If I Lose 20 Pounds, Will You Give Me A Raise?
Morbidly obese employees cost companies more in worker’s comp claims, says a new study:
[T]he fattest workers had 13 times more lost workdays due to work-related injuries, and their medical claims for those injuries were seven times higher than their fit co-workers [sic]. Overweight workers were more likely to have claims involving injuries to the back, wrist, arm, neck, shoulder, hip, knee and foot than other employees… New York employment attorney Richard Corenthal cautioned employers not to overreact with discriminatory policies. “Employers need to be careful not to view this study as a green light to treat obese or overweight workers differently.”
The article suggests that companies institute fitness programs, which I think is a great idea anyway. My old company gave gym memberships to employees, but kept us all working such long hours that we could never go to the gym. Still, it was nice. I’ve also heard of companies providing free fresh fruit to employees, which would be fantastic. (I got really fat at one job where someone brought in donuts every day.) I often dream of a workout room right in the building—how divine would it be to have a bunch of elliptical machines right next to the mailroom?
But I’m sure, instead of any of its suggestions being implemented, this study will become just another reason for companies not to give us jobs in the first place. And it will be another thing that people can point to, claiming what a burden every fat person is on society.
Thanks to Melinda for the link.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Cold Hard Cash, Health, Science, Work
Email us
I don’t suppose that if we cost more that we will be valued more…just wishful thinking.
Our insurance company raised our premiums and my company agreed to eat the cost as long as we complete a 5 step program that included a health assesment and all sorts of healthy living manuals.
Because I have a chronic condition I’m at the doctor alot anyways, but it has nothing to do with my weight.
I work for a small company and we just recently got health insurance and I was surprised to discover it cost literally twice as much to cover me simply because I’m a woman. My two co-workers are men in their early 30’s and I’m a woman in my mid-twenties, but evidently since I have ovaries and might have a baby I cost a lot more – fat or not.
I get free fruit at work! And it is indeed wonderful.
I have the right to join an employees’ gym, too – but it’s at another building a long way away, and I don’t drive, so I can’t easily get to it.
The best fitness-encourager I ever had at work was a running group. It was fabulous. There were members of all ages and levels of fitness, and it was fun. Sadly, this is probably only going to be an option for companies that are large enough to contain enough wannabe runners (and running-leaders, too). And somewhere to run, of course.
Even a “let’s all go for a brisk walk at lunchtime” group would be a start, though.
My last job gave us 50% off of our gym memberships. I loved it! The company I work with now has Aetna HMO. Aetna’s “fitness” policy isn’t actually run by them. It’s contracted out to another company (Global Fit). The rule is, the other company will pay 50% of your gym membership. But it can’t be your current membership. You have to cancel that membership and start a new one (according to my coworker, the new membership can’t even be at your old gym, but I have no idea if that is true or not).
So if someone just signed up for a gym, they would not be eligible for Global Fit until the end of their contract. Or they could cancel the contract and be charged the termination fee (which Global Fit does NOT cover, even though their policy doesn’t give you an option should you want to take advantage of it).
In my case, I had ended my 3 year stint with Balley’s, after which they put me on the reduced $20/month plan. Since Global Fit will not pay the $10 a month of my current plan, I’d have to cancel and start from scratch. Which would be a minimum of $60/month. Meaning, they’d be paying more, as would I (not to mention, the $100+ sign up fee a lot of the chain gyms charge).
I think it’s absurd. But then again, it’s Aetna. I have no definitive proof of this, but I think that they are probably one of the worst HMOs out there. When I had Blue Cross, Blue Shield I never had the headaches I have now.
Major companies tend to have health centers on site that you can join. I worked for TI. Nortel and Qualcomm. All have fitness centers. TI and Nortel there was a fee to join, but it wasn’t expensive. QC it is free. And, we do have running clubs, walking clubs, weight watchers at work, etc. We also work long hours so there is little time to use the facilities but you can’t have it all.
My current job has fruit AND sweets/candy available throughout the building (lobby, admin desks) so it is up to your individual self control as to which you choose.
Start your own walking club at your work! What does it take beyond some email/notices and a few friends: “Let’s meet out front for a 20 minute walk around the area at 12:10 on Wednesdays.” There you go, your new walking club at work.
This may just be another example of popular journalism offering (at best) misleading information about a scientific/medical study.
If you read the original study, it emcompassed a single employer (Duke University) and only looked at people who voluntarily reported the information. (Could we just not as easily conclude that obese people are more open and honest than their “lean” coworkers?)
The group was “skewed” so that most of the participants were women, black, and/or “older.” (Could we just not assume that perhaps the stress of being female and/or black, and/or “older” leads to health problems?)
In addition, the researchers admit that though the participants were from many different occupations within the university, most of the participants were doing shift work and blue-collar work. (Could we not assume that shift work and blue-collar workers get injured more often because they’re doing more physical and hence more dangerous work than, say, a university professor or a secretary?)
The researchers also admit that it is likely that obesitiy affects promotion within an occupation so that, say, an obese nurse at DU is more likely to be doing more patient lifting than his/her lean supervisor, so it’s the obese coworker who is more likely to be injured.
Anyway, of course it is a great idea for employers to offer *any* benefits, health or otherwise (and I can’t even tell you the last time I even had a job that offered insurance much less free fruit and half-price gym memberships), but my guess is that most employers, reading this, are more likely to just go the route of no more fatties than they are to install a work-place gym.
My bad on saying that the reporting was “voluntary.” The actual study says that participation was voluntary–suggesting that people could opt out if they didn’t want researchers having access to their medical or insurance records.
To me, that in turn suggests that perhaps someone in a higher occupational position might be more comfortable (than someone in a lesser, blue-collar job) asserting their right to privacy, whether perceived or real. That alone could skew the results.
Great another reason to keep the “fat man down”. Ugh. My first thoughts upon reading the article were that some executive is reading the same article and implementing a “No Fat Employees” policy as we speak and that a lot of those same executives are how shall we say… well-endowed in the waist line area.
It’s great that many companies are realizing the importance of their employees’ health and encouraging them to lead healthier lifestyles through various programs. However, it makes you wonder if they are doing this because it is costing them more.
Further to Brenda’s comment, you may want to read what the invaluable Sandy Szwarc had to say about his study (apparently, unlike the journalists, she actually read it)
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/04/seeing-only-fat.html
I think the AMA really has to be called on their ethics here. There are an infinite number of groups you could pick out and find average cost differences for various things (minorities, women, undereducated people, short people, people with various illnesses and disabilities, etc.) but you never see an AMA journal singling out any of those groups, then combing through the data, to find some increase cost for the group as a whole, and then putting out a worldwide press release: “minorities are too expensive!” Because it’s blatantly unfair to the individual and does nothing but encourage discrimination.
They CLAIM it’s just to encourage health programs and safety measures on the job, but you’d have to be an idiot to think that the most likely result won’t be just old-fashioned employment discrimination. It’s unconscionably reckless and destructive to target a group of people who are already hugely discriminated against, along with being disproportionately, poor, minorities, women, and older…and go out of your way to make it EVEN HARDER for them to find employment.
I’ve been lurking for a while and reading through the backpages (hence the comment on a golden oldie) – thought you’d appreciate that my company does give us free fresh fruit! There’s a basket in the kitchen, and now I eat an orange in the afternoon (old job: a cupcake). No gym membership, but a good start. :)