April 23rd, 2008
Charging Workers for Smoking? Uh, Never Mind …
Chicago-based Tribune Co. has been through some rocky times over the past few years, including lots of internal squabbling and infighting. The company was bought out last year by legendary wild man Sam Zell, but alas, things haven’t gotten a whole lot better given his less-than-stellar view of the people working for him.
But, give Zell his due on one thing—he took a very aggressive approach to the health and wellness of his workforce. Under his leadership, Tribune took the “stick” approach and started the new year by charging workers $100 more per month if they were smokers. Although it was a policy originally put in place by previous Tribune management, Zell and his new management team ran with it, probably because it was a classic Zell approach to a workforce issue: aggressive, in-your-face and heavy-handed. It also made Tribune one of a small but growing group of employers that have chosen to take a punitive approach to workers who engage in a less-than-healthy lifestyle.
Well, Tribune seems to have had second thoughts on the matter.
This week, Tribune rescinded its $100 per month penalty for employees who smoke. “While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing—we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you,” said a memo from Tribune management.
Notice the backhanded dig at Tribune’s previous management here? That’s complete BS, as far as I’m concerned. If Sam Zell has shown anything during his brief time as owner of Tribune, it is that he doesn’t feel bound by anything that previous management was doing. In fact, the opposite is true: Zell seems to revel in talking about how screwed up Tribune was/is and how different his regime is going to be.
Unfortunately, I think Tribune was on to something with the smoking policy. It is an interesting approach to a difficult problem and worthy of debate and discussion given the huge health costs that are associated with smoking.
Zell was, finally, taking a very different and groundbreaking approach to a tough problem. It’s unfortunate that he chose not to follow through. Unlike so many of the things he says and does, this one makes a little sense.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/04/23/smoking-2/trackback/
Comments
Post a comment
Blog Index















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.
Posted by: Laurie Ruettimann | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
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?
Posted by: gay rogers | April 24th, 2008 at 7:17 am
I agree with the reply of Gay Rogers. Why single out smoking when there is a long list of health risk factors?
Posted by: Frederick Navarro | April 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I go back and forth on the issue of being punitive to smokers. It is an easily identifiable, absolutely detrimental habit. \
Posted by: Mark Bugaieski | May 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
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.
Posted by: Skip Enblem | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 am