Modern Day Discrimination
Employers nationwide are asking illegal questions on employment forms. I consider employment forms that ask questions regarding personal habits, specifically- tobacco use, to be illegal. The answers provided to these illegal questions allow for bias, prejudice and discrimination. Employers state they are not being discriminatory, they are asking these questions as a response to the rising costs of health care premiums. In this article I will explain why people would answer these illegal questions, why employers would answer them. I will give evidence that the finical reasons given are not sound and I will prove that the higher cost health care premium for smokers is a fallacy.
Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton states that “Annual health care premiums are rising more than 10 percent a year, and many companies are fighting this by trying to encourage healthy living” According to the human resources consulting firm, Mercer a 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers - those with 20,000 or more employees - adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status,” A question regarding smoking, a personal habit, is at the bottom of at least 39 employees of Whirlpool Corp. being laid off. The question happened to be about smoking, but what if it had been about eating or driving habits?
Some employers are offering incentives to employees who sign a non-smoker clause in their employment packages. These employers are charging as much as $500 more to employees that honestly answer yes to the tobacco related questions. These employers are stating that they are just passing on the cost that insurance companies are charging them. This practice is in violation of, at a minimum, the EEOC guidelines and therefore illegal.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulates violations of prejudice, discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Discrimination is defined as “treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential.” Does smoking hinder one’s ability or potential, does not smoking give another a “potential” advantage? This is a clear example of Price Discrimination – defined: 1.Price discrimination exists when sales of identical goods or services are transacted at different prices from the same provider.2. The practice of charging different prices for the same product in different markets.” The different markets being smokers vs. non-smokers and the goods and services being healthcare. 2. Price Discrimination is reminiscent of the Jim Crow era; “sure we will serve black’s –coffee $5.00.” Based solely on these definitions you must agree a type of discrimination is being practiced and, at a minimum, EEOC laws are being broken.
Being that these questions reek of discrimination, what could possibly prompt an employer to ask the? The reason employer state that these smokers are being charged a premium is due to the health risks involved, and the additional cost insurance providers charge on their policies. But can’t we argue that there are many other things that employees do or could do that could create health risks? Can you imagine an employer asking you how much you weigh, and then allowing you to only eat healthful foods while on company property, i.e.no coffee,no packaged snacks, sugar, fats, etc.? Absolutely not! However my Human Relations Strategies for Success text book states that “it is a fairly common belief that overweight people are to blame for most high health care costs” I agree that smoking is an unhealthy habit, but that is not the question I am addressing, I am asking if personal habits are any business of employers. What habits do you have that could be pertinent to a potential employer?
Many corporations that practice this type of discrimination explain it away by stating they are just passing along the increased cost of unhealthy habits to the employee. However, employers do not ask questions regarding the smoking of marijuana, which can in fact hinder a person’s ability to perform and like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens . Furthermore, being overweight puts you at greater risk of weight-related health risks, such as coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke, respiratory problems, and type II diabetes just to name a few . Employment papers do not ask questions regarding alcohol abuse, illegal narcotic use or even the proper use of legal prescriptions? Dr. Peter Singleton, Chronic Pain Specialist, Stanford University states that 1 in 4 California’s have legal, valid Vicodin prescriptions, think about that when you’re driving to work – not smoking.
The cost savings approach, these employers state they are just trying to keep the cost of doing business down in order to save the American consumer money. The Associated Press has reported that Whirlpool Corp. suspended 39 employees caught smoking in the employer provided smoking area. These employees signed the non-smoking clause to avoid the $500 additional dollars they would have been charged if they truthfully stated they were smokers. These smokers are on unpaid suspended leave while their employer decides if they will be fired for lying on employment papers.
Termination does not guarantee smokers will quit smoking and creates an added burden to an already stretched budget from locally to nationally. The two main costs associated with the terminating of employees is unemployment benefits and the cost of healthcare. It is reasonable to assume that unemployed workers will become clients of Medical, Medicare or CMSP all government funded programs therefore burdening the national budget funded by the American consumer.
To summarize I have identified illegal questions on employment applications, and why people would answer them. I explained the financial reasons employers ask the questions, and I have thoroughly blown a whole in the Insurance Companies representation that only employed smokers are an added health risk and I have provided a sound argument that unemployment costs to the American public far outweigh the $500 surcharge for smoking.
So, in conclusion, I do not advocate smoking or lying. I chose this argument to illustrate illegal questions on employment packages. I agree with Whirlpool for suspending these workers for lying. Lying is appropriately responded to with termination or some other serious reprimand. Americans agree that smoking is an unhealthy habit therefore it was logical for the Insurance companies to assume that a small clause about smoking would mostly go unnoticed. It did, until now. My objective has been to bring to light these illegal questions in an attempt to blot out bias, prejudice and discrimination.

tiffanymarin@aol.com