One of my previous employers tested for smoking with a mechanism that looked like an asthma inhaler.

Their policy wasn’t to fire smokers, but when they started doing the smokers’ tests, nonsmokers had more of their medical insurance paid for by the company than smokers did.

It is hard to buy into the almost cult-like thrust for adherence to wellness on one hand - when most departments, companies, etc. simultaneously use food as a reward, partly because it is the cheapest thing to do. (My last company had, no kidding, a come-to-Jesus wellness meeting at 11 am and then had an ice cream and cake social right afterwards.)

It amuses (and irritates) me to no end that I could be addicted to alcohol or any number of narcotics - hard core stuff like heroin that would, y’know, really affect performance - and my company would allow me to take off 2 or 3 months AND pay for my rehabilitation. Now, I’ll be honest - I have an eating disorder. I admit it. And the best possible thing for me would be having a chance to go into an intense rehab scenario where I could learn to cook and break those bad habits. But most companies would never think to pay for that, although the long-term savings might be amazing.

It’s not just corporations, though. It’s a cultural thing. People talk about how poorly dressed fat people are, but yet you cannot go into most easily accessible stores and find larger sizes. When I do go to a store like Casual Male to try and find business casual clothing, there are very few items that are stylish and appropriate for the office. Most of the shirts are made with patterns that are lifted from doctor’s office wallpaper - ie, the loudest possible visuals known to man, guaranteed to (a) make a fat guy look much fatter than he is and (b) make sure everyone can see the fat guy from miles away.

I hadn’t really thought about that, I guess it just seemed like a lot of time and resources to spend on what an employee does outside of work…but you’re right and from this particular company’s perspective, not only is it less expensive than paying employees, but given their product, those activities of testing and PI work are far less expensive than a major lawsuit.

The impression I get is that the company doesn’t have to hire a PI or test to determine whether their employees smoke outside work. I understand that a number of those terminated for smoking outside of work were reported by their co-workers. Again, I don’t really have a lot to say on that, other than:

a) must make for an interesting work environment, and
b) would banning obesity in the workplace mean an end to office birthday cake? What if I wore a girdle?

Jackbuilt

@jackbuilt There are tests you can administer for smoking, just like tests for drugs. Also, it wouldn’t be uncommon for companies to hire PI’s to monitor employee behaviors outside of work. It’s very common for work comp claims, and it’s cheaper to hire a PI and fire someone who violates policy than to continue paying the employee and his/her benefits.

Johns Manville does not hire smokers, not smoking is a condition of employment, and from my understanding, employees “caught” smoking outside of work have been disciplined to the point of termination.

It would seem that due to some nasty lung cancer and lung disease issues in the past associated with the company’s use of asbestos in fiberglass (they don’t do that anymore) hiring non-smokers is legal.

I’m not arguing against the business necessity - but I do wonder how they know what their employees do outside of work…

Jackbuilt

I first became interested in the topic because I really can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, it’s so paternalistic. Worse, it’s probably more akin to witch hunting. And that’s the biggest con for me–that smokers are the social outcasts du jour. But eventually, it’s pretty possible that there just won’t be any more smokers.

But will the price of health insuance have gone down by then? Ha. Please. That is not even close to supportable. So, if the targeted issue is health-care costs, them employers will have to turn to another group, which ever one has become the most unpopular kids at the lunch table.

Back in 2004 I gave a seminar on the legitimacy and legality of wellness programs, especially ones that focused on smokers. (This was before the final HIPPA regs were issued). I remember posing the question, “What group will be next? Will it be overweight employees? Employees who use alcohol?” The audience of 100+ HR professionals laughed at the idea.

Sure enough, obesity has become targeted more and more frequently. I’ve posted about this many times and won’t annoy everyone with links but it is a truly fascinating issue. I wonder what will be the parallel for the higher premiums imposed on smokers as overweight or obese employees become the focus of “wellness” programs. Maybe employers will start imposing a health-care surcharge–all overweight employees will pay more for insurance premiums. And they can be calculated based on pounds overweight. Really, doesn’t that seem ludicrous?

I vote that all employers start by targeting my favorite character, the Jerk at Work. Think about the potential and immediate results that would generate. Increased productivity, increased teamwork and knowledge sharing, decreased absenteeism, and decreased visits to mental-health provider. Can’t we just work on Jerks first?

Thanks for a great forum with great comments!!

The greatest health care costs incurred by our obese employees are for gastric bypass surgery - a surgery that many of them have been led to believe was necessary for them to be “healthier.” I haven’t seen the data to convince me that works, either. Typically, they have many more health problems after than they did before.

Hire smokers. Statistically, they die younger, so you pay for fewer years of health care overall.

1. What defines obese? Do we use BMI? Because BMI is being totally eviscerated out there and — according to BMI — I’m on the cusp of being overweight at 5′ tall and 125 lbs. BMI stands for BULLSHIT METRICS SOMETHING WITH AN I.

2. I’m not sure I agree that obese people cost more to insure. Can you prove it? I mean, really, is it a fact? I’m not sure it is — but I know it’s conventional wisdom.

3. I like how you don’t care about people who disagree with you (& are wrong). THAT we can agree upon.

@Jeremy Check out HR Bloggers for a discussion on companies who are doing wellness RIGHT.