Fat workers more costly to employers.

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIET_OBESITY_COSTS?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT[/url]”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIET_OBESITY_COSTS?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This begs the question as we get more and more able to predict things like health–what do we do with that information? Similar problem with the VT killer. Many knew there was a likely problem but when does society get the benefit of that information vs protecting individual. Tough problem.</p>

2

<p>Kind of old news. Most employers above 100 employees can easily get claims information for the group. They can find out who spent what for what. It is a pandora’s box though, because they legally can’t act against an individual employee for health costs they’ve incurred.</p>

3

<p>Maybe but it’s not going away soon and will get even worse as we can look at genes and other factors to determine likelihood of illness, mental problems etc. Employers, colleges, etc. will be very tempted to find a way to screen problems out. Could even impact marriage partner selection. Do you want to marry someone prone to serious illness at a young age–or prone to serious mental problems of have children with such a person?</p>

4

<p>Quote from the article:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course it won’t. What it will do is reinforce hiring prejudice against overweight people. There are no laws protecting the overweight from work place discrimination.</p>

5

<p>What it will do is reinforce hiring prejudice against overweight people</p>

<p>Sorry, but not hiring somebody because they’re a more costly employee is in absolutely no way discrimination. It is quite the opposite in fact.</p>

<p>edit:
before I get jumped on, I’m in no way advocating this in any moral sense.</p>

6

<p>I am wondering if it is more cost effective when employers have cafeteria style benefit plans.</p>

<p>You get so many dollars and can put toward retirement/health care/gym/smoking cessation/better food in teh cafeteria ( JK)</p>

<p>I don’t think it could be legal.</p>

<p>[What</a> Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?</p>

<p>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.](<a href=“http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html]What”>Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)</p>

<p>Now if you are so obese that the prospective employer questions whether you could do the job, I think they would have a pretty good case against hiring you- but generally just chubby- wouldn’t be.</p>

7

<p>“Of course it won’t.”</p>

<p>I don’t know…my employer sponsors Weight Watchers and a number of other programs. I don’t know whether or not the programs work, but they are devoting some resources in that direction.</p>

8

<p>My insurance company paid for my Weight Watchers membership, although I had to pay the weekly fees.</p>

9

<p>what employers also should think about- not just in hiring but in production practices, are their expectations going to kill off their employees?</p>

<p>My H- who is far from overweight ( actually underweight I think)
Has a physically and mentally stressful job.
Recently he has been made to work 12 hour days- on his hands and knees and toes- all the time. He also only gets one weekend off a month- not all 12 or 10 hour days- but it is mandatory</p>

<p>He is in his mid 50s, while a toddler could go for that long moving all the time, he is about dead when he gets home.
I seriously don’t think he can last much longer like this.
( and this is * with * a union, can you imagine what the job would be like without one?)</p>

<p>But many companies his included have gyms on site- lower weight and reduce stress at same time.</p>

<p>However- many people don’t use it- H actually doesn’t have one at his work site- but he also doesn’t listen to my nagging that if he is going to work such a physcially demanding job, he has to train for it.</p>

<p>My brother also I think is pretty typical- he has put on a lot of weight- his wife is apparently a better cook than I am :wink:
He spent a lot of money on a bike- was going to ride it to work
( it has gotten out a couple times on weekends)
He joined the gym at work- but he averages once every other month.</p>

<p>Both he and his wife keep asking me how I lost weight ( I lost about 40 lbs- but it looks like more because I converted fat to muscle).
I keep telling them that it was becoming a lot more active.</p>

<p>I didn’t really change what I ate. ( I do admit that exercise helps me concentrate better- so I don’t snack so much to keep my “blood sugar” up)</p>

<p>However- even though I bet they spend that much time driving around doing errands that I do online- they didn’t want to hear that I spend about 15 hours at the gym a week.( unless it is really nice outside)</p>

<p>I obviously do think that fitness affects job performance and health, which will increase nationwide productivity and reduce costs, but I also don’t think it should be legal to discriminate against overweight workers just because they might cost you more in ins costs.
( some companies recognize this- I have heard no only does Microsoft have really nice athletic facilities, but their cafeteria is very enticing * plus if the workers don’t have to leave the campus, they get more work out of them*)</p>

<p>However- I think they also have done studies about income, and the taller and better looking you are, the more you are perceived to have high income;)</p>

<p>There are overweight executives, and more all the time.
( our mayor for example, looks like he is going to have a heart attack at any 2nd[I think he has gained about 50 lbs since this was taken](<a href=“Greg Nickels - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Nickels&lt;/a&gt;))</p>

<p>Some of the places I shop now have plus sizes added, which I think is 14+ for women? But I think it is still hard for people to find clothes that fit- and the designers certainly dont make it easy. </p>

<p>We also didn’t used to have 0 sizing either.Lots of women are apparently fat/skinny. I have been reading about women who weigh 110, but they have little musculature and faint if they have to exert themselves.</p>

<p>That is just ridiculous.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.</p>

10

<p>But it is practically government policy to make us fat. Interesting article on the farm bill in … was it NYT magazine?</p>

<p>Another interesting example (getting back to the OP) was the basketball player with the suspected genetic heart problem. His team (I think it was the Bulls) wanted him to have a test before they would give him a guaranteed contract. He declined the test.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Where to begin? </p>

<p>First, discrimination means selection. It is not necessarily “evil,” but it does involve choosing something and not choosing something else. Even if you are making the argument that it makes sense (in some absolute measurable sense) not to hire overweight people, it is discriminatory. When I hire someone because they are more experienced, that is discriminatory, too. It’s just the kind of discrimination that few would object to.</p>

<p>Second, this news will be used to justify prejudice. The research, in essence, says that the probability of an overweight person being injured is higher for certain kinds of employment than a thinner person. This does not say that all overweight people will get injured, or that all thinner people won’t. This is, however, how it will be interpreted. </p>

<p>I hope this will not be taken as a straw man argument. Asians reportedly score about a standard deviation higher than European/Americans on IQ tests, as a whole population. If I decided to only hire Asians “because they are smarter and will do a better job” I would be making the same mistake as an employer who refuses to hire overweight people “because they get injured more.”</p>

<p>Probabilities are not destiny. Whenever we use generalizations to determine how we behave towards individuals we are shortchanging ourselves and possibly hurting them. The whole issue of liberty and civil rights would be a lot less complex if everyone understood this.</p>

12

<p>What about smokers and alcoholics? Is it prejudice or just good sense not to hire someone who will be MUCH more prone to both mild and serious illnesses? With current smoking rules they have to waste considerable time going out for a smoke every couple of hours.</p>

13

<p>For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t discriminate against smokers. See my post above – I don’t think it’s right to punish individuals for their linkage to statistical measures. </p>

<p>OK, here’s another point. On average, women miss more work than men. So, I should only hire men, right?</p>

14

<p>With current smoking rules they have to waste considerable time going out for a smoke every couple of hours.</p>

<p>I actually wonder- if workers were allowed to stretch- to get some water- to even meditate for a few minutes several times a day- if smoking would decrease.</p>

<p>Companies dont’ like smoking, but they do grudgingly admit workers to take time away to do so.</p>

<p>Does getting up to stretch, maybe get some orange juice really interfere that much with production time or does it make them more productive?
( Im not talking about people who never seem to find their way back to their desk)</p>

<p>I think though if we started looking into health records, especially when away from work, ( which some companies already have done- requiring workers to quit smoking for example- what the gov should do, is quit allowing companies to put additives in tobacco to make it more difficult to stop)</p>

<p>where does it stop?
do we require Iq tests? Genetic testing?
Ethics evaluations?
Interview of spouse and quizzing if they are going to have children?</p>

<p>What about someone who already has a chronic disease? Asthma or diabetes for example. Are those allowable because they aren’t as perceived to be influenced by health choices?</p>

<p>Someone who plays rugby on weekends, may cost the company money because she breaks a leg and has to work from home for a couple months.
Or what about all those executives who ahve taken up motorcycle riding?
<a href=“http://www.magpie.com/nycmoto/nytimes.html[/url]”>http://www.magpie.com/nycmoto/nytimes.html&lt;/a&gt;
( and all those who ride * bicycles* but weave in and out of traffic)</p>

<p>I think what large companies can do, is what they are already doing. Have information and incentives available to make healthy lifestyle choices, but also they can make their work environments healthier as well</p>

15

<p>“I actually wonder- if workers were allowed to stretch- to get some water- to even meditate for a few minutes several times a day- if smoking would decrease.”</p>

<p>I’m a huge believer in breaks and in true down time during the working day as means to increase the quality and quantity of work (as well as overall physical and mental health in a stressful industry). I have a folding couch in my office for power naps. Many, many times I have been able to finish a workday because I take down time at the office. If I went home to lie down, I’d never come back, and if I tried to work through a headache, I’d be unproductive all day. Take a time out, regroup, and come back fresher. A nap is a much healthier break than a Coke and a bag of chips, too.</p>

16

<p>“where does it stop?
do we require Iq tests? Genetic testing?
Ethics evaluations?
Interview of spouse and quizzing if they are going to have children?”</p>

<p>My question too. We certainly could save money as a society if we took a harder line on bad behavior of all types. Probably enough to fund full healthcare for everyone with money left over. A we become more dependent on society to meet our needs what can society demand in return?</p>

17

<p>Bad behavior?</p>

<p>What about those of us who got the shallow end of the genetic pool so to speak- should we be penalized?</p>

<p>My D watched Gattaca in a sophmore bio class-
given genetic developments- it isn’t unimaginable
<a href=“http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/23/[/url]”>http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/23/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

18

<p>“What about those of us who got the shallow end of the genetic pool so to speak- should we be penalized?”</p>

<p>That’s a good question too. In another 20-50 years we will know enough to be able to project future health and maybe even behavior much better than today. Do we let the train wrecks we know are coming just happen or intervene? Interesting questions I won’t be around long enough to answer.</p>

19

<p>there is a lot we can do now</p>

<p>[why</a> should a fast food hamburger be cheaper than a bag of organic carrots?](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin]why”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin)</p>