Overheard at Work

[Posthumane]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

Anyway, on a more on topic note, there was a coffee room discussion where the topic of taxation came up. One of my coworkers who is an avid investor advocated a wealth tax for people with significant assets (> 1M). One of his comments that struck me though was "A wealth tax wouldn't really affect average people. If you're only making $100k/year you're basically spending everything and not accumulating."

[johnny847]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

[auntie_betty]

Co-worker appears with breakfast from local shop and biscuits for team. Around £8.

Co-worker appears at lunchtime with lunch, around £5, and shopping bag.
Me: What have you bought?
CW: Just a top & sweater. (This is an expensive shop, will have set him back at least £100).
Me: Oh, special occasion?
CW: Sort of. We get paid in Thursday and I had money left in my account.

Later:
CW to me: I don't know how you can be retiring so early. I think I'll be at least 70 before I can afford it.

Later again:
CW: Sh*t. Just remembered I have £150 coming out of my account tomorrow.
Me: Oops.

[Vorpal]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

They could do what my employer does -- give significant premium breaks to those folks that get an annual physical and bloodwork. It doesn't guarantee healthy behavior, but it helps people catch problems early.

[johnny847]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

They could do what my employer does -- give significant premium breaks to those folks that get an annual physical and bloodwork. It doesn't guarantee healthy behavior, but it helps people catch problems early.

Oh I don't really have a problem with positive incentives to people taking steps towards better health. Because those positive incentives generally speaking are voluntary. But taking punitive measures against employees who do not take measures toward better health is a mistake in my book.

[Timmmy]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

I don't think fat is a protected class quite yet.  Give it a few more years.  I guess that means we'll have to get used to using phrases like "skinny privilege".

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted. 

[Tallgirl1204]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

I don't think fat is a protected class quite yet.  Give it a few more years.  I guess that means we'll have to get used to using phrases like "skinny privilege".

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted.

I don't know that policing someone's health is always overt.  I know (for example) an employer who does not promote people who smoke to upper management positions.  The Big Boss doesn't like smoking, and it weighs significantly in those decisions.  I'm sure that this is more common than people realize-- that their personal habits (healthy or otherwise) influence their ability to succeed professionally.  I'm sure this can work the other way as well-- a meat-eating 'big boss' might look askance at a vegan underling, for example. 

[forward]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

They could do what my employer does -- give significant premium breaks to those folks that get an annual physical and bloodwork. It doesn't guarantee healthy behavior, but it helps people catch problems early.

This and some employers that self insure are categorizing employees into multiple groups.  The employees that don't meet the health benchmarks assigned to them get put in the another higher premium class the next year etc.  Makes you wonder if eventually it might be difficult for some to keep a job.

Or - more on topic for the thread - if employee A overheard employee B and C talking about how blitzed they were all weekend - does this become a health risk the company could act on?

[Posthumane]

Employers generally have an interest in maintaining their employees well being. This ranges from providing ongoing education, financial services, health/dental plans, and I don't see any reason it couldn't include fitness. As mentioned, some organizations are already doing it on a voluntary basis - incentives, discounts on fitness related activities, lower premiums, etc. Some organization, such as the military and some companies in other countries, do it on a mandatory basis - scheduled fitness sessions for all employees. I don't see it being that much different than mandated health & safety training such as first aid. If a company can specify educational requirements without relating that to the actual work done (i.e. must have a bachelor's degree to work this basic clerical position) why can they not also specify a fitness requirement even if it isn't a bona fide operational requirement?

[lizzie]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

I don't think fat is a protected class quite yet.  Give it a few more years.  I guess that means we'll have to get used to using phrases like "skinny privilege".

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted.

That's an interesting question actually. At least in the US, employers generally have the right to fire you for any or no reason (assuming you're not covered by a contract). Then the law carves out certain exceptions to this, for example outlawing discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. It's also illegal to fire or otherwise retaliate against someone for using the company health plan (assuming the plan is covered by ERISA). So while I would say that it's legal for your employer to fire you for being fat, it might be a little dicey for them to fire you for costing them too much via health-plan expenditures.

ETA: Unless your obesity is caused by or somehow considered to be a disability, then it might not be legal for you to be fired for being fat.

[johnny847]

Employers generally have an interest in maintaining their employees well being. This ranges from providing ongoing education, financial services, health/dental plans, and I don't see any reason it couldn't include fitness. As mentioned, some organizations are already doing it on a voluntary basis - incentives, discounts on fitness related activities, lower premiums, etc. Some organization, such as the military and some companies in other countries, do it on a mandatory basis - scheduled fitness sessions for all employees. I don't see it being that much different than mandated health & safety training such as first aid. If a company can specify educational requirements without relating that to the actual work done (i.e. must have a bachelor's degree to work this basic clerical position) why can they not also specify a fitness requirement even if it isn't a bona fide operational requirement?

I have no issue with mandatory fitness requirements if it is an operational requirement - such as in the military.
Ignoring the legalities and just looking at ethics for a second, why should an employer be able to mandate health among their employees when it has no bearing on fulfilling their duties as an employee?
Requiring a bachelor's degree to work in a basic clerical position - while certainly this seems like overkill, this is an "over qualification" requirement that the employer has decided to instate, for some reason. This isn't a you must be healthy requirement, which is completely unrelated to job performance.

Take this example though:

I don't know that policing someone's health is always overt.  I know (for example) an employer who does not promote people who smoke to upper management positions.  The Big Boss doesn't like smoking, and it weighs significantly in those decisions.  I'm sure that this is more common than people realize-- that their personal habits (healthy or otherwise) influence their ability to succeed professionally.  I'm sure this can work the other way as well-- a meat-eating 'big boss' might look askance at a vegan underling, for example. 

Does this seem fair to you?

[johnny847]

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.  Yes, some people do have genuine issues, such as I know three women who are on synthetic thyroid medicine and one of the side effects is indeed weight gain.  However for the bulk of people who are overweight, it's simply by some measure of diet and exercise being out of balance.  It's honestly in the best interest of the employee that they be healthy anyway, plus in the best interests of society, since really all of us pay the cost of people getting sick with obesity related illnesses in one way or another.

Oh don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying that its not in the best interest of the employees and society as a whole.
But I don't think it's right to give employers the ability to punish their employees for not engaging in activities that have nothing to do with their work. It is a free country, after all.

[Paul der Krake]

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.  Yes, some people do have genuine issues, such as I know three women who are on synthetic thyroid medicine and one of the side effects is indeed weight gain.  However for the bulk of people who are overweight, it's simply by some measure of diet and exercise being out of balance.  It's honestly in the best interest of the employee that they be healthy anyway, plus in the best interests of society, since really all of us pay the cost of people getting sick with obesity related illnesses in one way or another.

Oh don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying that its not in the best interest of the employees and society as a whole.
But I don't think it's right to give employers the ability to punish their employees for not engaging in activities that have nothing to do with their work. It is a free country, after all.

Aren't employers already free to do so as long as it's not one of the few protected classes? It's just that most choose not to do so.

[johnny847]

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.  Yes, some people do have genuine issues, such as I know three women who are on synthetic thyroid medicine and one of the side effects is indeed weight gain.  However for the bulk of people who are overweight, it's simply by some measure of diet and exercise being out of balance.  It's honestly in the best interest of the employee that they be healthy anyway, plus in the best interests of society, since really all of us pay the cost of people getting sick with obesity related illnesses in one way or another.

Oh don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying that its not in the best interest of the employees and society as a whole.
But I don't think it's right to give employers the ability to punish their employees for not engaging in activities that have nothing to do with their work. It is a free country, after all.

Aren't employers already free to do so as long as it's not one of the few protected classes? It's just that most choose not to do so.

I'm not arguing about legalities. I'm talking about ethics.

[gimp]

It's a free country - if you find someone's habits disgusting, you don't have to employ them. With very few protected exceptions. And vice versa, with no protected exceptions - you don't have to work for anyone you don't like.

[Rural]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

Contributing to foam: police and firefighters have to pass regular physicals to keep their jobs.

[johnny847]

It's a free country - if you find someone's habits disgusting, you don't have to employ them. With very few protected exceptions. And vice versa, with no protected exceptions - you don't have to work for anyone you don't like.

Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair?

If it does, then I suppose we have nothing more to talk about.

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

Contributing to foam: police and firefighters have to pass regular physicals to keep their jobs.

I said earlier, but after that comment:

I have no issue with mandatory fitness requirements if it is an operational requirement - such as in the military.

Clearly being physically fit is required by their job description. I'm talking about employers policing or discriminating against employee health when it has no bearing on their job performance.

[Paul der Krake]

Johnny847, you're right that it's the ethics, aka fear of reprisal from the public if word gets out, that prevent employers from being jerks about other people's bad habits. So the question is when will penalizing smokers, fat people, loud chewers, or whatever subset of the general, non-protected portion of the workforce, become socially acceptable.

I think it will never gain traction, regardless of right or wrong, because there are too many unhealthy people out there.

[SwordGuy]

If someone chooses to overeat, get fat, and have lots of health problems because of it, it's their privilege.

Just like it should be my privilege not to have to pay higher taxes or insurance premiums to subsidize their healthcare.

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

[RyanAtTanagra]

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

Not saying I disagree, but that's a slippery slope.  Where does it end?  Should parents have to pay their own costs of birth?  How about first 2 kids are covered but after that they're on their own because of population concerns?  On the flip side, what about women that choose not to have kids and are at higher risk of some types of cancer?  If they develop cancer later in life is that their problem because they made that risky choice?  Smokers don't get coverage for lung cancer costs?  What about coal miners because they chose the job?  Or do we just draw the line on diet and exercise related problems?  What about children who are overweight and diabetic because of their parents?  Covered until they turn 18 then turn off the tap?

It sounds good in theory, but everyone is going to draw that line somewhere different, and no matter where you draw it someone that legitimately needs help is going to get caught on the wrong side.

Getting pretty off topic, but it's a good thought experiment and I always like to hear opinions on things like this because I'm not quite sure where I stand either.

[AH013]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

Contributing to foam: police and firefighters have to pass regular physicals to keep their jobs.

Add to that all military personnel and lifeguards.  Athletes are required to meet performance expectations which in part require fitness, and models can be required to adhere to certain weight limits even beyond what is medically necessary to be labeled "healthy" in order to maintain employment (the whole lawsuit of a particular restaurant that hired "models" instead of waitresses so they could mandate they stay below a certain weight and fire them if they became too fat).

However as others noted most employers don't regulate your negative unhealthy choices.  They more regulate how your unhealthy choices impact your fellow employees or the firm in a negative way (i.e. secondhand smoke, cigarette butts and tobacco spit on office property, etc.).

But yes, depending on the region you can be required to exercise by your employer -- Japan comes to mind where companies require employees to take mid-day group exercise breaks.

[Argyle]

In "Right to Work" states you can be fired for nearly anything at all, including the fact that the manager is having a grumpy day or that the manager's nephew needs the job.

[johnny847]

In "Right to Work" states you can be fired for nearly anything at all, including the fact that the manager is having a grumpy day or that the manager's nephew needs the job.

Again, I'm not debating the legalities. I'm debating the ethics.

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

So we're back to this again eh? I don't actually know of any, but it just seems wrong to me. What are employers going to do, mandate all fat people exercise? Mandate all employees eat a proper diet?

Contributing to foam: police and firefighters have to pass regular physicals to keep their jobs.

Add to that all military personnel and lifeguards.  Athletes are required to meet performance expectations which in part require fitness, and models can be required to adhere to certain weight limits even beyond what is medically necessary to be labeled "healthy" in order to maintain employment (the whole lawsuit of a particular restaurant that hired "models" instead of waitresses so they could mandate they stay below a certain weight and fire them if they became too fat).

However as others noted most employers don't regulate your negative unhealthy choices.  They more regulate how your unhealthy choices impact your fellow employees or the firm in a negative way (i.e. secondhand smoke, cigarette butts and tobacco spit on office property, etc.).

But yes, depending on the region you can be required to exercise by your employer -- Japan comes to mind where companies require employees to take mid-day group exercise breaks.

I said earlier, but after that comment,

    I have no issue with mandatory fitness requirements if it is an operational requirement - such as in the military.

Clearly being physically fit is required by their job description. I'm talking about employers policing or discriminating against employee health when it has no bearing on their job performance.

[randymarsh]

In "Right to Work" states you can be fired for nearly anything at all, including the fact that the manager is having a grumpy day or that the manager's nephew needs the job.

Just a small correction: Right to Work isn't related to termination practices. You're thinking of "at will" employment. Right to Work means you can't be forced to pay union membership dues just because you work somewhere that has a union presence.

[SwordGuy]

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

Not saying I disagree, but that's a slippery slope.  Where does it end?  Should parents have to pay their own costs of birth?  How about first 2 kids are covered but after that they're on their own because of population concerns?  On the flip side, what about women that choose not to have kids and are at higher risk of some types of cancer?  If they develop cancer later in life is that their problem because they made that risky choice?  Smokers don't get coverage for lung cancer costs?  What about coal miners because they chose the job?  Or do we just draw the line on diet and exercise related problems?  What about children who are overweight and diabetic because of their parents?  Covered until they turn 18 then turn off the tap?

It sounds good in theory, but everyone is going to draw that line somewhere different, and no matter where you draw it someone that legitimately needs help is going to get caught on the wrong side.

Getting pretty off topic, but it's a good thought experiment and I always like to hear opinions on things like this because I'm not quite sure where I stand either.

A very fair and reasonable objection.   Anything we do with public money means someone gets an advantage and someone else gets taken advantage of.   There's no way to avoid that, so we just have to try to be fair and reasonable about it.

FYI - pregnancy is not a disease and it has definite benefits (in moderation) for society.   If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should pay for the pregnancy (it's not the child's fault!) and fine the parents for being a pain in the butt to the rest of us.  Then let someone who can afford to raise the child do so.  And yes, I'm a hard-ass when it comes to personal responsibility.

[Tallgirl1204]

It's a free country - if you find someone's habits disgusting, you don't have to employ them. With very few protected exceptions. And vice versa, with no protected exceptions - you don't have to work for anyone you don't like.

Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair?



Whether or not it's fair, it happens.  I have personally witnessed an upper manager warning a new employee not to smoke in front of the company owner if he had any hopes of rising in the organization.  It was during a week-long conference, and the owner is famous for mentoring managers he likes.  I thought it was pretty stand-up of the upper manager to give the warning.

[LennStar]

If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should pay for the pregnancy (it's not the child's fault!) and fine the parents for being a pain in the butt to the rest of us.  Then let someone who can afford to raise the child do so.  And yes, I'm a hard-ass when it comes to personal responsibility.

And how many millions of $ does each parent has to have before they "can afford" to raise a child? Per child or with discounts for 2nd, 3rd etc.?
What about rape childs?

[UltraRunning]

A fellow co worker of mine who is a single parent at the age of 21 with a deadbeat father is taking trip to Peru this summer.  Never mind the fact that she  has a car loan, 10k+ cc debt, and a  3 month child to take care of.  Lets solve all these issues by taking a trip to Peru on credit!!!! To make it even sweeter most of my co-workers knowing her financial status as well are encouraging her to take the trip and think it is a splendid idea. 

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.  Yes, some people do have genuine issues, such as I know three women who are on synthetic thyroid medicine and one of the side effects is indeed weight gain.  However for the bulk of people who are overweight, it's simply by some measure of diet and exercise being out of balance.  It's honestly in the best interest of the employee that they be healthy anyway, plus in the best interests of society, since really all of us pay the cost of people getting sick with obesity related illnesses in one way or another.

Oh don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying that its not in the best interest of the employees and society as a whole.
But I don't think it's right to give employers the ability to punish their employees for not engaging in activities that have nothing to do with their work. It is a free country, after all.

You're mixing up freedoms and privileges. Nobody has a "right" to a job, a job is a privilege provided by another voluntarily.

[grantmeaname]

If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should [...] fine the parents

If someone has no money you want to take away their money?

[boarder42]

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

Not saying I disagree, but that's a slippery slope.  Where does it end?  Should parents have to pay their own costs of birth?  How about first 2 kids are covered but after that they're on their own because of population concerns?  On the flip side, what about women that choose not to have kids and are at higher risk of some types of cancer?  If they develop cancer later in life is that their problem because they made that risky choice?  Smokers don't get coverage for lung cancer costs?  What about coal miners because they chose the job?  Or do we just draw the line on diet and exercise related problems?  What about children who are overweight and diabetic because of their parents?  Covered until they turn 18 then turn off the tap?

It sounds good in theory, but everyone is going to draw that line somewhere different, and no matter where you draw it someone that legitimately needs help is going to get caught on the wrong side.

Getting pretty off topic, but it's a good thought experiment and I always like to hear opinions on things like this because I'm not quite sure where I stand either.

A very fair and reasonable objection.   Anything we do with public money means someone gets an advantage and someone else gets taken advantage of.   There's no way to avoid that, so we just have to try to be fair and reasonable about it.

FYI - pregnancy is not a disease and it has definite benefits (in moderation) for society.   If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should pay for the pregnancy (it's not the child's fault!) and fine the parents for being a pain in the butt to the rest of us.  Then let someone who can afford to raise the child do so.  And yes, I'm a hard-ass when it comes to personal responsibility.

Depending on what studies you've read cancer is a disease of CHOICE of diet.  And can be mitigated by eating properly.  Very few diseases out there are not diseases of choice.  diabetes is a CHOICE b/c of diet.  Aids is a CHOICE of having unprotected relations.  Many birth defects can be linked back to CHOICES of a birth mother.  Depression (if you want to call it a disease) can be linked to CHOICES you made in your life that have made you get this feeling of nothingness.  Then all the obvious ones. We don't treat fatties b/c they made a CHOICE to eat that way, we don't treat smokers B/C they made a CHOICE to smoke.  We dont treat drug addicts b/c they made a CHOICE to do drugs. 

I mean where do you draw the line b/c you can link 95% of human diseases to a choice in some way or another. 

So I ask you then what would we be covering under your system? 

[Timmmy]

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

Not saying I disagree, but that's a slippery slope.  Where does it end?  Should parents have to pay their own costs of birth?  How about first 2 kids are covered but after that they're on their own because of population concerns?  On the flip side, what about women that choose not to have kids and are at higher risk of some types of cancer?  If they develop cancer later in life is that their problem because they made that risky choice?  Smokers don't get coverage for lung cancer costs?  What about coal miners because they chose the job?  Or do we just draw the line on diet and exercise related problems?  What about children who are overweight and diabetic because of their parents?  Covered until they turn 18 then turn off the tap?

It sounds good in theory, but everyone is going to draw that line somewhere different, and no matter where you draw it someone that legitimately needs help is going to get caught on the wrong side.

Getting pretty off topic, but it's a good thought experiment and I always like to hear opinions on things like this because I'm not quite sure where I stand either.

A very fair and reasonable objection.   Anything we do with public money means someone gets an advantage and someone else gets taken advantage of.   There's no way to avoid that, so we just have to try to be fair and reasonable about it.

FYI - pregnancy is not a disease and it has definite benefits (in moderation) for society.   If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should pay for the pregnancy (it's not the child's fault!) and fine the parents for being a pain in the butt to the rest of us.  Then let someone who can afford to raise the child do so.  And yes, I'm a hard-ass when it comes to personal responsibility.

Depending on what studies you've read cancer is a disease of CHOICE of diet.  And can be mitigated by eating properly.  Very few diseases out there are not diseases of choice.  diabetes is a CHOICE b/c of diet.  Aids is a CHOICE of having unprotected relations.  Many birth defects can be linked back to CHOICES of a birth mother.  Depression (if you want to call it a disease) can be linked to CHOICES you made in your life that have made you get this feeling of nothingness.  Then all the obvious ones. We don't treat fatties b/c they made a CHOICE to eat that way, we don't treat smokers B/C they made a CHOICE to smoke.  We dont treat drug addicts b/c they made a CHOICE to do drugs. 

I mean where do you draw the line b/c you can link 95% of human diseases to a choice in some way or another. 

So I ask you then what would we be covering under your system?

I know 2 people that have died of lung cancer having never smoked anything in their life and having no other risk factors.  That was not their choice.

Type 1 diabetes is not a choice

Being born HIV positive is not a choice

Your mother making bad decisions while pregnant is not your choice

Depression is not a choice

[boarder42]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

[mtn]

 proving depression is not a choice may be hard. 

No, it isn't. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Sometimes caused by a traumatic event, sometimes just there. Go ask a rape victim suffering from PTSD about depression being a choice.

[GuitarStv]

 proving depression is not a choice may be hard. 

No, it isn't. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Sometimes caused by a traumatic event, sometimes just there. Go ask a rape victim suffering from PTSD about depression being a choice.

To play devil's advocate for a second here . . .

Literally every decision you make in life is due to brain chemistry.  It could be quite effectively argued that pedophiles like little children because of brain chemistry and murderers kill because of brain chemistry.  There are chemical peculiarities in the brains of both.  Our legal system is based on the preconception of free will, but from a biological standpoint there's little evidence that free will actually exists.

[johnny847]

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.  Yes, some people do have genuine issues, such as I know three women who are on synthetic thyroid medicine and one of the side effects is indeed weight gain.  However for the bulk of people who are overweight, it's simply by some measure of diet and exercise being out of balance.  It's honestly in the best interest of the employee that they be healthy anyway, plus in the best interests of society, since really all of us pay the cost of people getting sick with obesity related illnesses in one way or another.

Oh don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying that its not in the best interest of the employees and society as a whole.
But I don't think it's right to give employers the ability to punish their employees for not engaging in activities that have nothing to do with their work. It is a free country, after all.

You're mixing up freedoms and privileges. Nobody has a "right" to a job, a job is a privilege provided by another voluntarily.

And yet, we've come to agree through legislation that religion should be one of the protected discrimination classes. Religion is a choice. Replace "activities that have nothing to do with their work" with "activities of their religion" and see how that flies.

[KCM5]

Cancer is preventable by diet. 

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Also, I'm going to need to move to somewhere with no air quality concerns, including combustion from cars, indoor cooking fires, VOCs and HAPs from paints, particulate matter even from wind blown dust, etc. You're probably going to need to move, too. Get on that.

[Posthumane]

Perhaps this conversation should be moved to a new topic called "should employers be allowed to police employees' health" or something like that. Mods?

Anyway, johnny847, you mentioned that a bachelor's degree is an over-qualification for a clerical position where reading a writing are probably bona fide operational requirements. I would posit that a minimum level of health and fitness (i.e. being able to move, show up to work, etc.) are also bona fide operational requirements for almost every job. Any additional level of fitness is therefore also an over-qualification. Even within the military there are many positions which are basically desk jobs and don't actually require a fit person to do the job, but the fitness standards are equal across the board. Basically, not having a certain level of health and fitness can negatively impact your ability to do your job just like having poor reading/writing skills, so I don't see why it can't be something that an employer can use as a selection criteria, and also promote (or even mandate) within the workplace.

[johnny847]

Perhaps this conversation should be moved to a new topic called "should employers be allowed to police employees' health" or something like that. Mods?

I agree - there was actually one on topic post that got buried somewhere here....here it is!

A fellow co worker of mine who is a single parent at the age of 21 with a deadbeat father is taking trip to Peru this summer.  Never mind the fact that she  has a car loan, 10k+ cc debt, and a  3 month child to take care of.  Lets solve all these issues by taking a trip to Peru on credit!!!! To make it even sweeter most of my co-workers knowing her financial status as well are encouraging her to take the trip and think it is a splendid idea. 

Posthumane, then I'll posit this question:
Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair? I'm not asking whether it's legal, or whether it happens. I'm just asking strictly from an ethical standpoint, does that seem fair to you?
(And of course, it doesn't have to be smoking - imagine replacing smoking with any health related condition or issue)

If it does, then I doubt we'll ever change each others minds.

[boarder42]

Cancer is preventable by diet. 

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Also, I'm going to need to move to somewhere with no air quality concerns, including combustion from cars, indoor cooking fires, VOCs and HAPs from paints, particulate matter even from wind blown dust, etc. You're probably going to need to move, too. Get on that.

Yeah and you CHOOSE to live around all that stuff.  I'm just saying not covering Choices is a complete can of worms that you dont want to dig into ... b/c either 95% of what happens to you in life (or greater) is a choice... OR like the brain chemistry comment there is no free will and we should all be covered forever for everything.

Go watch forks over knives or read the brain cancer post here.  His tumor is down by half after doctors told him they had no cure.  Whole foods plant based diets etc. ... so keep eating your processed foods etc. and you're choosing to increase your risk for cancer. 

Disclaimer: I don't follow this diet... i do however eat very little processed foods.  I would also note that if contracting cancer i would opt for diet change over Chemo. 

[thd7t]

Cancer is preventable by diet. 

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Also, I'm going to need to move to somewhere with no air quality concerns, including combustion from cars, indoor cooking fires, VOCs and HAPs from paints, particulate matter even from wind blown dust, etc. You're probably going to need to move, too. Get on that.

Yeah and you CHOOSE to live around all that stuff.  I'm just saying not covering Choices is a complete can of worms that you dont want to dig into ... b/c either 95% of what happens to you in life (or greater) is a choice... OR like the brain chemistry comment there is no free will and we should all be covered forever for everything.

Go watch forks over knives or read the brain cancer post here.  His tumor is down by half after doctors told him they had no cure.  Whole foods plant based diets etc. ... so keep eating your processed foods etc. and you're choosing to increase your risk for cancer. 

Disclaimer: I don't follow this diet... i do however eat very little processed foods.  I would also note that if contracting cancer i would opt for diet change over Chemo.

Following a careful diet may help in cases of cancer, but in the case of some cancers, it can lead to people missing treatments that are effective.  This killed Steve Jobs.

[johnny847]

Cancer is preventable by diet. 

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Also, I'm going to need to move to somewhere with no air quality concerns, including combustion from cars, indoor cooking fires, VOCs and HAPs from paints, particulate matter even from wind blown dust, etc. You're probably going to need to move, too. Get on that.

Yeah and you CHOOSE to live around all that stuff.  I'm just saying not covering Choices is a complete can of worms that you dont want to dig into ... b/c either 95% of what happens to you in life (or greater) is a choice... OR like the brain chemistry comment there is no free will and we should all be covered forever for everything.

Go watch forks over knives or read the brain cancer post here.  His tumor is down by half after doctors told him they had no cure.  Whole foods plant based diets etc. ... so keep eating your processed foods etc. and you're choosing to increase your risk for cancer. 

Disclaimer: I don't follow this diet... i do however eat very little processed foods.  I would also note that if contracting cancer i would opt for diet change over Chemo.

But realize the fallacy of what you're saying boarder42. Suppose you and a significant number of people want to find a place that has zero air quality concerns to satisfy your silly constraint that this is all a choice. Then just by the fact that a significant number of people move into that same place that has zero air quality concerns, all the other people around you are going to pollute the quality of the air in one form or another.
It's not a choice to live in a place with less than perfect air quality. Our planet is simply too populated for everybody to live in a place with zero air quality concerns.

Please stop citing the one brain cancer thread here. I'm glad that person's tumor is subsiding, I really am. But  it's one data point. In science, that means nothing. It can raise the question of "this is something that we should investigate further." But it proves nothing.

I don't think saying go watch forks over knives is constructive in this discussion. I doubt anybody wants to watch a full documentary just to answer some questions on this thread. What would be constructive is to cite the studies that you've referred to. That at least we can at least read through the relevant parts.

[Wings5]

The keg has been floated. It's pure foam.

I work in aviation, and many of the pilots I work with want to go fly for a major (Delta, FedEx, United, etc.). The regional airlines start out at very low pay but senior captains can clear $100,000. The same goes for military pilots after a few years in; between base pay, BAH, etc. So while a jump to a major airline is the goal for many it also means a reduction in pay and an increase in time away from home (new pilots start at the bottom of the seniority list). After a few years the pay is back to what they were making in the previous job. That is not hard if you live below your means.

One colleague of mine had a brilliant idea. He and his SO had three new vehicles between the two of them. One had been paid off but was re-leveraged for some reason. Random gadetry, $2,000 grill, that type. To make the jump and deal with the pay cut from a senior regional captain to the most junior guy at a major airline he proposed getting a personal loan for $200,000. He would use that for both living expenses and to service his current debt, basically taking lower interest debt and upping the interest.

I never heard if he applied for a loan, but I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that banker's office if the time came.

[KCM5]

Cancer is preventable by diet. 

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Also, I'm going to need to move to somewhere with no air quality concerns, including combustion from cars, indoor cooking fires, VOCs and HAPs from paints, particulate matter even from wind blown dust, etc. You're probably going to need to move, too. Get on that.

Yeah and you CHOOSE to live around all that stuff. I'm just saying not covering Choices is a complete can of worms that you dont want to dig into ... b/c either 95% of what happens to you in life (or greater) is a choice... OR like the brain chemistry comment there is no free will and we should all be covered forever for everything.

Go watch forks over knives or read the brain cancer post here.  His tumor is down by half after doctors told him they had no cure.  Whole foods plant based diets etc. ... so keep eating your processed foods etc. and you're choosing to increase your risk for cancer. 

Disclaimer: I don't follow this diet... i do however eat very little processed foods.  I would also note that if contracting cancer i would opt for diet change over Chemo.

I totally agree with you on this. I just think that people with the time and energy to consider subtle things that may or may not have an impact on your future health (living near a freeway, eating a donut) overestimate the ability of the average person to mitigate risk. And overestimate their own ability to mitigate risk. We like to think that we have power over things, but the reality is that we don't have enough information to really know about a lot of the things your discussing (ie cancer risk and diet). We're not rats in a lab. We're people living in very diverse environments with very diverse experiences. I mean, I'm doing my best but I'm also under no illusion that that will actually make a difference.

[sky_northern]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

I can't point you to legal basis but I know that we have discussed at work that we can't make anyone get the highly recommended vaccinations for our jobs.

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted.

See, I have a problem with the generalization that obesity leads to increased number of sick days. Lets just say that if my job had a BMI threshold I would never have gotten the job. But I am healthy, in that the last time I was at a doctor (was 2 yrs ago, though because I don't go to the doctor often) he ordered a full blood work up and couldn't find anything wrong with me. (Blood pressure good, cholesterol levels good, etc.) I exercise and eat my veggies, I just happen to also like chocolate and full fat yogurt and losing weight is extremely difficult for me.  I take a couple sick days a year, way less than the two days a month we are allowed. I did have the stomach flu this year so it was legitimate but other years I have taken more 'mental health' days when I just wanted to sleep in and read a good book because I hadn't been sick at all that year I didn't feel that guilty.

[johnny847]

I never heard if he applied for a loan, but I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that banker's office if the time came.

Me too

[going2ER]

Back on track to what I actually overheard at work.

Coworker is renewing her mortgage, normally in Canada it needs to be renewed about every 5 years until it is paid off, but you can get terms longer or shorter. So coworker tells me that they are doing theirs next week and rolling all of their debt, a substantial amount of credit card debt, line of credit, etc. into their mortgage. Then she tells me that they do this every time their mortgage comes up for renewal. Plus this time they are only getting a 3 year term since they find it hard to wait the 5 years to be able to get all their debt paid off.

[Posthumane]

Posthumane, then I'll posit this question:
Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair? I'm not asking whether it's legal, or whether it happens. I'm just asking strictly from an ethical standpoint, does that seem fair to you?
(And of course, it doesn't have to be smoking - imagine replacing smoking with any health related condition or issue)

If it does, then I doubt we'll ever change each others minds.

While I think it depends a lot on the individual situation, I would say that in some cases yes it is fair. There are a number of factors related in selecting a candidate for a job, and not all of them have to do with the performance of the job itself. For small organization especially, personality fit can have a much more pronounced effect on the performance of the unit than the performance of the individual. So, for example, if you're hiring someone to do basic clerical work such as filing and taking dictation (because my hypothetical takes place in the 30's for some reason) then you may end up choosing someone whose personality fits in with the environment but may be second best at their job over someone who excels at the task but you can't get along with. Smoking (or other health/fitness related issues) go along with this. If I'm hiring someone to work closely with me on developing business plans for a start up, their outlook on things like smoking and fitness would have an impact on weather I hired them or not as they are somewhat indicative of how we would get along. In many ways an employment contract is similar to a relationship.

[vivophoenix]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

um are we seriously debating this guy?

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

[RyanAtTanagra]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

um are we seriously debating this guy?

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

Not really, that's just his extreme example.  He's saying diet effects the likelihood of getting cancer, which there are studies to support this.  So his point is when do you stop providing medical support for cancer patients, if their choice of diet could have caused it?