Docking Pay For Overweight Workers

[betsy]

"Docking Pay For Overweight Workers

Aug 10, 2007 06:20 PM EDT

Some major U.S. companies are going to great lengths to improve employee health. But, are they crossing the line?

It's a staggering statistic, 1 in 3 Americans are currently deemed obese, and as employee waists continue to expand at an alarming rate, so do their employer's insurance premiums. In an effort to combat these costs some companies are now saying: shape up or pay up!

Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis-based hospital chain, announced that beginning in 2009 employees will be fined up to $30 a week if they don' t meet corporate health standards.

At U-haul, if employees smoke or are overweight with body mass index above thirty, their paycheck is docked roughly 13-dollars, money that is put toward a Wellness Program. But if you quit smoking or lose weight the fee is cut in half.

Bernice Owens loves her weight loss program and feels U-haul is only trying to help.

"They're concerned about their employee , not just only to do the work. I know they're concerned about me," says Owens.

Though it is legal to offer incentives for workers to get in shape, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee's health status, a trend experts say is already taking place at the office.

Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center says "the question is are you going to dock somebody's pay, are you going to make them pay a higher premium because they have a disease like obesity?"

Butch Greer, with U-haul International, says "the point of the program is not to penalize anyone, it's to encourage them to look at their lifestyle and maybe think about that bag of potato chips before they eat it."

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6916688

Now, this is ridiculous, don't you think so?

If there's anything to boycott on, it's companies like these who are downright fascist with this new policy.

What does this U-Haul Greer mean by "not meant to penalize anyone"...of course that's exactly what it means!

This is not to "encourage". This is to coersce, to force someone!

If they want to use the word "encouragement" as in providing incentives - then it's should be the other way around:

GIVE A BONUS FOR THOSE WHO LOSE WEIGHT!

I hope their overweight employees sue the pants off these companies for all these humiliation, discrimination and STRESS that they're being made to feel!

Edited August 11, 2007 by betsy

[maldon_road]

What is the relevance of the guy's weight? The only factor is, can he do the job? Even thin people can get sick and use employee benefits. When you have group insurance it is improper to discriminate against individual employees.

[scribblet]

Holy moly that's way over the line. I agree, a bonus to those who lose weight and if the guy/gal can do the job it's not the company's concern. Now this is one for the ACLU

[betsy]

Not only that, but this statement as well:

Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis-based hospital chain, announced that beginning in 2009 employees will be fined up to $30 a week if they don' t meet corporate health standards.

That could mean anything, depending on their own standards. This is more than just interfering with private lives.

What is worrisome is that it says this is becoming a trend. It is catching on....and it is being allowed to go on.

Somebody ought to start challenging these corporates in court, and demand mega bucks in punitive damages just so to discourage other comapnies to get in on this wagon. Any employees suffering any heart attacks or anything stress-related should point its fingers at this ridiculous policy.

[kimmy]

Now, this is ridiculous, don't you think so?

If there's anything to boycott on, it's companies like these who are downright fascist with this new policy.

What does this U-Haul Greer mean by "not meant to penalize anyone"...of course that's exactly what it means!

This is not to "encourage". This is to coersce, to force someone!

If they want to use the word "encouragement" as in providing incentives - then it's should be the other way around:

GIVE A BONUS FOR THOSE WHO LOSE WEIGHT!

I hope their overweight employees sue the pants off these companies for all these humiliation, discrimination and STRESS that they're being made to feel!

I agree.

If an employer has a specific reason for a policy against obesity (for instance, employees who are required to work in confined areas or who are required to have some amount of physical stamina) then state it in the job requirements and don't hire somebody who doesn't meet those requirements.

This is simply BS.

I'm also curious about how this will be carried out. Are all the employees lined up, measured, put on scales? Or does a manager go around and say "Joe's looking fat. I'm going to dock him $13."

And, if these employers feel justified in policing their workers' personal health, they should be consistent. Why just single out weight and smoking? When they're lining up employees to stand on a scale, they should also get them to pee in a cup. That way, they can also identify employees who use alcohol and drugs. I don't have stats to back this up, but I would bet big money that employers lose a lot more employee productivity and sick-days to alcohol-related absenteeism and underperformance than they do to anything resulting from obesity.

Y'know, I really do hope somebody sues the bloody hell out of U-Haul for this. "I am suing for $13 dollars in financial damages, plus a million dollars for stress, humiliation, discrimination, and being so god-damned stupid as to think you could get away with treating your employees like this."

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Y'know, I really do hope somebody sues the bloody hell out of U-Haul for this. "I am suing for $13 dollars in financial damages, plus a million dollars for stress, humiliation, discrimination, and being so god-damned stupid as to think you could get away with treating your employees like this."

-k

Why? Should firefighters, police, and military all sue when they lose out on incentives or get canned for obesity? It's a health and health costs issue same as any other, from smoking to drug abuse. I use to work at a company that specialized in managing people with high risk for health behaviors...our clients were some of the largest employers in North America.

Ever seen a morbidly obese flight attendant?

[kimmy]

Why? Should firefighters, police, and military all sue when they lose out on incentives or get canned for obesity? It's a health and health costs issue same as any other, from smoking to drug abuse. I use to work at a company that specialized in managing people with high risk for health behaviors...our clients were some of the largest employers in North America.

Firefighters, police, and military all have rigorous physical standards which are enforced at hiring time and are stated as part of the job description. I mentioned in my previous message that some employees have legitimate reasons for discriminating on a basis of physical ability. How does U-Haul apply?

They stand behind a counter, sign paperwork, and hand you keys. Wow, grueling. Some of the employees also move the vehicles around in the parking lot. Exhausting. Some of them even have to wash the vehicles or vacuum the interiors. Astounding. How could an obese person do this kind of stuff?

Some employers also have legitimate reason for monitoring employee drug or alcohol use.

If U-Haul feels they have legitimate reasons for involving themselves in their employees' personal affairs, let them make that case. "We're trying to help them loose weight!" doesn't cut it.

Ever seen a morbidly obese flight attendant?

You probably don't find very many morbidly obese night-club waitresses either. What of it?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

What about people who drink excessively? What about people who gamble? This isn't about caring about employees; it's about caring about the Almighty Dollar.

[buffycat]

Docking their pay is certainly not the way to go - if Uhaul really thinks it is caring for it's employees.

Perhaps a better way, as mentioned above, would be to include a bonus of sorts for all employees who are part of some kind of fitness program.

That said - unless the tonnage is interfering with the performance at work it really isn't any of uhaul's business.

(Though let's face it there are a lot of morbidly obese Americans and Canadians these days - which begs the question: What is so messed up in our society and our food sources that there are so many REALLY fat folks around? hmmm?)

[bush_cheney2004]

What about people who drink excessively? What about people who gamble? This isn't about caring about employees; it's about caring about the Almighty Dollar.

Of course it is....insurance rates for these companies balloon when certain groups engage in high risk behaviors or lifestyles. As long as they don't run afoul of US labor law, more power to them. It's not rocket science....a schoolteacher can tell you that obese children will have a much higher absentee rate....ditto employers.

Reminds me of a childhood diddy:

Fat and skinny, laying in the bed....

Fat rolled over, skinny lay dead.

So now it's payback time....fat lay unemployed!!

[Guest American Woman]

Of course it is....insurance rates for these companies balloon when certain groups engage in high risk behaviors or lifestyles.

So what about people who have had speeding tickets? DUI's? What about people who engage in extreme sports? Ride motorcycles without helmets? And the list goes on.

As long as they don't run afoul of US labor law, more power to them. It's not rocket science....a schoolteacher can tell you that obese children will have a much higher absentee rate....ditto employers.

Now I've heard everything. But rather than ask for a legitimate source, I'll just say that the company offers everyone the same number of sick days.

Reminds me of a childhood diddy:

Fat and skinny, laying in the bed....

Fat rolled over, skinny lay dead.

So now it's payback time....fat lay unemployed!!

You are an adult, right?

Edited August 11, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

So what about people who have had speeding tickets? DUI's? What about people who engage in extreme sports? Ride motorcycles without helmets? And the list goes on.

What about 'em....let the actuaries work their magic and adjust accordingly. Try to buy an individual life policy as a sky-diver or DUI convict. Much higher premiums.

Now I've heard everything. But rather than ask for a legitimate source, I'll just say that the company offers everyone the same number of sick days.

You are an adult, right?

My "company" does not offer the "same number of sick days". Am I being discriminated against too?!?

Edited August 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

Whether intentional or not U-Haul has made an unwritten declaration of their employment policy. "Fat people need not apply." and "Smokers need not apply."

They could probably afford to pay damages in a hefty lawsuit. This may be the price they're willing to pay for the ultimate result of potential employees disqualifying themselves from seeking employment at that company.

The only legitimate requirements for employment should be those abilities required to perform the job. Once employed, if for whatever reason an employee cannot perform his/her duties, it is incumbent on the employer to prove it and to make sure that evidence falls within the parameters of labour laws. Then, the employer may dismiss the employee. In most jurisdictions, labour laws provide an appeal mechanism for the employee to contest the dismissal.

Any employer who use fines to manage and control its workforce is setting up a poisoned work environment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any employer who use fines to manage and control its workforce is setting up a poisoned work environment.

Umm...OK...you mean like the NHL...or NFL...or NBA? That's a very good work environment, even if poisoned!

[betsy]

If a company is concerned about the insurance premium that they are paying fro their group insurance, then they should just tell their employees to get their own healthcare insurance or if they want to join the company's health group package, then they need to meet certain requirements.

Docking pay is definitely NOT the way to go! I find it morally wrong, among other things.

Bloody hell, these employees are supposed to be paid for doing their jobs! Why should they get less pay for doing what the rest are getting just because of weight problems? As long as they are doing their jobs I'd say butt out of people's lives!

[betsy]

a schoolteacher can tell you that obese children will have a much higher absentee rate....ditto employers.

A parent will usually have a much higher absentee rate than a person with no children. And that's not even counting on the chance when daycare workers happen to go on strike!

[betsy]

(Though let's face it there are a lot of morbidly obese Americans and Canadians these days - which begs the question: What is so messed up in our society and our food sources that there are so many REALLY fat folks around? hmmm?)

Yes. And it's not only on the poor sectors, so they can't really blame it on poverty. I really think it is our sedentary lifestyle that technology had given us, what with all these kinds of fastfood available everywhere not to mention the hectic and stressful pace others are leading....it all adds up.

Big companies who really are serious about their employees' health could get their cafeteria to offer mostly healthy foods that are low in fat, sodium and "bad" carbohydrates.

[betsy]

I agree.

If an employer has a specific reason for a policy against obesity (for instance, employees who are required to work in confined areas or who are required to have some amount of physical stamina) then state it in the job requirements and don't hire somebody who doesn't meet those requirements.

This is simply BS.

I'm also curious about how this will be carried out. Are all the employees lined up, measured, put on scales? Or does a manager go around and say "Joe's looking fat. I'm going to dock him $13."

And, if these employers feel justified in policing their workers' personal health, they should be consistent. Why just single out weight and smoking? When they're lining up employees to stand on a scale, they should also get them to pee in a cup. That way, they can also identify employees who use alcohol and drugs. I don't have stats to back this up, but I would bet big money that employers lose a lot more employee productivity and sick-days to alcohol-related absenteeism and underperformance than they do to anything resulting from obesity.

Y'know, I really do hope somebody sues the bloody hell out of U-Haul for this. "I am suing for $13 dollars in financial damages, plus a million dollars for stress, humiliation, discrimination, and being so god-damned stupid as to think you could get away with treating your employees like this."

-k

And to think that this was allowed to go un-challenged. Aren't U-Haul workers with a Union? I'm almost sure those hospital workers are unionized.....so why no comments from any union reps?

[Moxie]

Jesus the socialist just don't give up enforcing their agenda down our throats, what's over weight these days anyway. A size two or five? The BMI system has been debunked because it does not take into account body structure. A larged boned women at 140 doesn't look much different than my small frame at 103. Will these people just go away with their PCed nonsense, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[cybercoma]

wikipedia is obviously not the greatest source for reference, but I just wanted to quote the second sentence on the page referring to BMI:

It was invented between 1830 and 1850 by the Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet during the course of developing "social physics".

So, this Body Mass Index is what some 19th century MATHEMATICIAN (who tried to make a math problem out of sociology) thought was the ideal weight to height ratio. It has remained largely unchanged since then and it is laughable that it is used today for such things as health insurance and now as a way to garnish employees wages.

There is little to no scientific evidence to suggest that the BMI can indicate a person's health, or likelihood of becoming unhealthy, nor is it shown anywhere that reducing your BMI can IMPROVE your health or make you less susceptible to health problems.

This is pseudo-science at its worst and it's a shame that people buy into it.

[Drea]

Jesus the socialist just don't give up enforcing their agenda down our throats, what's over weight these days anyway. A size two or five? The BMI system has been debunked because it does not take into account body structure. A larged boned women at 140 doesn't look much different than my small frame at 103. Will these people just go away with their PCed nonsense, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

I don't think you can blame this one on so-called "socialists". This is capitalism in it's purest form. A "socialist" would tell the company to set up a fitness program and offer low fat food (for free!). The capitalist simply takes money out of pockets. Which is what this is about. Money. It's not about helping people lose weight. It's just another way to take money out of the pockets of workers.

Moxie, we are lucky to be thin (I too am a small person). Some people live on pure salad and gain weight. They should not be penalized for their bad luck.

[cybercoma]

Another thing, I should add... There are some links between obesity and poverty as well. I remember reading somewhere that those who make less money (as is the case here with being docked pay), tend to eat less healthy foods. They speculated that it is because people tend to choose foods with higher calories when they have less money to spend on food.

I can't see at all how docking an employees pay can benefit them. The only people that are benefiting are the executives at the corporation and the shareholders.

[betsy]

I don't think you can blame this one on so-called "socialists". This is capitalism in it's purest form. A "socialist" would tell the company to set up a fitness program and offer low fat food (for free!). The capitalist simply takes money out of pockets. Which is what this is about. Money. It's not about helping people lose weight. It's just another way to take money out of the pockets of workers.

Moxie, we are lucky to be thin (I too am a small person). Some people live on pure salad and gain weight. They should not be penalized for their bad luck.

I don't think this is really about capitalism....although it does seem that way.

I think, this is more about "control"....the same kind you see when some group would lobby to force the public to do this or that, all in the name of "what's good for you." This is "big-brother" at work, you know, the one who knows what's best for you. The ones who will not give you any choice at all.

Edited August 12, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think this is really about capitalism. This is more about "control"....the same kind you see when some group would lobby to force the public to do this or that, all in the name of "what's good for you." This is "big-brother" at work, you know, the one who knows what's best for you. The ones who will not give you any choice at all.

I'd say yes, this is part of socialist/liberalist mentality.

Don't kid yourself. It's about the Almighty Dollar. No more, no less. Socialists/Liberals would want to make sure everyone was taken care of equally. This is the opposite of socialism/liberalism: it's taking $$ away from the worker and putting it in the company's pocket.

[betsy]

Another thing, I should add... There are some links between obesity and poverty as well. I remember reading somewhere that those who make less money (as is the case here with being docked pay), tend to eat less healthy foods. They speculated that it is because people tend to choose foods with higher calories when they have less money to spend on food.

Yes, I've read about too...and it makes sense. When your budget is so stretched, you'd settle for anything that's filling, rather than what's healthy. Besides, stress is also another factor why some people couldn't stop from eating. Financial worry is one major cause of stress.

So how can these companies justify what they're doing to their employees based on this study? Docking their pay? I'm sure a lot of these employees count on every penny they make...