close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

More US Companies Imposing Consequences on Unhealthy Employees...

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by ChiTownPicaro, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    north of the equator
    .


    'zactly.


    Or if I am an employer (and I am not) and I feel that healthy, energetic people are in my best interests, then those are the employees I'll seek out.

    Sure, we are all human and we all have health problems in one way or another..

    It's in an employer's interest though to seek and retain people who take an active and sensible role in maintaining their health.
    That is a valid qualification for a job as much as is someone who pursues continuing education, for example.

    If you have a position that requires an employee to keep up with the latest technology, then you want employees who have the personal motivation and desire to educate themselves on an ongoing basis. You're more interested in such a person than you are in someone who took one 4-year degree 15 years ago and does nothing more beyond that.

    In the same way, why should I as an employer not focus on people who take responsibility for seeking and maintaining their own health and well-being? Those are the people who will have the most to contribute to my business. They have in that way further demonstrated their discipline and personal motivation, and they are the employees who are most likely to have fewer sick days and more days when they are at their most productive.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2013
  2. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,705
    Likes Received:
    6,838
    Location:
    the narrow way
    Exactly... this isn't about employees' health per se, this is another dialectic from the socialized healthcare mandate coming from the globalists VIA the white house.
     

  3. itstime

    itstime

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    7,176
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    USA


    I'm with you M2. It's only the start.
     
  4. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    42,700
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Location:
    Taunton, MA
    Yeah, only because they RE-defined obesity a decade ago.

    Yup.

    I thought Obamacare was going to be similar to RomneyCare where your health ins. is ONLY based on age. So a company doing this isn't going to save any $. I guess I'm wrong on that one.

    In MA, this is fruitless. If I have an average age of 35 in my company and everyone is a marathon runner, I pay the same as the company next door, same # of people, also average age of 35 and all are severe Type-1 diabetics.

    It's interesting to see what Obamacare mandates AREN'T going to be instituted here because we are already crazier than that. LOL
     
  5. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    17,141
    Likes Received:
    4,674
    Location:
    Texas
    The real solution - (if allowed or possible) is to pay people a salary - then they buy their own health insurance - life insurance - food - transportation - clothing - retirement - what ever the hell else they want and need.

    Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
     
  6. fnfalman

    fnfalman Chicks Dig It

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    Messages:
    53,696
    Likes Received:
    7,007
    Location:
    California & New Mexico, US
    You can also pay 100% of your health insurance too. That way the company won't have to subsidize your health insurance and doesn't have squat to say about what you eat or how you are.
     
  7. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    42,700
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Location:
    Taunton, MA
    I'll concur with this.

    Fringies started as a way to pay people without other people finding out what you REALLY paid them. But I'm on board with just paying people and no more special bene's. I think the "we don't pay taxes" folk would be in for a "I'm responsible for my own life" reality check right quick.
     
  8. MO Fugga

    MO Fugga Dehumanizer® Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    40,862
    Likes Received:
    11,714
    Location:
    Hellbilly Hill
    I will only hire the right people for the job. If they are the type who will always be out of shape, or pose medical or insurance liabilities, then why should I hire them. I'm in it to make a buck, and hopefully help others make money too. I should have the right to run my business, and my employees as I see fit.
     
  9. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    north of the equator
    As it should be.
     
  10. ChiTownPicaro

    ChiTownPicaro

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is higher for overweight people.

    No I don't. They should not get any money from the government. If they lose their jobs, it would not be because they were laid off but because they were harming the company and costing the company money. So no unemployment for them.
     
  11. ChiTownPicaro

    ChiTownPicaro

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't cost the company nearly as much money.
     
  12. ChiTownPicaro

    ChiTownPicaro

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not an invasion of privacy. They are asking for it, not demanding it. If you don't want to share it, then you don't want to work there.
     
  13. ChiTownPicaro

    ChiTownPicaro

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those unhealthy people are costing someone money and miss work more.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150026/unhealthy-workers-absenteeism-costs-153-billion.aspx

    http://www.wellsphere.com/healthy-eating-article/obese-people-miss-work-more/533922

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/unhealthy-employees-cost-153-billion_n_1016568.html

    Sorry but the fatties are affecting the bottom line.
     
  14. Mushinto

    Mushinto Master Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    As long as they do the same for drinkers, I might get on board.

    Otherwise, it is a stupid way to impose your fake values on someone else.

    I am not a fan of fat people, but there is not real evidence that they cost employers more money than, smokers, drinkers, gay people, senior citizens, black males between 14 and 29, skiers, or any other group that may contain people who are considered high risk based on some non-sense average.

    Oh, and let's make sure we do not hire any diabetics, or people with a history of heard disease, or a family history of cancer ... Do I need to go on?
     
  15. Revvv

    Revvv

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    2
    Isn't this how it's supposed to be. Anything else is socialism.

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  16. Revvv

    Revvv

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    2
    That would be demanding.

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  17. Mushinto

    Mushinto Master Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    Actually, it is much cheaper to pay for employee benefits, than it is to give them the money in salary and expect them to buy their own.

    -- Wages are taxed by the feds, while money spent on benefits is not.

    -- Wages are calculated at time and one-half for overtime, and benefits do not figure in overtime.

    -- If an employee's retirement is based on their salary, then the value of the benefits is not calculated into their pension.

    -- Companies would have to pay higher salaries to part time workers who often receive the same salary as full time workers, but not the benefits.

    I'm sure you are quoting someone who is envious of another person's employment package. I'm sure that person would like to see that other worker's compensation package somehow find its way into his own. That my friend is re-distribution of wealth and is the hallmark of socialism
     
  18. captainstormy

    captainstormy

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    605
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Exactly, I really don't think that people want to go down this road.

    If employer's start firing employee's based on their risky behaviors that could lead to any sort of insurance claims or time off work, then almost nobody would have a job.
     
  19. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    north of the equator
    So the economy would collapse and it would be the end of civilization as we know it?
     
  20. ChiTownPicaro

    ChiTownPicaro

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. But they have the right to ask. If you say no, then they have the right to find an employee who will work with them and not cost them as much.