Buh.

[rowyn]

There 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.

Comments

[sandratayler.livejournal.com]

Yes, but what if your co-worker who smokes gets lung cancer and causes healthcare premiums to skyrocket for everyone at your company. Suddenly your co-worker's cigarette habit is costing you an extra $2000 per year.

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. ;)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I tried to explore this a bit above.

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

[sandratayler.livejournal.com]

We've actually been accepted by the NASE program. We are still paying lots more out of pocket than we did at Novell, but we're covered in the case of catastrophic illness or injury.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

That's better -- I was concerned that you were winging it.

Keep on the lookout for other deals, though.

===|==============/ Level Head

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

And when the company decides that drinking is bad? Single and engaging in unwed sex? Hot rodding cars or other "dangerous" hobbies? And who decides what activities are hazardous and what aren't?

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.

[rowyn]

I won't defend Weyco's decision, which I think was abysmal. But I am willing to defend their right to make that decision, at least up to a point.

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.