A trend occurring in organizations today continues to raise important questions

Question

A trend occurring in organizations today continues to raise important questions for a number of people. Indeed, workplace wellness programs encourage people to take steps to prevent the onset or worsening of a health condition or sickness and to adopt lifestyles that are healthier. Some organizations have comprehensive workplace wellness programs, whereas others achieve savings or increase productivity with relatively easy activities designed to promote healthier lifestyles. Workplace wellness programs are an effective tool in slowing the growth of healthcare costs by providing health options that may reduce a worker’s chances of suffering from illness. Less illness means lower health plan utilization, and that can lower health benefit costs for organizations while consequently increasing earnings. Research shows that medically high-risk workers are medically high-cost workers because they use additional health care and generate higher claims. image ColorBlind/The Image Bank/Getty Images The fact that smoking can create health problems has been well documented. Accordingly, health insurance premiums, as well as other premiums such as life insurance, are significantly higher for those who light up. And in most cases, employers have passed these increased premium costs on to the worker. Companies have become more stringent in developing policies on smoking, and many have banned smoking on company premises altogether. Clearly, the smoker today is disadvantaged, but how far can that go? Can supervisors refuse to hire people simply because they smoke? Depending on the organization, the requirement of the job, and the state in which one lives, they might have that right! Even so, some employers may take this one step further. Companies may, in fact, be able to terminate an employee for smoking off the job—on the employee’s own time. Do you agree with an organization’s right to terminate an employee for smoking off the job? The Wellness Council of America (WELCOA) was established as a national not-for-profit organization in the mid-1980s. WELCOA believes healthcare costs are an issue of significant concern and that a healthy workforce is essential to the continued growth and prosperity of the United States. Their belief is that much of the illness in the United States is directly preventable and the workplace is an ideal setting to address health and well-being. Their vision is that workplace wellness programs can transform corporate culture and change lives.* In an attempt to change its corporate culture, Rothman Gordon, a law firm, paid about $3,750 for health club privileges for its thirty-one lawyers and more than thirty support personnel. The facility is open to members twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week so they can work out before, after, or even during office hours. The managing shareholder Bill Lestitian believes that it is a smart and effective way to boost employee wellness and morale. Other on-site wellness programs include yoga and smoking cessation. Lestitian feels that in the long run it could help reduce the firm’s medical costs.† Is this a better way to control the wellness of employees? What about employees who do not lead a healthy lifestyle? They may not participate in the wellness program regardless of its cost. * Wellness Council of America, “Creating Well Workplaces,” http://www.welcoa.org/wellworkplace (accessed May 16, 2011). † J. Gannon, “Companies Offer Wellness Programs to Cut Insurance Costs,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 11, 2008, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08132/880660-28.stm#ixzz1MTakApni (accessed May 16, 2011). The Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce states that when it comes to workplace wellness at least 50 percent of an organization’s healthcare costs are driven by the lifestyle-related behaviors of employees, such as smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise. However, in the past ten years, the annual return on investment for worksite wellness programs has been as much as six dollars saved for every dollar spent and the average reduction in health plan costs, sick leave, disability costs, and workers’ compensation is more than 25 percent for well-designed worksite wellness programs. Their thought is that workplace wellness initiatives improve company productivity by attracting superior quality staff, thereby reducing the rate of absenteeism and time lost, which in turn results in enhanced on-the-job time utilization and decision making that leads to improved worker morale, which in turn lowers turnover.‡ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourage businesses to invest in a workplace wellness program and help the United States achieve two of its major Healthy People 2010 workplace objectives: to have 75 percent of all employers, regardless of size, provide a wide-reaching staff workplace wellness program; and to have 75 percent of all company staff participate in employer-sponsored workplace wellness program activities.

Do you think companies have the right to dictate what employees do outside of work?

If an organization can take action against employees for smoking, and justify it on the grounds that it creates a health problem, what about other things? For example, eating too much fatty food, smoking a cigar, or drinking wine or beer?

If these are policies you must abide by as a supervisor in the organization, would you be willing to discipline or even terminate an employee that you saw violating rules outside of the workplace?

How far should companies go in regulating ‘wellness’?

please answers the following questions no plagiarized answers please, please type out answers

Explanation / Answer

Dictating employees outside activities completely depends on type of job that an employee is doing for the organisation. If an employee is directly responsible for his wrong doings and it affects the companies brand image by the outside activities of the specific employee then company do have specific guidelines as maintenance of the activity is for the specific employee to maintain the brand image and to successfully be more ethical towards the businesses.
Doing other things are directly responsibility of an employee for his career. Rather than looking for an employee personal life, organisations should focus on his performance. Smoking inside the organisation should be prohibited but if an employee wants to smoke outside the organisation and it does not directly affect the company's image then he has no responsibility of stopping himself from smoking.
For an example if an employee works for an anti smoking Drug Company then he should not be smoking outside the organisation as it would directly affect the company's brand image and would also affect the moral of the company and would send out a wrong message in the society.
Definitely if I am a supervisor and my company ask me to avoid this specific practice outside the organisation then I would be definitely avoiding this is specific term. If I ever saw an employee violating this is specific rule then I would take a strict action against him as it is a part of my duty.
Companies should regulate the balance factor if it directly affects companies brand image regulation on the Wellness of an employee should be done as an awareness programme inside the organisation. It should not be implemented on the street basis as it a directly reduces the employee moral and violet his human Rights. Every employee has its own life and responsible for his own doing in his career and his personal life.
All in all we can see that companies should only a regulate the specific terms which affects its brand image rather than doing gatekeeping on the employees everyday activities. If a company continues to alter and employees daily life then he would definitely be annoyed by the same and would leave the organisation and delay of rate for the organisation would definitely increase.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.