "crisis" here the cost of health care?


I say (c) a common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line.   While I believe we live in a society that increasingly places blame and culpability on the collective for individuals' irresponsible actions (people win millions in lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves or tripping on the sidewalk), placing a company ban on a completely legal activity outside of work hours is inappropriate.   I'd love to see people held more accountable for stupid and self- destructive behavior, but I don't think this type of ban is the answer.   We do live in the land of the free.

An Adamant Non-Smoker

I'll go with "C," common sense but over the line.

Companies could offer "informant" bonuses for turning in coworkers. My company wouldn't institute Weyco's policy -- we'd have to fire our HR director, IT director, and COO.

--

I'll go with "C," common sense but over the line.

Companies could offer "informant" bonuses for turning in coworkers. My company wouldn't institute Weyco's policy -- we'd have to fire our HR director, IT director, and COO.

--

c) a common sense approach that is over the line.

I used to work for Tyco (yes, "that" Tyco!) and have friends there who alerted me that their corp. benefits office recently implemented health questionnaires that all employees must answer, and based on answering the questionnaire, you can receive "reduced" health premiums. The absurdity of it is that it's based on the honor principle, and my friend told me you're incented to lie about your health history because you don't want to negatively impact the rates.

I know health care costs are continuing to rise, but these stopgap measures aren't looking at the root causes, they're only trying to address the sexy, easy-to-find factors and ignoring the rest. I don't think the no-smoking measures or health questionnaires will have any measurable impact. Instead, we/someone needs to start at the beginning and come up with a broad-reaching proposal that addresses all of the issues. And let's include not just health care costs, but how and where it's delivered. Hospitals (at least in central PA) are experiencing such a nursing shortage that patients can wait for hours and hours and hours in emergency rooms until a bed is available up on a floor. And when you walk around the floors, you see many empty rooms, but they can't fill them because there aren't enough nurses to staff it. And heaven forbid you're ever in for an overnight stay - don't expect assistance with bathing, food, bathroom trips ... nurses and support staff just don't have time!

And, doctors continue to complain they're not receiving enough in reimbursements from insurance companies, barely covering the costs of providing care and their medmal insurance premiums. So, they're restricting or limiting the services they provide to limit their exposure and help control costs. On top of that, hospitals are closing or merging due to bankruptcy, greatly reducing the accessibility to care for people who live in rural areas.

If we're not spending enough to staff hospitals and not paying the nurses enough to attract and keep them in the hospitals, and if the doctors aren't receiving enough in reimbursements .... then where is all the money going?

Ok, I really didn't mean to get into this diatribe, but it's such a large issue and while I think some of these stopgap measures are admirable, at least the notion that employers are trying to look out for the greater good, there are just too many things not being addressed that should be fixed soon before baby boomers continue to get older and older - their healthcare needs will demolish the system!

--

I think that I'll go with C.   While I hate smoking - even though my husband is a smoker - I am an eater.   What's next, banish all fat people?   Will insurance pay for me to see a dietician?   An exercise trainer?   Most don't, but they do pay for smoking cessation classes.   Where do I go for help and support that is affordable?

--

I go with "c".      While we all want to encourage our employees to lead healthier lifestyles - for a myriad of reasons that impact the company's bottom line - I don't feel we have the right to dictate employee behaviors outside of the office.    Where does it go from here?     If you don't park your car in the last row at the mall and walk, do we refuse to hire you?     If I see you eating a Hardee's Angus burger for dinner every night, can I fire you?     Ridiculous!

--

I feel that it is definitely a common sense approach, since smoking can only raise health care costs and hence premiums.   However, a company may lose valuable employees whom happen to smoke.   It would be good if smoking employees could be put on a separate health policy and charged the difference in the premiums.   Maybe that would get them to stop smoking...

--

b) WAY over the line.   Are they going to fire overweight employees?   Or those who may consume alcohol in (what they may consider) excess?

--

I am going with c) a common sense approach that is nonetheless, over the line.   Rather than saying you cannot do it, maybe there is an alternative (possibly a surcharge on the medical program for those that smoke) that sends the message of "your life is yours, but it is going to cost you".

--

WAY OVER THE LINE!   And I'm not a smoker, never have been!   But it has me smokin' mad!   If it's legal to sell, it's legal to use!

--

in response to your survey, I guess I choose d) other.

As someone who smoked cigarettes - and I'm talking 2-3 packs a day - for over 25 years, tried to quit multiple times, and finally succeeded through using hypnosis, I am aware that the addiction to nicotine is one of the most powerful addictions on earth. So I have a lot of sympathy for the smokers out there.

As someone who has been nicotine-free for about 15 years, I absolutely can't stand the smell of the stuff anywhere near me and wish the entire world would be declared smoke-free.

But if an employer can dictate personal habits because of concerns over health care costs, I also question what's next. I finally won the battle against nicotine - but I've been on every diet known to man and am still (sigh) overweight as ever. So if my employer ever decides to ban obesity because of concerns over health care costs, I guess I'm unemployed!

Isn't the real "crisis" here the cost of health care?

--

I say (c) a common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line.   While I believe we live in a society that increasingly places blame and culpability on the collective for individuals' irresponsible actions (people win millions in lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves or tripping on the sidewalk), placing a company ban on a completely legal activity outside of work hours is inappropriate.   I'd love to see people held more accountable for stupid and self- destructive behavior, but I don't think this type of ban is the answer.   We do live in the land of the free.

An Adamant Non-Smoker,

--

a) common sense approach.   Although it may not be politically correct with some, I think companies should take such action.   Smoking is a choice which is both harmful to the participant and others.   Weyco should also be applauded for supporting employees who choose to quit smoking.   If one does not want to work under these conditions, they have a choice to seek employment elsewhere.  

--

I don't smoke and I don't like being around smoke, but I respect every smokers right to puff themselves into an early grave.   What shape would the Social Security system be in without smoking and obesity?!?

Seriously, what Okemos is doing is over the line.   Where will this lead??? Drop 15 or you're outta here.   Sorry, you didn't tell us Uncle Billy was diabetic, we have to let you go.   Oh Bob, the results from your bloodwork are in.... here's your pink slip.

--

Survey response:   (c) I can see this for new hires, but I think the current employees should have been grandfathered in (allowed to continue smoking away from the office), and, at worst, forced into some non-smoking program.   I don't think you should take away people's jobs because they're in some violation of a new "rule" that wasn't in place when they were hired.   Dress code changes may be one thing, but complete lifestyle changes are another.   What's next?   Will my employer fire me because I just can seem to get those last 10 pounds off?   I'm a non-smoker and would prefer that no one smoke anywhere ever again, but let's be real here.

--

(b) - while I understand the logic and am vehemently against smoking, I feel that the company went way over the line.   Why didn't they expand it to other items that can lead to higher health costs such as alcohol (as another legal drug) or foods that lead to higher cholesterol?

--

b) preposterous (over the line); I am not quite sure how someone can get away with firing employees for doing something perfectly legal outside of the workplace.   Using his line of thinking, he should also fire overweight employees, as it has been shown that health care costs are even greater for these people.   Then our streets would be littered with cigarette butts and McDonald's wrappers from unemployed, fat smokers.

And yes, I smoke.

--

(B) over the line - when will they start discriminating against individuals that have other bad life style habits - i.e., eating red meat, potato chips, Mickey D's   -- then they can start on basing employment on your family medical history   --- they probably already discriminate based on standard weight/height charts.

and I don't smoke

--

b. over the line.   It sounds like the health care cost of smokers is the real issue in this case.   Our firm implemented a smoker rate and nonsmoker rate for the employee contribution to health care.   Employees enroll every year as according to their smoking lifestyle.   This seems much more sensible approach.

--

(d) idiotic.   It's the start of the proverbial slippery slope.   Next up, fire the fat, those with motorcycles, congenital heart defects, etc.

On the good side, their local competitor just started a DB plan and is only hiring heavy smokers.

--

As long as you have enough high quality, non-smoking candidates to fill your vacancies, I think it's a great idea.

--

A)--Like any other employment criteria, if it is a valid, job/business-related differentiator, (in this case, if it can be proven to increase/decrease costs) that does not have a disparate impact on any protected class, why not?  

Would a trucking company (or their insurance company) want to hire a driver who has a bad personal driving record, but has never had a driving accident at work?

--

c)   As much as this helps the overall health of their employees, I cannot believe a company could mandate a personal choice.   It is sort of like telling your employees that they can only have s*x in the missionary position or they are fired!

--

My vote today is (c).   Possibly a better approach would be to do what a former employer of mine did - charge higher health insurance premiums to those in the company who smoked. It was on the honor system but at least it made me think twice before lighting up the occasional cigar.

--

(b) - WAY over the line.

Why pick on smokers?   Why not also discriminate against homosexual males, obese people, skiers, basketball players, married women of child bearing age, people who drive sports cars or motorcycles, and any other person whose "lifestyle choice" makes them a candidate for potentially higher medical claims?  

--

I vote C.   It does make sense however if someone is not going to stop smoking I do not think firing, what would otherwise be a good employee, the answer.   I think it is over the line to interfere in someone's private life.   It isn't as if smoking is an illegal activity that could send you to jail!

--

c) Common Sense that is over the line

Why don't they just ask the question on the employment application then hire only non-smokers, then can anyone who is caught smoking?

--
A common sense approach that is none the less over the line.   Will weight restrictions be next?   Cholesterol Readings?

As a non-smoker, I applaud anything that protects me from being around smoke.   As a tolerant human being, should companies impose stronger discriminations against smokers than it does against drinkers or overweight workers?

--

I feel that prohibiting smoking off the job went over the line.   This is a free country.   I do feel that smokers should be charged a higher rate for their insurance though.

--

I would have to go with C - yes it is common sense - but a little extreme.   It would have been interesting to have been a part of the committee that decided to implement that policy.

--

Regulating the activities of employees outside the workforce sets the employer up for all kinds of litigation AGAINST the Employer.   Adopting a 'zero tolerance' urinalysis sets him up for false negatives.   Employees who live with a chain smoking spouse will show positive.   Will he force a divorce?

What will he tackle next to maintain those low health insurance premiums.  Woe to the employee who brings   a slice of cheesecake to work for lunch. Will he humiliate her in front of her co-workers - chastising her for raising premiums by being 'overweight' and risking a heart attack by ingesting the 'wrong' foods?

Where do the Employers rights end?   Where do the Employees rights begin?

Civil Rights exist for a reason.

Perhaps this man (and his attorney) need to read up on the topic.

I would have to vote for "C".   It's a common sense approach but you can't regulate common sense.

--

I am a non smoker. I consider the action over the line and hypocritical.

Why just smoking. Why not control the type of cars driven by the employees. Low gas mileage cars or people who must commute long distance could be accused of adding unnecessary toxins to the atmosphere. Or the act of just getting in an automobile. (heresy in Michigan). Why not fire that group.

Or those in homes over a certain size adding more carbon gases for heating a large home. Fire those people.

Participation in certain hobbies can lead to risks and added health costs. The same for a person who chooses a sedate lifestyle. Fire them.

One could go on forever in picking social action/ lifestyle issues and camouflage it as doing good.

A hospital in Chicago area now bans smoking in an individual private car in their parking lots.

But you can drive a hummer any distance to the hospital with no questions asked.

Smoking is indeed a health problem, Weyco approached does nothing to solve a problem.

--

As a client of WEYCO, and knowing Howard Weyers, I completely understand his decision. Life is full of decisions, we all have to make them. Howard has given his employees the opportunity to make a decision. They can continue to work for WEYCO and not smoke or if they want to smoke they can work somewhere else. It's a choice. Howard made the choice he does not want to pay for the high cost of smoking in his health care plan. How is that any different than the employer who offers absolutely no insurance coverage to his/her employees because it is too expensive? The media has not completely explained that Howard has offered incentives   and cessations programs over the past two years to employees that want to quit smoking.

--
I think it was (b) over the line.   What's happening to our individual freedom?   What about the employees that go home at night a drink a six pack?? Is that o.k.?   And, let's not forget the medical costs associated with obesity.   Enough said...

--

As a non smoker and benefits manager, I choose Option (c).   I see both sides.   As an employer, our company is also trying to control health care costs and I can see how banning smoking may help do that.   However, as an individual, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with my employer telling me what I can and cannot do outside work hours.    It will be interesting to see if this is a one time, one employer event or the start of a trend.   I also asked myself if in all good conscience I would be comfortable recommending this same ban at my current company and the answer is no, I would not.

--

c) I think that it is a good policy to make them stop smoking at work, but what they do on their own time should not be an employers business unless it effects the quality of work.   Of course I am not a smoker.   Nothing irritates me more than co-workers who think that they are entitled to a smoke break every two hours.

--

I would choose (b). I have never smoked myself but years ago I was interviewed by a company who had the same policy. They would not hire anyone (nor did anyone work for them) that smoked. I found it very odd but it's legal in our state and they can impose this restriction. I am glad I didn't receive a job offer by this company as later as I spoke with people, it's not a place you want to work - maybe that's indicative of why they have some of the policies they do.

Nonetheless, I find it difficult companies impose a restriction where in America it's the land of the free. I understand the monetary implications on health plans but I also believe in continued education and offering assistance to stop smoking.

--

I think the policy is (b) over the line.   I have always been skeptical of the claim that smokers generate more health care expenses.   I'm a recovering smoker (I've been clean for 2-1/2 years after having smoked for 40 years), and have never had much in the way of health care expenses.   Unless the company cracks down on other behaviors that result in high health care expenses (e.g., obesity, promiscuity, drinking, etc), this can be viewed as nothing more than a mean-spirited jab at a group it is now OK to be biased against.

--

c - maybe we need to reevaluate our definition of "over the line" though!

--

The approach is (c).   Alcohol consumption causes untold medical problems too.   It also causes many women to be battered.   However, I daresay that if this same company wanted to ban anyone from consuming alcohol, most everyone would protest.

I don't condone either practice, but it is a slippery slope when a company tries to control private choices.   The quickest way to make people stop smoking is to hit them in the pocket book - with higher medical and life insurance premiums.

--

d. Other / Bad approach that is over the line.

The end does not justify the means...good idea to reduce smoking by employees...bad method of implementing it.   Lots of reasons why this is bad...invasion of privacy, big brother mentality, slippery slope approach (what's next on the restricted list of activities when not at work).   As a non-smoker, daily runner, and (relatively) good eater, I applaud the objective...but do not sacrifice individual rights to realize success.

--

B Way over the Line.   Weyco is acting like a Demigogue.   It may be able to regulate employee behavior while at the work place, but not on non-compensated time.   Doesn't our Constitution provide explicit and inferred Rights to its citizens?   What about I think the most that Weyco could do is not extend health care benefits to employees who incur health care costs directly related to smoking.

--

I occasionally like to enjoy a good cigar, and in rare circumstances I'll smoke a few cigarettes. Still, I am not opposed to the restrictive no-smoking policy. Why? I may be in a minority with this view, but I feel that the owner(s) of a company should be able to make decisions related to their business - and enforce them. I have the freedom to choose to comply or find work elsewhere. I feel that applies to MUCH more than just a restrictive no-smoking policy. It is common in society today to feel entitled. I am not entitled to tell my employer what he can and can't do - I am entitled to vote with my feet.

--

The no-nicotine or lose your job policy is b) over the line.   If the goal is to cut company insurance costs, simply pay the non-smoker premium and require the smokers to pay the difference.   We (the employee) are required in most cases to pick up a good portion of insurance costs anyway and no jobs would be on the line.   Isn't reducing company costs that the point in this exercise?

--

I'll go for (c), common sense that is over the line.   

The no-smoking policy smacks of a sort of corporate facism, but should smokers really have the right to slowly kill themselves at the expense of non-smokers through higher health care premiums and life insurance rates?   What is more important, the individual or the broader community?   As a non-smoker, I am really not opposed to discriminating against smokers -   its a disgusting habit that costs a lot of money just in smoking breaks, let alone health care and life insurance costs.   However, if it ever gets down to disciplinary actions based on food choices (Big Mac and fries vs salad with no dressing) more than a few of us may be looking for new jobs.

--

Makes no sense at all and is way over the line.   If I wanted to work for a nagging mother, I would work for my mother.   Not only do they not pay employees to work 24 hours a day, but it will not accomplish what they want to accomplish.

Honestly, why stop there?   Smoking is not the leading cause of death and rising medical costs in the United States.   They should be targeting obesity and alcoholism as well if they truly want to contain costs.   Eat at McDonalds more than once a week?   FIRED!   Have a penchant for buffalo wings and beer while watching football?   FIRED!   Why not go for the trifecta - enjoy a nice cold beer while eating Taco Bell and smoking a cigarette - FIRED! FIRED! FIRED!

--

b) Big brother strikes again.   What's next?  

Will the companies "health care police" put up secret cameras in my be*droom to ensure I am using a con*dom?   AI*DS and ven*ereal disease are very expensive.   (Emphasis on the "*")

Will they have me tailed to the local supermarket to take pictures of my purchase of "Twinkies"?   Obesity and diabetes are very expensive.

Will they monitor my exercise habits and file reports to my boss if I have not participated in the required number of sit-ups that week?

Cardiovascular disease is very expensive.

Maybe we don't need health care police, we can just pay a bounty to our fellow workers to rat on their coworkers when they see "unacceptable" behavior outside the workplace.   Sounds like a wonderful world...seems I read about it in a book somewhere.

--

Seems logical to me and therefore a common sense approach to reducing health care costs.   The employees knew well in advance of the new company policy so they could either find a new job or quit smoking, the latter of which is in their best interest anyway.   Look at the employees that smoked, quit, and kept their jobs.   Today, they are healthier and happier and I applaud the company for there part in that.

--

Big Brother seems to be alive and well at Weyco, Inc.   I remember reading about this case and wondering what else would be banned.   For instance, what would happen if the idiot in charge decided that coffee should be outlawed because it has caffeine? And what about sex--after all, there are a lot of STDs out there.

--

from my daily quote generator:

"First they came for the cigarettes and I didn't speak up because I don't smoke.   Then, they came for the alcohol, and I didn't speak up because I don't drink.   When they came for the chocolate I reached for my gun and ...oops!"

P.S. I am an overweight individual who doesn't smoke or drink but does work for an organization that a gives me high-stress long hours and closed the on-site gym as a cost-cutting maneuver. What do I do when they try to regulate the fast food that is the only meals I get on my 30 mile commute as I dash to pick up the kids and take them someplace?

--

(c) a common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line,----- I really like his approach mainly because my lungs react so bad around cigarette smoke.   Had it been something I liked to do then it would be a different story.    As the health insurance covers employees both at work and away from work he does have a point - the costs for smokers will be higher but what about family members that smoke, is there not a problem there?   What if the only smoke they are around is when they car pool to work - should that be a concern?

In all fairness the best option would be to have a company paid base insurance price with employee paying additional fees for the additional vices of each employee.   Let's seem them figure that one out.

--

b - over the line.   Next it will be if your cholesterol or blood pressure is too high.   Unfortunately smoking is a legal addiction.

I would say (c) a common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line.

I am not a smoker and personally find second-hand smoke smelly and offensive.   However, as long as tobacco products can be legally sold and possessed, I don't think an employer has the right to dictate employees' smoking habits outside the workplace.   After all, they don't own their employees.

--

I would have to go with B - over the line.   This is a legal activity whether or not we think it's a good idea.   I am very concerned about this growing militancy against those who may have habits or physical conditions that we are beginning to perceive to be undesirable.   I fully subscribe to personal responsibility but there are so many factors influencing a person's behavior.   Not to excuse or to be a bleeding heart on the subject, but what's next. You won't be hired because you have diabetes (it is unhealthy and costs too much), you are overweight (is that 5 pounds or 100 pounds or somewhere in between); you like to ride motorcycles (could get into an accident).On and on it goes.   I support no smoking at work policies but to lose a job because of smoking off the job really frightens me for the future of employment and this country.   It is to me symptomatic of a growing lack of tolerance in this country which, while it may be endemic to much of our history, we as a nation have tried to rise above.

--

(a) a common sense approach.

It is clear that using tobacco is an addiction.   It is common sense not to encourage or support tobacco use the same as not encouraging an alcoholic to drink.   The states that have "smoker's rights" laws were pandering to the tobacco companies.   Three cheers for a company stepping up to a higher plane.   Smokers can "choose" to work somewhere else that do not care about how they wreck their health.

--

D - the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.   Now that you have me on my soap box.......    Yes, I will agree that some smokers do have higher health care costs, but it is the obese ones who are killing us while they stuff their faces with Starbucks and Krispy Kreme doughnuts.    As a 42 year old smoker, who exercises, eats right and has a BMI of 19, I have not missed a day of work in five years due to illness.    One of my subordinates (BMI around 40, age 28, and non smoker), misses   5 to 10 days a month due to ongoing health issues including type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties, bad back, bad knees, poor circulation, etc.    There is no question which one of us costs the company more in health care costs.

--

I am not a smoker, but I do think that their new policy went (b) over the line.   I do not think that employer's have the right to dictate the actions of their employee's when they are not on company time.   And how in the world did they expect to administer/monitor this policy?

--

I can understand that employers do not want to have to pay for the higher health care costs for their employees who smoke, but once you go down that road where does it end? Today I'm not allowed to smoke, tomorrow I'll be commuting to work via my mandatory bike ride (to make sure I get my recommended amount of daily exercise), after which I will eat my company approved no-fat, no-carb, high-fiber, whole grain breakfast, and a similar company approved lunch. I will then bike to happy hour at the juice bar (since non-healthy beverages are no longer allowed), and then head home for my approved healthful dinner. Afterwards I will spend an hour or so on approved mind stimulating activity, then head off to bed at the prescribed time to make sure I get a full night's sleep. And since someone will have to make sure I'm actually doing all of this, I'm sure eventually there will be some sort of monitoring system in my house to make sure I keep healthy in every way.

What I'd like to know is how much would employers save in health care expenses related to stressed induced aliments(heart disease, chronic headaches, etc.) if they tried to reduced workplace stress. My guess would be a lot more than they would but forcing people not to smoke. Besides, maybe without the stress some people would quit smoking anyway!

--

First, I want to say that I have always been a non-smoker.   My answer is (d) other.   A component of that is certainly (b) over the line, because then where does it stop:

·          second hand smoke

·          overweight

·          women of childbearing age - the courts would have fun with that one

·          age since it costs more to insure an older person than a younger person (20 years in age is nearly double the cost) - again the courts would have fun with that

·          higher risk hobbies like sky-diving or motorcycle riding

·          should I go on?

We aren't talking about any behavioral choice that is illegal.

But there's a whole lot more.   I wonder if this is a case of the tail wagging the dog.   Most companies have much bigger financial issues than this to address, yet some have chosen to base staffing decisions on a net financial impact that may or may not be legitimate.   Assuming the following using round numbers based on some real statistics:

25% of the workforce smokes (I've seen 23% of adults as a figure)

the cost of medical coverage per working adult is $6,000 per year (maybe on the low side)

the financial impact on medical insurance of smoking is $3,000 per year per person (I have seen a study that it's about $3,400)

U.S. average total compensation (pay plus benefits) is $40,000 (on the low side to be conservative).  

In this case, a non-smoker actually costs $5,250 per year and a smoker costs $8,250 per year, so they lowered their health care costs from $6,000 to $5,250 per person per year, a one-time 12.5% decrease which probably made some HR director a hero that year.   The net impact on total compensation is less than 2% annually ($750 divided by $40,000) plus likely some impact on productivity for lost time due to smoking related illness.   Personally, with all the trouble many companies have finding good qualified job candidates today, I would rather pay a 2% premium for the best person who provides better results (maybe more than the 2% I just paid him).   So, I actually expect to net out no better or worse for the wear.   Sorry for the statistics, but I'm an actuary so this is how I think.

--

As a former 2 pack a day smoker for 25 years, and nonsmoker for 17 years, I'd say it is a common sense policy.  

    We've all known for at least the last 20 years that smoking adversely affects the smoker's health, as does second hand smoke for those around him.   It's also obvious that smoking raises health costs and therefore health insurance costs.    A less intrusive alternative, however, would have been to deny health insurance coverage to employees that smoked, or to require higher health insurance premiums for smokers.

    Even a smoker who is adamant about his right to smoke (as I once was) cannot disagree that nonsmokers and their employers should not have to bear the additional cost engendered by his lifestyle choice.   Freedom means that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.  

--

I think it is unfair for any company to regulate what you do outside of the work place....unless it is an illegal act(i.e. drugs)....

Should a company be allowed to tell people they can no longer drink alcohol because it is bad for your health also and has serious side affects as well.....

Should a company be allowed to monitor the amount of food you eat so you will not become obese, since this also causes serious health problems?

--

To assess your question, we need to commission a study on the true cost of smoking.   My understanding is that it is not all bad news for the health care system or the economy.

I have heard speculation that smokers die of less costly illnesses and conditions than nonsmokers (i.e. lung cancer cost less than Alzheimer's).   If this were true, they might be part of the solution, not the problem.

Smokers die earlier, and are less of a drain on our social security crises.   Thus, again, part of the solution not the problem.

Smokers pay high taxes on cigarettes.   If everyone stopped, the tax would get shifted somewhere else (...like gasoline) to us nonsmokers.

Smokers keep the farmers employed.   Do we really want to put those family tobacco farms out of business in North Carolina?

The big crises of the 21st century are the world overpopulation crises.   Again, self-inflicted age reduction is part of the solution, right?

I don't necessarily want less smokers, I just want it to be less of a nuisance.   To me, the laws are doing a good job of keeping them out of restaurants, ball parks, airports, malls, etc.   - places where I go.   If we can just solve the nasty butt problem, we could live in harmony with smokers.

So back to the question of limiting smoking outside the workplace...yes, a bit over the line.

--

(b) way over the line.   The bad habits a person indulges in on their own time is their business.   Next they will ban drinking alcohol, driving autos, taking medication, eating red meat, etc. as these are all considered hazardous to your health!

--

I think is was c:   a common sense approach that was nonetheless over the line.   As much as I detest cigarette smoke, I don't necessarily detest the smokers themselves.   They should see the light and try to quit - but trying to enforce what someone does in their private/personal life is stepping over the line.   This is treading on dangerous ground and could set a very scary precedent - Orwell's "1984" comes to mind.  

--

c. A common sense approach that's still over the line.   How would you enforce such a rule?   Rely on employee's signed statements that they don't smoke?   Start sniffing their breath and clothing? Periodic blood and/or urine tests?   What about secondary smoke from a spouse, significant other and/or friends, being in bars, etc. (can't date or marry a smoker?)?   As a non-smoker who really dislikes the smell of smoke, I really appreciate a non-smoking work environment.   However, a work rule should be reasonable and enforceable, and this does not appear to be either.

--

Good question.   I guess the answer is a qualified "C".   Now for the qualification.   I agree that it's silly that MY healthcare costs must increase because I have filthy dirty bastard coworkers who choose to inhale noxious chemicals into their lungs several times a day.   By the same standard, though, could the company ban employees:

- from talking on cell phones while driving (could cause an accident...and therefore increase health care)

- from having anonymous unprotected sex with multiple partners in a guilt-free environment (imagine Austin Powers saying that one)

- from having ANY unprotected sex (after all, babies cost money = increased health care costs)

- from overindulging (obesity = higher health care costs)

So although I think it's a good idea, I think it went too far in that it attempts to police what one chooses to do inside one's own home.   I have no problem with them charging people who smoke off the job much higher insurance rates, if at all possible, but I have a feeling that's not allowed either.   Perhaps what they can do is charge everyone the same but give non-smokers a HUGE discount so that they, in effect, are charging smokers more.

--

      (c)     Even though I personally would like to impose a world-wide ban on smoking everywhere - before, during and after

                work hours!

--

I suppose my answer would be (c) a common sense approach that is, nonetheless, over the line. I doubt this will be a solution we adopt at our company, especially considering the fact that the HR Director is a smoker. However, if we expect to ever contain health care costs, lifestyle factors that contribute so greatly to these costs must be addressed. Hopefully, they can be managed sufficiently with carrots rather that sticks.

--

I think Weyco, Inc's non-smoking outside the workplace policy is (b) Over the Line.   Whereas I recognize their right to maintain their policy (it's their company; they should be allowed manage it as they choose), I also recognize that we are all persons of free will and living in a free, democratic country.   So they can only enforce their over-the-line policy to the extent that their employees give them permission to do so - by remaining employed there.   I have never smoked in my life, but I would not work for them, based on principle.   If they needed a good Business Analyst, that would be their misfortune, as I am excellent at what I do.   I sincerely hope that other people who are excellent at what they do will stand against this intrusive policy.   I think the managers of Weyco, Inc. are taking a risk of losing their most marketable people and finding themselves with a work force of people who only remain there because they couldn't find employment elsewhere.

--

I think (b) - over the line.   What's next - no job if you eat pizza and lie on the couch all weekend?   I don't think private behavior is any of the employer's business unless it's illegal.

--

I think this type of practice is setting a very dangerous precedent that can morph into other areas of employees' personal lives.   I recently read that in Madison Wisconsin (not sure if it's the city or township), they are looking at imposing a similar no smoking policy for all new hires in the fire department - qualified individuals who smoke need not apply.

I also saw on the news last night that a truck driver for a beer distributor in Wisconsin was photographed drinking a different brand of beer at a party on his weekend off and the next Monday he was fired.   Reason - he preferred someone else's bottled beer over his employer's.  

What's next?   Maybe there will be an employer that is against drinking and in favor of exercise and they impose a non-drinking policy and a mandatory exercise program on their entire workforce.   Anyone in non-compliance is fired and for job applicants, overweight individuals and those who drink will be automatically rejected.   

What people legally do outside of work should remain private and not have any bearing on their employment.

--

(b) Over the line.   What's next - firing people for drinking, taking over the counter cold medications with ephedrine-based ingredients, using herbs and vitamins, or having s- -   too many times in a week?   This just reeks of "big brother is watching."   I know plenty of smokers who are way more healthy than a lot of non-smokers I know.   Will we be firing people for having diabetes, heart disease or heaven only knows what else?   Where do you draw the line?   What a person does in the privacy of their own home (as long as it is legal and done with everyone's consent) is their own business - period.

--

C.   This would open up a situation that would not be manageable.

It is (b), over the line.   I don't believe that an employer should be able to tell me what I can do outside work.   Having said that, I also believe that an employer should be able to set conditions for hire, if it can show why those conditions affect the employer's business.

--

c) This falls somewhere between condescending paternalism and tough love.   I think the eventual legal costs of applying this controversial policy (i.e., defending the likely lawsuits) will probably exceed the savings from lower health care costs.   

--

A common sense policy that is probably considered over the line by many today, but will become accepted over time. Just another way of getting employees to put some "skin in the game."

--

d) Other....   Even if the employees didn't smoke at work, they can still smoke when away from work....   This doesn't help the health issue, they would probably smoke MORE when away from work because they felt deprived...

Right idea, but very wrong way to go about it...-

«