Comments on: Charging Workers for Smoking? Uh, Never Mind …

By: Skip Enblem

Skip Enblem — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:41:30 +0000

Has working in Corporate America completely destroyed your souls? What sort of ridiculous, self-satisfied, illogic are you indulging in when saying things like “I go back and forth on the issue of being punitive to smokers”? ( Seriously, you need to find your soul again, fast ).
Growing and selling tobacco is LEGAL. Purchasing and smoking said tobacco is LEGAL. The very idea of corporation punishing smoking employees in ANY way is a level of parenting and humiliation they don’t need to endure. Unless, of course, you are determined to make them as soul-less as yourselves.
What’s next? Studies to determine the average numbers of employees with allergies triggered by sharp smells? Hey, maybe raise their insurance too because they’ll be needing days off and treatment due to their co-workers cruel insistance on wearing perfume. What about the employee addicted to exercise? More than enough medical data exists to support the fact that such person incur frequent injuries, a greater tendency to steroid use, and of course there’s the eventual mental health counseling needed when their zeal breaks them down on every level ( over worked + exercise addiction = x dollars in medical expenses oh and let’s not forget loss of productivity in said ‘resource’…not people, resources lol ).
The utter humiliation and destruction of employee morale by trying to parent them outside of the time you pay them for may be what you think of as sound fiscal practice but in reality is an attempt to control every aspect of the lives of workers. Get off your mountain ye corporate gods because you will reap what you sow. Keep cutting costs and dehumanizing your employees ( aka ‘resources’ ) all for the sake of profit and in the end, you too will be dehumanized and cut off as excess weight ( aka risk ).
Oh. Wait. You already have been dehumanized.
Nevermind.

By: Mark Bugaieski

Mark Bugaieski — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:48:24 +0000

I go back and forth on the issue of being punitive to smokers. It is an easily identifiable, absolutely detrimental habit. \

By: Frederick Navarro

Frederick Navarro — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:21:48 +0000

I agree with the reply of Gay Rogers. Why single out smoking when there is a long list of health risk factors?

By: gay rogers

gay rogers — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:17:57 +0000

I agree smoking is costly to businesses, not only in insurance costs, but loss of time and productivity. I also agree Zell and the prior management at the Tribune were on to something.
Why do we expect our employers to pay for unhealthy lifestyle choices and the negative consequences that follow? Most employee populations now feel that healthcare insurance is an entitlement program, however, want to choose unhealthy lifesyles that make it more and more difficult for employers to pay the insurance premiums.
It is true to be competitive in our hiring practices we need to align with standards of HR practice for modern business. But, if we expect employers to be responsible for our healthcare premuim don’t we as employees also have a responsibility in return to the employer? A solution is for the employed population receiving healthcare benefits to pay more out of pocket co-pays when choosing unhealthy life styles.
Here is the issue… how could corporations agree on what is healthy and what is not? How would we measure the degree of unhealthy choices? How would we monitor employees behavior.
Going back to Zell, what is to say that smoking should have been the only unhealthy lifestyle choice worth penalizing? Maybe this is why he changed his mind… after all, obesity, poor eating habits, stress, lack of exercise are also included in poor health choices. If we are to penalize others for smoking we need to consider all unhealthy choices, and whose opinion would we align with? Isn’t freedom of choice one of our inalienable rights at least in this country?
The Tribune’s premise was strong and worthy of consideration, but if we are going to ask employees to take more responsibilty of their health choices and pay out of pocket for those choices, we must consider all health threatening behaviors. And for me, just choosing to drive on I-95 in South Florida is a daily health risk. Where would it stop?

By: Laurie Ruettimann

Laurie Ruettimann — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:56:31 +0000

I think a better approach is to decouple health insurance from employment. Why place this burden on employers and why complicate the employer/employee relationship? It’s a dumb and ineffective way to run a business.