healthy living stipend
This is a post brought on by Joe's post earlier this morning. The idea is a comment over on his blog about smoking, but I figer if I think it's a good idea (which I do), I might as well post it over here, too. Maybe I can expand on it a bit while I'm on hold.
In Joe's post, he discussed concerns he had about the trend toward banning smoking in restaurants and bars. I'll leave my direct response to that there. As I am wont to do, however, I ran off on a tangent concerning some major employees, the most recent being the World Health Organization, actively screening applicants for non-smokers or those smokers that are willing to quit. That level of discrimination is more concerning to me for a couple of different reasons.
First is the brain drain that such a policy experiences, refusing to hire otherwise qualified applicants because of an unhealthy practice. Smoking is an easy practice to target, but what's next? Overeating? Will I one day be unhirable because of my overactive metabolism. Will Nick be unable to find a new job because he will pursue gaming entertainment rather than sleeping a healthy amount? I understand that unhealthy employees raise the cost of healthcare for everyone, because an employer's insurance premiums are determined as an average of the cost of insuring each employee. I directly benefit from my employer not hiring smokers. My concern is where the line gets drawn.
Second, when a company refuses to hire someone because of an activity that applicant pursues that was socially promoted until the last decade, they lose a customer. On top of that, they potentially lose associates of that applicant as customers. Anyone that's had a basic economics class knows how each customer passing a bad experience onto two+ other customers works. That just cuts into America's economy overall.
My solution focuses more on rewarding good behavior rather than punishing bad behavior. Instead of not hiring smokers or anyone else with an unhealthy practice (high caffeine intake anyone?), my proposal focuses on a "Healthy Living Stipend". Since healthy people cost less to insure, a company that employs healthy people spends less on health insurance premiums. Passing a little bit of that savings onto the employees can encourage healthy living.
The most appropriate adjustment in this case is a non-smoking stipend. If you don't smoke, and unfortunately for those living in a home with a smoker a doctor's nod is necessary, you get extra cash, either a monthly bonus or an extra per hour rate. Take it even further. Maintain attendance in an authorized health club, yoga class, martial arts, or what have you, get a bonus. A truly philanthropic company might go so far as to offer a bonus to employees that ran in any of the "Race for the Cure" type marathons. Meet certain healthy living standards, such as low cholesterol, good blood pressure, etc, get a bonus. The best way to affect employee behavior is through their paychecks. Healthy living from healthcare savings. Good times.
As is always the case on this blog, all ideas presented are open to discussion. Chime in as you feel the need.
In Joe's post, he discussed concerns he had about the trend toward banning smoking in restaurants and bars. I'll leave my direct response to that there. As I am wont to do, however, I ran off on a tangent concerning some major employees, the most recent being the World Health Organization, actively screening applicants for non-smokers or those smokers that are willing to quit. That level of discrimination is more concerning to me for a couple of different reasons.
First is the brain drain that such a policy experiences, refusing to hire otherwise qualified applicants because of an unhealthy practice. Smoking is an easy practice to target, but what's next? Overeating? Will I one day be unhirable because of my overactive metabolism. Will Nick be unable to find a new job because he will pursue gaming entertainment rather than sleeping a healthy amount? I understand that unhealthy employees raise the cost of healthcare for everyone, because an employer's insurance premiums are determined as an average of the cost of insuring each employee. I directly benefit from my employer not hiring smokers. My concern is where the line gets drawn.
Second, when a company refuses to hire someone because of an activity that applicant pursues that was socially promoted until the last decade, they lose a customer. On top of that, they potentially lose associates of that applicant as customers. Anyone that's had a basic economics class knows how each customer passing a bad experience onto two+ other customers works. That just cuts into America's economy overall.
My solution focuses more on rewarding good behavior rather than punishing bad behavior. Instead of not hiring smokers or anyone else with an unhealthy practice (high caffeine intake anyone?), my proposal focuses on a "Healthy Living Stipend". Since healthy people cost less to insure, a company that employs healthy people spends less on health insurance premiums. Passing a little bit of that savings onto the employees can encourage healthy living.
The most appropriate adjustment in this case is a non-smoking stipend. If you don't smoke, and unfortunately for those living in a home with a smoker a doctor's nod is necessary, you get extra cash, either a monthly bonus or an extra per hour rate. Take it even further. Maintain attendance in an authorized health club, yoga class, martial arts, or what have you, get a bonus. A truly philanthropic company might go so far as to offer a bonus to employees that ran in any of the "Race for the Cure" type marathons. Meet certain healthy living standards, such as low cholesterol, good blood pressure, etc, get a bonus. The best way to affect employee behavior is through their paychecks. Healthy living from healthcare savings. Good times.
As is always the case on this blog, all ideas presented are open to discussion. Chime in as you feel the need.
posted by Amazing Shafeman at 8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home