Pubdate: Thu, 03 Mar 2005
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
Copyright: 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Contact: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/letters/sendletter.html
Website: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/28
Author: Rowland Nethaway - Waco Tribune-Herald
Note: Nethaway is the Waco Tribune-Herald senior editor. His column appears 
occasionally.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)

WORKERS COULD FACE NICOTINE, FAT TESTS

Smokers and fat people send U.S. jobs overseas.

That's scary, but bad health habits produce high labor costs, a condition 
that forces some employers to move operations overseas.

Labor costs are much more than hourly wages, annual salaries or commission 
rates.

They also include pension benefits and the costs of employee health care, 
which is going through the roof for many reasons including the bad habits 
of employees.

An employer recently told me he sees the day coming when workers will be 
required to take care of their health if they want to keep their jobs. That 
means workers will not be permitted to smoke and must keep their weight 
within a safe range.

Smoking is a leading preventable cause of debilitating diseases and 
premature deaths in the United States. It is estimated by the government 
that smoking causes approximately 400,000 preventable deaths each year.

Obesity also kills. The government also reports that the U.S. obesity 
epidemic extends from toddlers through adulthood.

Illnesses caused by smoking and obesity not only cost U.S. employers 
billions of dollars annually due to lost productivity, they also drive up 
the costs of employee health care plans offered by employers.

This double whammy could cause employers to demand that their employees 
never smoke and that they stay in good physical condition. To keep their 
jobs, employees would have to submit to random nicotine tests and weight 
checks.

Workers would raise a stink if their bosses started dictating how they 
lived their lives when away from their offices or work sites.

Elected lawmakers would write legislation to prevent employers from 
enforcing off-the-job work rules.

Lawyers would sue employers for everything from invasion of privacy to 
cruel and unusual punishment.

That does not mean that employers would lose in a showdown over 
work-related health rules.

Employers should be able to show how illnesses and disabilities caused by 
smoking and obesity jeopardize the health of the company and the jobs of 
fellow employees who maintain healthy lifestyles.

They also could argue how it is unfair to force employers to keep on their 
payrolls workers whose lifestyle choices make them more expensive to employ 
than healthy workers.

At the very least, employers might be able to make a case that they should 
be able to determine if their workers are living unhealthy lifestyles and 
then raise their health insurance premiums.

Courts have already given employers permission to conduct drug tests of 
their employees. Some employers fought for the authority to conduct 
employee drug tests based on the arguments that drug users could present an 
unsafe work environment, become an unfair additional financial burden and 
simply be bad for business.

It's not a stretch to use some of the same arguments and move from drug 
testing to nicotine and fat testing.

In 2003, a Michigan company, Weyco Inc., gave its employees a deadline to 
quit smoking. Four employees refused to take the required nicotine tests 
and left the company.

A Michigan state senator is preparing legislation to prevent such employer 
actions against employees who smoke. Similar legislation to protect 
off-duty smokers is in force in several states.

That doesn't mean smoker-protection laws can't be overturned, particularly 
when lawmakers are confronted with accelerated job losses overseas due to 
surging health care costs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth