![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynThere are many ways to respond to the high cost of health care. But I can't say that I care for this one. O_o
I'm glad I don't work there. And bully for the four people who refused to take the test; I hope they find a better company to work for soon.
I won't say "there oughta be a law" or "Weyco shouldn't be able to do this", because I don't believe in laws to control who a company hires and fires, or why. But I will say: I sure hope market forces clobber them hard.
I'm glad I don't work there. And bully for the four people who refused to take the test; I hope they find a better company to work for soon.
I won't say "there oughta be a law" or "Weyco shouldn't be able to do this", because I don't believe in laws to control who a company hires and fires, or why. But I will say: I sure hope market forces clobber them hard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 04:51 pm (UTC)A problem for libertarian theory: what if every company in your town got together and refused to hire, buy from, sell to, or even admit on their premises, black people? Or Jews? Or Republicans? You can't count on the market to correct the inequity (for the sake of argument, assume the town is an economically closed system), because the market has been hijacked. You probably also can't count on the government, because the town business leaders will be (de facto if not de jure) the government. Pretty much all the oppressed people can do is to leave (if they can, and if there's anywhere to go), to stage an armed revolt (which may succeed, or may result in their extermination), or to suffer in silence.
I doubt this scenario will result in anything so extreme as regards smokers or the obese, but it's not unthinkable.
Good point
Date: 2005-01-28 05:32 pm (UTC)In theory, the market fixes problems eventually ... but to be perfectly fair, "eventually" is measured in centuries or millenia, and that's way too long to wait. I am not opposed to checks and balances via government, when necessary.
But because the government is so heavy-handed and powerful, I would much prefer that market forces be given the opportunity to redress wrongs, first.
And then there's the matter of "At what point does this become so wrong that it needs government redress?" The actual example of Weyco's policy is clearly wrong. What they are doing is invasive, cruel, and inappropriate. But that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. The people who left should be able to find work elsewhere, and given the environment Weyco is promoting, they'll probably be happier overall working somewhere else than they would if Weyco were forced to find a sneakier way to promote their agenda.
On the other hand, your more extreme counter-example does require the force of law to correct, especially if the group of people so stigmatized cannot compete. (Eg, they are so disadvantaged they cannot set up their own business.)
At what point does the problem of Weyco become severe enough that it requires government intervention? I'm not sure. But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease. If the market's own immune system can shake off the virus of Weyco, that would be easier all around.
Re: Good point
Date: 2005-01-28 06:26 pm (UTC)But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease.
I will agree with that. And I also agree that Weyco will probably be a self-correcting problem.
Re: Good point
Date: 2005-01-28 06:47 pm (UTC)But it's rather more accurate to distinguish between the two. I'm pretty sure we're only clarifying points, here, and not really disagreeing about anything. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:43 pm (UTC)But rather than "traditional prejudice", there is a different issue underlying this. The company is saying: "Government, you are forcing us to undertake medical risks for our employees -- we want to select those employees in order to minimize those risks."
It seems to be a very bad idea to fire based on this -- prior employees should have been grandfathered in at minimum, and the whole concept is problematic.
In this case, it's a voluntary risk; smoking. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I am not in favor of the anti-smoking paranoia in the US today; much of it is based on utterly discredited second-hand smoke concerns, and my issues with it are Libertarian-inclined.
But here we have employment contingent on a medical risk. Already we have the ability to genetically screen for a number of risks; this number will continually increase.
We do not require insurance companies to insure people who smoke, or have medical conditions. Many do, and this is often automatic in group insurance because that's what the previous market required. This is changing, though, and the insurance companies (who are the world's experts on statistical probability) are now being given tools to improve the odds.
What can we do about that? And what should we do?
In Gattaca, a person's job prospects depended on their genetic heritage, which was manipulatable at the parents' discretion and with government involvement. Much of the movie was farcical, but that concept is close to reality.
A blood test will be able to, five years from now, make much better predictions about employee future health probabilities than we ever could before. It will be fast and painless. And it will completely change how we go about the social conventions of employment. And to an extent, it will be forced into being by the social welfare programs now under way.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 07:13 pm (UTC)In the case in question, I do think that firing employees for engaging in a legal activity on their own time is taking things rather too far. On the other hand, though, I do believe in making smoking in public as difficult, inconvenient, and uncomfortable as possible. If you insist on destroying your own body, I can't stop you...but you'd darned well better not insist on taking out mine in the process.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 08:25 pm (UTC)This also affected the dealership where I work. If you remember, when you stepped into the office area you were hit by "essence of cigar" (grin!); the owner lived in his office upstairs (near mine) and chain-smoked Cubans (hard to keep 'em lit, and they wiggle, scream and curse in Spanish a lot...). Nowadays, he smokes OUTSIDE, often sitting in his vehicle right near the patio ramp. Even though the smoke nearly killed me, I still think it's WRONG to ban the business owner from indulging in a LEGAL activity in his own business.
ALL the public bars, private clubs and organizations (with paid employees), even the hotels/motels were required to totally ban smoking inside the buildings. It hurt business at first, but the employees -- even the smokers -- mostly agree it's for the best. The bar patrons griped, but since there was nowhere they could go to smoke and drink -- other than their homes -- they've pretty much returned. The restaurant patrons LOVE it, since there's no longer an issue with "smoking or non-smoking" sections.
It's just sad that it had to come down to passing a law to see it happen...
As for insurance companies denying coverage to "risky" groups--- They already do this for people who engage in "risky" sports. I, too, see it expanding to ANY alcohol use, "lifestyle" choices, ALL active sports and activities; in effect, ANYTHING the insurance companies deem to be contrary to their maximum profits.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 10:08 am (UTC)This isn't entirely accurate. Smoking is permitted in bars that don't sell food (as a certain small percentage of their take). However, it is not permitted in restaurants with full bars.
In case you couldn't have guessed, I voted against the ban. Fat lot of good it did though.
Oops!
Date: 2005-01-29 04:15 pm (UTC)We simply set up a nice area outside our Lodge for the smokers, who, after grumbling for a while, decided the Lodge bar benefits outweighed the inconvenience of smoking outside. Nowadays, people (like me) who avoided the bar due to dislike/allergy to smoke can now enjoy an "adult beverage" with friends in comfort, especially when we have live musical entertainment.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:48 pm (UTC)I don't oppose making people who engage in high-risk behavior pay more for insurance against said risks. But this is a ridiculous way of addressing the subject. Phah.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:41 pm (UTC)I don't like the idea of companies or government dictating individual behavior, but the current system of group healthcare means that someone else's choices affect me financially.
Of course Howard and I solved this problem by becoming self-employed and disqualifying ourselves from group healthcare. Now we just pay lots of money whenever we get sick. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:45 pm (UTC)But on your last point, there are organizations -- NASE and NFIB come to mind -- that can arrange more affordable health coverage .. taylered to your corporation. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 07:15 pm (UTC)Keep on the lookout for other deals, though.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 06:09 pm (UTC)It's a slippery slope. It's no company's business what I do in my own home. If I break the law, that's one thing. But the last time I looked, smoking was still legal. When the Govt. outlaws smoking, then and only then can the business say No to it. Otherwise they can butt out of people's private lives, regardless of how it (and other _bad_ things) affect their insurance.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 06:59 pm (UTC)No, I don't want my employer telling me what I can and cannot do in my free time. But I also don't want the government telling me who I can and cannot fire.
As Prester Scott and I discussed above, at some point, employers may, as a group, make such egregious hiring/firing decisions that it is necessary for the government to step in and redress these. I don't think Weyco's policy has reached that point yet. I will hold out hope that their poor management is punished by the marketplace and fixes itself that way, rather than spreading like contagion and forcing the government to step in with a heavy-handed "solution". Because I can guarantee you that whatever fix the government makes, it will cause problems for honest employers. The spectre of lawsuits has already made it much harder to fire people for poor performance, especially anyone who falls into a "protected class". And that, in turn, means fewer rewards for good performance -- and fewer employers willing to take a chance on a newcomer, knowing that it'll be difficult to get rid of anyone who doesn't work out.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:39 pm (UTC)While firing their smokers is an extreme maneuver, I think Weyco does have a legitimate bone of contention. Perhaps a more equitable approach would have been to have smokers pay an increased contribution to their medical plans, or reduce the coverage they would be entitled to.
Just a thought...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 05:42 pm (UTC)Apropos of nothing
Date: 2005-01-28 06:49 pm (UTC)*checks*
Woo! You made one of them your default icon!
*does the happy appreciated-artwork dance*
:D
Re: Apropos of nothing
Date: 2005-01-28 07:10 pm (UTC)Yes
Date: 2005-01-28 05:51 pm (UTC)Weyco
Date: 2005-01-28 06:20 pm (UTC)Yes, but, unfortunately, Weyco is a "service company specializing in Employee Benefit Plans and Benefit Management". Which means that they make a living by recommending other companies play games like this. I'm sure they are happy with the news coverage, since it will drum up new business for them.
Re: Weyco
Date: 2005-01-29 12:25 am (UTC)Re: Weyco
Date: 2005-01-29 03:49 am (UTC)That said, I think the increased premiums would have been the way to go, but that also probably would have landed them in a lawsuit since I'm sure the charge of discrimination would have been screamed just as loud.