Sometimes, it’s not a question of what a company can do, but what it should do.
Last week, U-Haul International Inc. announced that, effective in February, in 20 American states, it will no longer hire employees who use nicotine in any way. (People who are already employed and use nicotine will be allowed to continue until death, retirement or accidental combustion.)
This is not just employees who might vape or smoke or chew tobacco on their breaks, but those who might only do so at home. Why? Well, because, legally, the company can do exactly that in those American states, and because U-Haul says it wants a healthy corporate culture and decreased health-care costs. (The company doesn’t charge a health-care insurance premium to its employees.)
Now, if the company was simply saying it would charge more to smokers for health coverage, that would be one thing. If it wanted to help people choose to stop smoking, that would be another.
But maybe, when someone’s behaviour is not demonstrably affecting their work day, you could treat them like grownups and let them make their own decisions, even if those decisions are unhealthy ones. (I’m not a smoker, by the way.)
Here’s a wacky idea.
You know what else takes away from corporate culture?
Children.
Well, not directly — but parents are often torn between family responsibilities and their work lives. Sometimes, parents have to leave work suddenly to pick up and care for sick children. Some time, they have to schedule inopportune time off for appointments for their kids. And sometimes, those little germ-ridden varmints infect their parents, and then the germs ride roughshod around the whole office before whatever flu it is burns itself out.
And insuring those kids for health-care issues? Heck, sometimes that costs a heck of a lot, and they don’t even contribute to work flow!
Employers are not parents, dictating to their underage children. They’re not setting the house rules you have to abide by every day.
The office would a whole lot healthier if you simply said you wouldn’t hire anyone who is pregnant, or who is in a relationship where offspring might occur. Maybe you would require contraceptives for all.
Or flip that on its head: maybe, as a corporate leader, you think your workforce is a more stable, cohesive unit if everyone has children.
Maybe you believe that people who are depending on a paycheque to support a family are less likely to take unhealthy risks, and not only would live a healthier lifestyle, but would be less likely to spontaneously leave the company.
So, ban contraceptives entirely, or at least make new hires sign an affidavit that neither they nor their partners use them.
What about older workers? If health insurance costs are driving you to fits as an employer, why not shed all those old-os with their pesky aging ailments, and bring in company policies that require no hirings of anyone over 45?
What about drinking — and I’m not just talking about alcohol and those couple of weekend beers. What about that known artificial stimulant, coffee? What about high-sugar soda and its connection to diabetes? What about those who like red meat on their barbecue? What about those who don’t get the required amount of exercise every week?
Of course, I recognize that those examples are far-fetched — and I also recognize that there are situations where employers make specific health demands of their employees, because they need those employees to be able to perform certain functions in their jobs.
But employers are not parents, dictating to their underage children. They’re not setting the house rules you have to abide by every day.
When they think that, in all things, employer knows best, they’ve smoked too much of something else. And maybe we should test their urine.
Russell Wangersky’s column appears in SaltWire publications across Atlantic Canada. He can be reached at [email protected] — Twitter: @wangersky
MORE FROM RUSSELL WANGERSKY
