affiliate_link
affiliate_link

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Whirlpool Suspends 39 Employees For Using Tobacco

INDIANAPOLIS — Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.

A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.

As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.

"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.

Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.

In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.

"It's definitely not something we wanted to do," she said. "It's unpleasant."

The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.

A 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers _ those with 20,000 or more employees _ adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status, according to the human resources consulting firm Mercer.

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.

"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.

INDIANAPOLIS — Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too. A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insuranc...
INDIANAPOLIS — Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too. A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insuranc...
Compiled By:

Sudhir Jain



Sunday, May 10, 2009

Should We Penalize Employees For Smoking?

When we talk about employee-related smoking, one of the first things we need to consider is performance-related costs.

Frequent smoke breaks are a major issue when it comes to employee performance and productivity. Employees who leave their desks several times throughout the day to take smoking breaks are clearly less productive than those who do not. Smokers are also absent from work considerably more than non-smokers. This becomes a major issue when employers have salaried employees who smoke.

Medical-related costs

Annual health care costs for smokers are 31 percent higher on average than the costs for non-smokers. A recent study from the American Cancer Society revealed that smokers had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs.76), had a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days) and made six more visits to health care facilities per-year when compared to non-smokers (2).

Smokers add approximately seven percent to the total cost of healthcare for group health plan beneficiaries (2). Both employers and non-smoking employees absorb these added costs in the form of higher premiums.

What companies are doing: Companies throughout the United States are addressing this issue in several different ways. Many are either refusing to hire employees who smoke or are maintaining an unspoken preference for hiring non-smokers.Some companies take their preference for non-smokers even further by penalizing smokers financially. A client's HR Assistant recently read in a post on an HR forum that an Indiana company is docking the paycheck of each employee who smokes by $5 per-week until they quit. From a legal standpoint, this practice is highly questionable. However, it is legal for employers to charge a "tobacco use fee"-a health plan add-on that punishes employees for smoking.

Other companies are adding smoke cessation programs as employee benefits. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "paying for tobacco use cessation treatments is the single most cost-effective health insurance benefit for adults that can be provided to employees."

Comprehensive smoke cessation programs run on average about $0.50 per member per month (PMPM). For an employer sponsored health benefit program, the total average annual claim savings per smoker who quits is $192 (3). An October 2007 National Business Group on Health (NBGH) survey of 506 employers revealed that 74% believe smoking cessation benefits can decrease health care costs. Despite this, only 2% of companies offer a comprehensive scientifically-based smoking cessation program as an employee benefit (3).

Smoke cessation and small-to-mid-size firms: Many small-to-mid-size employers are reluctant to offer smoking cessation benefits due to the up-front costs they will incur, despite the high likelihood that these benefits will yield a positive return on investment (ROI). Authors of a case study on The Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) reported that smoking cessation programs should return an estimated 1/3 of costs to employers in the first year and to break even by the third year. Everything beyond the third year is positive ROI (4).

But, given the current economy, will employers even think of cost savings three years in advance? And what goes into an effective smoking cessation program?

The 2000 Public Health Service guideline indicated that a combination of pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling is the most effective way to treat nicotine addiction. The authors of the PBGH case study further recommend that employers offering smoking cessation plans provide access to both prescription medications and over-the-counter (OTC) medications in order to expand treatment options. They also recommend that employers eliminate employee out-of-pocket costs for smoking cessation drugs and therapies in order to increase program participation rates (4).

However, insurance companies do not cover OTC medications, so employers offering them as part of a smoking cessation benefit are left to foot the bill. Many employers cannot afford this added cost. At the end of the day, these employers are left with two options: refuse to hire smokers or charge a "tobacco use fee".


Compiled by: Sudhir Jain

QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.

BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.


Saturday, February 14, 2009

Smoking and employment


Someone has drawn attention, on another thread, to an article by Prof Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health which raises the question of smoking and employment. This is an issue that Forest first highlighted eight or nine years ago when we analysed hundreds of recruitment ads in a number of publications (including the Guardian) and noted the increasing trend for companies to employ "non-smokers only". (Our subsequent report caused quite a stir.)

The press release that promotes Siegel's article is unambiguous: "US experts call for rethink of trend to bar smokers from employment". It continues:

The increasing trend for employers, particularly in the US, to bar smokers from applying for jobs or staying in post should be stopped, until the appropriateness of such policies has been properly evaluated, argue experts in an essay published in Tobacco Control.

As of August 2008, 21 US states, 400 US cities, nine Canadian provinces, six Australian states/territories, and 14 other countries, including the UK, had banned smoking in workplaces, bars, and restaurants.

But in recent years, smoke free workplaces have shifted to “smoker-free workplaces”, with some companies even stating “tobacco free candidates only” in their employment policies ...

These policies aim to cut cigarette consumption, by promoting the need to quit and by making smoking less socially acceptable, say the authors from the Universities of Washington and Boston.

The evidence backs them up. And there is also some evidence to suggest that these policies could boost productivity and reduce absenteeism, they add.

But quite apart from infringements of personal privacy and individual rights, smokers who are sacked or forced to resign many not be able to find other work, which in itself could have a seriously detrimental impact on their and their families’ health, contend the authors.

Smokers will also be unjustly discriminated against in a way that people who risk their health by drinking or eating too much, and exercising too little, are not ...

The authors call for a much wider public health debate, and for proper evaluation of these policies, on the grounds that “the potential unintended side effects ... could be far reaching”.

Compiled by: Sudhir Jain

QUIT SMOKING IN A NATURAL WAY.

BEST WAY TO QUIT SMOKING.