With Obama’s recent visit to the Cleveland clinic, who will cease hiring smokers as of September 1, the Today Show is speculating that this may become a corporate health care trend.

Here’s the message from Dr Delos Cosgrove, CEO and President at the Cleveland Clinic:

While we are on the topic of smoking, I understand that there are differences of opinion about our recently announced policy to stop hiring smokers as of September 1st. Many people have told me that they totally agree with the idea. I have also seen and heard comments that what we are doing is discriminatory….Some have questioned the wisdom of our new hiring policy….

But we are not the first organization to implement such a policy.The World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and more than 6,000 companies across the country have adopted similar policies in an effort to promote a healthy workplace. It’s a growing trend; one that will likely keep gaining momentum. … Some also have claimed that our new policy is not really about health, but about saving money….

First, with our new policy, any applicant who fails the nicotine screening will be referred to a free tobacco cessation program that we pay for. Those who are successful in quitting will be encouraged to reapply after 90 days.…We also are committed to taking a lead role in shifting the national focus from “sick” care to “health” care. As a true “health care” provider, we must create a culture of wellness that permeates the entire institution, from the care we provide, to our physical environment, to the food we offer, and yes, even to our employees…..Secondly, no one can deny the staggering cost smoking places on society.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that smoking costs more than $75 billion annually in direct and indirect medical costs, and that businesses lose approximately $3,400 each year for every employee who uses tobacco because of increases in health costs and decreases in productivity related to smoking breaks….

While current employees will not be tested, I encourage any employee who smokes to please consider enrolling in a tobacco-cessation class.

I think it is fair to also note that obesity and smoking do drive up healthcare costs, thereby burdening the employer who usually subsidizes the group health insurance at yourplace of employment.

From CNN:

A government-sponsored study recently estimated that medical spending for obesity reached $147 billion in 2008, almost doubling in the past decade. It’s not surprising. About 32 percent of American adults are obese, a condition linked to diabetes, heart disease, even cancer. As the story above illustrates, obesity can also do a number on your bones and joints.

If you want an idea of how big $147 billion is, it’s roughly 6 percent of all health care spending in the United States.

How about smoking? Almost 21 percent of American adults are addicted to cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s more than 45 million people. The estimated health care costs pegged to smoking: $96 billion.

It’s virtually impossible to live in the United States and not be aware of the health risks associated with smoking, yet the addictive habit continues – with tragic consequences for smokers and an immense burden on the health care system.

If this trend continues, then the conversation between employer and employee could look like this:

Employer to potential employee: “If you smoke or are overweight, then you cost me money and I cannot hire you.   If I hire you then you will go into a smoking cessation program (or weight loss program) I invest in your health-you invest in my bottom line.”

Do you think this is fair?  Why or Why not?

My position?  I think it can easily become discriminatory without certain laws in place as this could become a slippery slope to discriminate against every condition under the sun that costs the employer more money.  And, according to the Kaiser family Foundation:

Women… have more complex health needs than men. In addition to pregnancy and related reproductive health needs, women also have a higher incidence of chronic illness for which they need ongoing medical treatment (38 percent of women versus 30 percent of men). Women are also at a much greater risk for maladies such as osteoporosis and autoimmune diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis—all of which require ongoing treatment.

In addition, women tend to live longer and therefore use more health care services throughout their lives. Women have also been shown to be the major decision-makers on health issues for their family, thus making their access to all facets of the health care system essential.

Tell me what you think in the comments area.

Resources:

• Women and Health Insurance:  Falling Through The Cracks?
• Obesity, smoking add immense burdens to health care costs
• Kaiser Family Foundation:  Women And Health Insurance Survey

Sojourner Truth~Ain’t I a Woman? ~Women’s Convention~ Akron, Ohio ~1851

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the Feminism 2.0 conference here in DC with a host of other like minded women bloggers with a sprinkling of a few men here and there.  To say the energy there was exciting is an understatement, the momentum began with the plenary and took off from there.  We are all deeply committed to the advancement of women’s rights in all areas.  The momentum and passion in the Betts Theatre was palpable.

Specific to my interests are the issues of equal pay, work life balance and career advancement for women.  With the passing of the Lilly ledbetter Fair Pay Act this week, enter the Paycheck Fairness Act which provides tools to find out whether or not you are being discriminated against at your place of employment.  This has to do with wage secrecy and how it contributes to the status quo.

Here are facts:

Improving Equal Pay Act Remedies
The Act toughens the remedy provisions of the EPA by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to
recover compensatory and punitive damages. The EPA currently provides only for liquidated
(fixed and limited) damages and back pay awards, which tend to be insubstantial. The change
will put gender-based wage discrimination on an equal footing with wage discrimination
based on race or ethnicity, for which full compensatory and punitive damages are already
available.

Facilitating Class Action Equal Pay Act Claims
The Act allows an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action in conformity with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Class actions are important because they ensure that relief
will be provided to all those who are injured by the unlawful practice. Currently, it is very
difficult to bring EPA suits as class actions because the EPA, adopted prior to the current
federal class action rule (FRCP Rule 23), requires plaintiffs to opt in to a suit. Under the
federal rule, class members are automatically considered part of the class until they choose to
opt out of the class.

Improving Collection of Pay Information by the EEOC
The Act requires the EEOC to survey pay data already available and issue regulations
within 18 months that require employers to submit any needed pay data identified by the race,
sex, and national origin of employees. These data will enhance the EEOC’s ability to detect
violations of law and improve its enforcement of the laws against pay discrimination.

Prohibiting Employer Retaliation
The Act prohibits employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with their
coworkers. This change will greatly enhance employees’ ability to learn about wage
disparities and to evaluate whether they are experiencing wage discrimination.
Closing a Loophole in the Employer Defense
Under the EPA, when an employer is found to be paying female employees less than male
employees for equal work, the employer may assert an “affirmative defense” that the pay
differential is based on a “factor other than sex.”

Some employers have argued for interpretations of this affirmative defense that are so broad
(e.g., to include factors such as a male worker’s stronger salary negotiation skills or higher previous salary)
that they may themselves be “based on sex” and would seriously undermine the EPA.

The Act tightens this affirmative defense so that it can excuse a pay differential for men and women only where the
employer can show that the differential is truly caused by something other than sex and is
related to job performance.

Eliminating the “Establishment” Requirement
Under the EPA, in order to determine that there is wage discrimination, the wage comparison
must be made between employees working at the same “establishment.”

Some courts have interpreted this to mean that wages paid in different facilities or offices of the same employer
cannot be compared even if the employer is paying workers different salaries for the same
work.

The Act clarifies that a comparison need not be between employees in the same
physical place of business.

Developing Voluntary Guidelines for and Recognizing Model Employers
The Act directs the Department of Labor to develop guidelines to enable employers voluntarily
to compare wages paid for different jobs to determine whether their pay scales accurately reflect
the requirements of the jobs. This will help employers to eliminate unfair disparities between
occupations traditionally dominated by men and by women. The Act also establishes an award,
to be administered by the Labor Department, to recognize and promote the achievements of
employers who have made strides to eliminate pay disparities.

Increasing Training, Research, and Education
The Act provides for increased training for EEOC employees to help them identify and
respond to wage discrimination claims. It also calls for enhancing various research and
education programs at the Department of Labor, including programs to research ways to eliminate gender-based pay
disparities and provide information to employers to assist them in eradicating such
disparities.

Reinstating Pay Equity Programs and Enforcement at the Department of Labor
The Act reinstates the collection of gender-based data in the Current Employment
Statistics survey. It sets standards for conducting systematic wage discrimination analyses by the
agency that oversees the nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations of federal
contractors.

The Act also directs means to implement of the Equal Opportunity Survey, a
vital tool for detecting wage and other types of discrimination.

Sparking the Development of Salary Negotiation Skills Training
The Act establishes a competitive grant program to develop training programs for women and
girls on how to negotiate better compensation packages, and directs the Secretaries of Labor
and Education to integrate the programs developed into education and job training programs
under their respective jurisdictions.

Furthermore, some of the statistics given at the plenary shows that we clearly have more work to do in this area as this affects our families over the long term. Here are some of the tweets sharing the disparities in equal pay for women amongst other issues:

Single moms make about $.60 to a man’s dollar, vs. $.73 for married moms, vs $.90 for women without children. #fem2 (via @QuickBrownFoxNC)

@Gingerlatte I’m w/ U on pverty & babies. We lack proper support system in America 4 families. And education. (via @tjonsek) #fem2

Mother are offered $6K LESS and fathers get 11K MORE on job offers @rowefinkbeiner #fem2 (via @nerdette)

NARAL: RT @loryn24: Human infrastructure=power. Opportunities for collaboration, grassroots organizing on and offline #fem2

We need to train women to negotiate for more $$ from the beginning (as well as change the system of pay discrimination) #fem2 (via @shespot)

For more information on this issue please check out Behind The Pay Gap, laying out the blatant disparities in pay between men and women.

I implore each of you reading to participate in women’s rights activism.  You don’t have to be a part of the liberal/progressive movement or even be a woman, as long as you believe that we should have the same rights as men do in all arenas, you are welcome to participate.

Dads, continue cheering on your daughters on the soccer fields and make sure they get an education and advance in their careers.  Emphasize the fact that they now have a choice in the matter.

Moms, instill in your daughters the importance of advancing themselves in education, career and citizenship so that the next generation may look back and be able to say “my mom did it and so can I!”

Bloggers, readers and the like, get involved and push towards the end goal of equality for women in every area of life.  Together we can ignite change and inspire each other towards a common goal.

photo credit: Thomas Rockstar

Would you work outside of your home if your childcare costs you $3000 a month?

Tawnya, a reader, just submitted the following comment about Stay At Home Wives Being The New Status Symbol:

Women are generally super-critical of our own sex. I think this is based in widespread insecurity and confidence in decisions and the desire to be seen as ‘right’.

I’ve done/been it all, SAHM, WAHM, WOHM – and I can say they are all hard and each presents its own unique challenges. I’m a SAHM now and I can honestly say it’s purely economics, although I am getting used to it. It used to drive me nuts. Where I live, it would cost me nearly 3K a month to have someone watch my children. Maybe I could get a job that would cover those expenses, but I would be keeping much less than I would be spending on child care. Just can’t do it. For me, working is a luxury. When I was working? Staying home was.
What say you?  In this situation, do you think working is a luxury?  How much does childcare cost where you live?