Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Delaware News Journal Article Highlights Employer Intrusion Into Private, Off-the-Job Behavior

An article in Monday's Delaware News Journal highlights the growing trend of employer intrusion into the private, lawful, off-the-job behavior of employees, especially in the area of smoking behavior.

According to the article: "It's no secret that lifestyle choices can cost people their health, and maybe even their life. These days, bad habits can also cost you your job. As U.S. companies scramble to contain health insurance costs and survive a wheezing economy, some are scrutinizing their employees' off-duty behavior, firing those who smoke, tacking surcharges onto overweight workers' health plans and even dismissing people for having an off-duty drink. Such practices are raising claims of unwarranted intrusion, a few cries of illegal discrimination and warnings of fraying liberties." ...

"If companies are justified in firing smokers, then logic would seem to open the door to banning all sorts of risky behaviors, from eating fatty foods to motorcycle riding. And conditions such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol could become bars to employment."

"'The same logic that goes into not hiring smokers is the same logic that could go into not hiring fat people, or not hiring people who eat steak,' said Michael Siegel, associate chairman of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Department at Boston University." ...

"Eventually, the need to rein in costs might become so pressing that 'we can all kiss our private lives goodbye,' the head of the National Workrights Institute told '60 Minutes.'" ...

"Aside from the occasional oddity -- one worker was fired for a bumper sticker that backed the "wrong" candidate, and a Coors employee in Colorado was canned when his boss caught him sipping a Budweiser -- employers mainly are targeting smokers. In part, society's crusade against smoking has made smokers politically "safe" to persecute, Siegel said." ...

"Critics recognize the dilemma companies face, but believe the financial well-being of a corporation should not prevail over personal freedom and contend that using smoking as a criterion for dismissal will inevitably lead to greater intrusions. 'Do we really want to deny the ability of a person who smokes to make a living?' asked Drewry Nash Fennell, director of the Delaware ACLU. 'At what point do we say that an employer has gone too far in regulating health consequences? Do you have to give up skiing, rock climbing?'" ...

"in any case, companies clearly are acting with more concern for profit than health, some say. 'I have to question their sincerity' in claiming to have pure motives, Siegel said. 'If they were truly sincere about hiring a healthy work force ... why are they still hiring obese people?'"

The Rest of the Story

I'm glad that reporters are now able to turn to someone within public health who is dedicated to the anti-smoking cause (i.e., an "anti") to get a quote expressing concerns about employer discrimination against smokers. I'm afraid that outside of The Rest of the Story, there is little public opposition to this type of undue intrusion into employee privacy from within the tobacco control field (at least in the United States - Dr. Simon Chapman in Australia has also been outspoken about this issue).

It it striking that despite their purported concern about spiraling health care costs, employers are singularly concerned about smoking behavior. To me, that signals a hidden factor which is driving these policies: hatred for, or disapproval of smokers. The employment discrimination hasn't (yet) included obese people because I don't think there is the same level of hatred and disapproval.

In addition, I do believe that smokers are now politically safe to discriminate against, while groups such as obese people are not. This is why employers are focusing narrowly on smokers when they decide to use discrimination as a tool to save money.

No comments: