What is Digg?134 Comments
- laughandsing, on 07/02/2008, -2/+24Rewarding them for their healthy habits is one thing...Like giving free gym memberships...It encourages the employee to be healthy. Enforcing a lifestyle is another thing though. You should not have to fear losing your job due to smoking or being overweight. Job security should be based on performance of the employee. I used to work for a company that had a health and wellness program sortof like some in the article. If you didn't follow their advice you could lose your insurance. This is a benefit of the company and as long as you didnt lie to the insurance company prior to being added to a policy your insurance should not be threatened.
- jflowers45, on 07/02/2008, -8/+28I don't have a problem with it. Healthier employees miss less time and are more productive, so why not reward them?
- ecrunner, on 07/01/2008, -3/+21other way around for me; I am trying to force my company to be healthy!
- Darmichar, on 07/02/2008, -2/+13*Takes a peek at FreeTalkLive's purchase record*
Lots and lots of tinfoil. - FreeTalkLIve, on 07/02/2008, -3/+14You know those "Value Cards" you use at the grocery store?
Yeah, they keep a database of every fatty unhealthy food you buy. Think about that when buying tobacco and beer with a value card.
What's the chances of employers or insurance companies buying that information to have a peek at your lifestyle habits? - laughandsing, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9First of all...everyone ends up having to pay more due to legislation and lawsuits. Thats why many companies have switched to high deductible plans. You choose when you go to the doctor rather than just going for little colds and such. If something is illegal its illegal. As far as I know being overweight is not a crime. Insurance companies do not have to accept or pay for pre-existing conditions prior to employment.
If companies shouldn't have to keep a good employee on their staff than who do you suggest work? The mediocre 'healthy' employees? Employers should not have the right to tell a person how to live their life. If something is illegal its one thing...We do not live in Utopia. Everyone can not be perfect.Performance should be the deciding factor in job security..plain and simple. - DogBotherer, on 07/02/2008, -2/+10That sharing of risk is kind of like the point of insurance. If you don't want to play, don't buy insurance and be prepared to carry your own health costs!
- LenBaird, on 07/02/2008, -4/+12Workplaces have no business in our personal lives. And what you choose to eat, and do with your body is your personal business. Your job performance is the only thing they have any business with. People are too quick to allow others to take control of their lives, and rationalizing it may be easier, but it leads down a bad road to a place where others tell us what to do in all aspects of our lives. This is a free country, remember?
- da_bradler, on 07/02/2008, -6/+12I think companies are stepping way out of line with this type of stuff. I mean it's entirely within reason that if this type of thing continues they'll start screening for genetic illnesses.
Oh I'm sorry Jason we can't offer you the job because according to your blood sample and family history you have a chance of developing cancer. Oh I'm sorry Mary we have a policy of only hiring female employees who are on birth control because we can't afford to pay maternity wages.
i mean really, companies have no business discriminating on this type of stuff, none at all. employers only have a right to hire based off previous work experience your personal life and personal health are off limits. - winmywii, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6The data is mostly used to send you coupons for items you are likely to buy to get you into the store. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be used for something like you stated. Grocery stores have low profit margins so they would take any money they could get. I avoid certain stores because I get tired of having to sign up so that I can pay the normal price for an item. The store I shop at doesn't have cards.
- TruthTeller50, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9Can't get me to stop eatin' bacon. Or the toast that sops up the grease.
- diceau, on 07/02/2008, -4/+10Why not just be healthy? It's better for you, your society and the planet.
Damn this world is backwards. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SUCK ... yeah no *****, doesn't mean you have to though. - nkleffman, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8If the government can force you to be healthy by prohibiting drugs, forcing you to wear seatbelts, and other choices that should be left up to the individual in a free society - then you obviously don't own your own body. You are a co-owner of your body with your loving government, which is the same situation as most of the property that you think you own but truly don't.
So sure, why not? Everyone can boss you around when the average population has not only lost their Liberty, but they have lost the definition of the word. - da_bradler, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9I mean think of how dangerous things like this are for society? if every employer started doing this what exactly do you think would happen? do you think people would just go "you know what these companies are right, I should start living my life according to the way they want me to live it."? If history has shown anything is people will not stand for that type of treatment for long. People who can't get work or health benefits aren't going to change they are going to get pissed off and try as hard as they can to get employers to change, and if they don't win that battle, then they are right back out in the streets French revolution style.
- thanakar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5umm..we are cattle to be picked over. We are no longer employees, we are human resources. When hiring, who do you think the company is going to pick when examining like quailified applicants, the smoker, the over eater or the healthy guy?
- shauncorleone, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5This is what is amazing to me. The ever-growing government providing healthcare is something that everyone thinks is just dandy, which would only lead to things like mandatory checkups and other regulations of your lifestyle (smoking ban inside your own house anyone?). Yet, the thought of an employer offering a wellness program gets the people here throwing a hissy?
- BobMysterioso, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6I'm all for healthy as long as work doesn't stop the free flow of alcohol. Our Friday in office happy hour with management supplied beer is what makes each week special. Sure, its the same as the prior week, but I never tire of it.
- SirFoxx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4That's why you either put false information on the signup sheet or have a grocery like mine that will give you a card without filling anything out at all if you so choose to do so.
- greaseddeafguy, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7in a free market, employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on any criteria they choose. On the flip side, workers are free to choose where they want to work. Look at how people flocked to places like Google, who treat their employees like gold.
Now gov't regulation of our lives is a big no no. But if any form of Universal Health Care is passed, you will see more gov't intervention into what you eat, drink, smoke, etc. - BoneStamp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Employers pay health insurance because the job market requires it to attract and retain good employees. They cannot (read should not) use it as a playing card to affect what the employee puts in their body.
- GRTWHT, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4If the people that support nanny state tactics continue to get their way, then soon they will be able to.
- shauncorleone, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4The only example in this article of a company trying to force employees to be healthy is the Scott employee that was fired for testing positive for nicotine. If he signed an agreement when he worked there that he would not smoke, then it sucks but he violated that agreement. What he should have done in the first place was contest his rights in not signing it in the first place.
The rest of the examples given are no more than incentive-based programs that could potentially benefit both the employee and the employer. The first guy was given a gift certificate for a checkup and found he had high cholesterol and blood-sugar. Damn you Intel!!! - h3smith, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Gym memberships should be tax deductible, that is for damned sure.
- BoneStamp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3A lot of employers already do drug testing in the US. Imagine what else they're looking for, besides illegal drugs. It's the same argument, why do they care what I put in my body (drugs, food, beer...etc) if it helps me relax, feel better and ultimately be healthier and work better?
- DaDrake, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Psykiv... you are either ***** yourself or not counting calories for all those sodas and "snacks" you consume. You simply can't burn 1300 calories a day, and only consume 900. Not to mention, the lowest recommended calorie intake (without a MD watching you) for a SEDENTARY life style is 1400 for females (1550 for males).
Yea... your full of it. - MaxP3, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4sitting down all day*
- mjw2025, on 07/02/2008, -3/+6So called healthy people miss less time? I know personally, over the years, of about 6 people that had surgery (one three times) do to excessive exercise. A couple others that now hobble because their knees are worn out. Here and at my previous job now I know a number of people that use their noon time to go running and in almost all cases leave work before lunch and are back at work later than everyone else due to the time it takes along with getting a shower after. I haven't timed them but my guess is that 30-40 minutes lost on average.
Days off for illness? Most companies now offer everyone a certain number of sick days and the fact is that now they are being renamed to personal days because they get used for other reasons than being ill.
I think wellness programs that are offered are great but of the people that I observe that don't take care of themselves enough aren't out of work any more than those that do. - danharlow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3The real news here is since when did corporations realize they even had employees? :)
- skellener, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3What's culvers?
- LenBaird, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3They choose to include health care in my benefits. If they don't want to do that, then that is their choice. I don't have to allow them to tell me what to do because I get a benefit as part of my pay. That was never part of the agreement when I got hired.
- SteelChicken, on 07/02/2008, -0/+31) cramped cubicles with cheap office furniture - CHECK
2) flickering fluorescent lighting proven bad for eyes and can cause headaches - CHECK
3) terrible air flow, stale nasty air being recirculated through moldy filthy air ducts - CHECK
4) breaks only when you beg for them - CHECK
5) unhealthy vending machine / cheap ass cafeteria food - CHECK
6) bitching when your employees health care costs go up - CHECK - BoneStamp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3I was in Canada last week and in Ontario they just passed a law where retailers cannot display cigarettes, so they're all behind this paneling now... looks really weird. Canada has universal health care, but other than the retail displays, there's nothing too extreme going on there for health restrictions. I mean, you can't smoke in public buildings but a lot of States have that same law. Actually, I just remembered that tobacco manufacturers can't advertise their product or sponsor events... I guess that's a bit extreme.
- BoneStamp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3If it doesn't affect their work and they're not high at work and I can't tell that they do meth then I don't really care... Yes, I wish they wouldn't do it for the sake of their own health... but not for my benefit, it doesn't affect me if they're not high around me.
- thanakar, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5It all depends which doctor you talk to. There are many who consider over eaters having a chronic disease that makes them eat. As to drinking, the social drinker is worse then an alcoholic.
- BobMysterioso, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3No, he doesn't.
I worked at a company that worked directly with the vendors of the data warehouse for that sort of data - shopper cards. The vendors knew it was too much information to collect, and how it *could* ultimately be used. They also knew just how much data infobase and other collective marking databases has on each and everyone one of us - in the USA. They mentioned the possibility of using purchase history for job screening and more importantly health premiums.
"seems you buy an awful lot of red meat and beer -- seems you buy a lot of beer actually" cha-ching!
The the tinfoil hat comments - the guys that dealt with this daily, didn't use shopper cards. They didn't fill out any survey. They said your personal data is all you have left and to just give it away to save a few dollars isn't worth it.
That said, I still use my handy shopper card - just with fake info. - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2it is not unreasonable imho for a company to expect their employees to be as much of an asset as possible as well as the least liability as possible
- The_Dude, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2They can ***** can this wellness crap and just give us better co-pays on prescription drugs. The only reason they do wellness programs is because the insurer probably says "if you can get x number of your people in a wellness program, we'll kick you a discount". That is a discount to the employer, not the employee.
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Forcing and providing are two different things. If the company wants to assess a small charge for unhealthy activities I'd hate it but I wouldn't be able to bitch. Most insurance companies usually charge a fee for such things, it's like rates going up for bad driving record.
Making it a term of employment is heinous. They have no right to tell someone how to live or what to do outside business hours. (except for the usual legal restrictions against drug or alcohol) If the job gets done on time that's all that matters. I would resist all such attempts to forcibly change behavior even if I was a picture of perfect health. - da_bradler, on 07/02/2008, -4/+6The working class... no no... HUMAN BEINGS are not cattle for employers to pick over. We are people with skills that they need and if they think they are going to treat us like we slaves off a boat to be sniffed and looked over then they can go to hell.
Anybody who works for a employer that requires some sort of health or blood test are doing society a disservice. excluding work places that can be dangerous on site as opposed to employers just trying to be more profitable - BoneStamp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Will your boss let you drug test him(/her)?
- WoollyMittens, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4The age of freedom and privacy is over. As a citizen it is your duty to be an obedient worker to your corporate master. You have nothing to hide from you master, because he decides by comity what is best for you.
- greaseddeafguy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2bingo
- aserer511, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2force? absolutely not, that violates everything america stands for.
incentivize in certain ways? sure. - lamiaconfitor, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Gonthim... Rights are not guaranteed in a market, you are confusing that with a government, Republicans tend to do that.
- elenadragon, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2My company has a wellness program, and it is entirely volunteer. They don't force us to participate, they provide incentives to do so... prizes, etc. Personally I watch my health on my own, so I generally don't always take advantage of the resources, but you're an idiot if you refuse to consider the benefits.
Now, I do think mandating what people can and can't do outside of work crosses the line. However, it sounds like this type of practice is in the minority, not the majority. It is good to get this stuff out in the open so that we can prevent it from becoming more widespread. - diceau, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2You are so far off topic it's mind blowing.
- pentalive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1People who value liberty.
- nastysquar3d, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I don't think that companies should be able to force their employees to be healthy, but I think that certain things like routine checkups should be mandatory for health insurance coverage and I also think that incentives should be given for active lifestyle choices (gym memberships that are actually utilized and whatnot)
One of the biggest problems with health insurance in America is that people don't go to the doctor until they have a serious problem, and usually if they would have gotten a checkup sooner the problem could have been diagnosed earlier before it spiraled into a huge health insurance money sucking condition. - DIPHILLATICUS, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2No. For them forcing its workers to be healthy means forcing them to BUY health insurance. If they want healthy employees, give them unconditional free health care and free health programs. and for those people saying its an invasion of privacy, most companies do drug test. I don't do drugs anymore (wink, wink), but I still find that pretty invasive.
Also sunlight goes a long way to improve the mental and physical health of workers, but when was the last time you saw any? "Keep me in a locked sensory deprivation chamber so I can be bored out of my skull and pretend I'm working, while I'm actually posting/flaming on digg."
I've worked at print places that wouldn't let you smoke because of that whole second hand smoke thing, but allow these huge industrial printers spew toxic printer dust everywhere. And I've seen the effects of not managing mold in the AC units and half the employees stay sick most of the time due to allergic reactions.Wheres the effing logic in that? -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is