Big Brother of the private sector
Are we beginning a new age where economics force healthy living? Some employers are considering banning smokers from their payroll because they cost so much more in insurance.
But it raises significant questions about how much an employer can dictate your personal life if you want to keep your job. How far will companies go? Sex life, reading habits, political views. What should be on the honor system, what should be investigated and monitored? Insurance companies use complicated mathematical formulas to calculate various costs. How long until an employer uses economic statistical data to justify not hiring someone because, statistically, his time per week playing video games indicates a tendency towards anger in the workplace? What if a statistical link is established between drinking 3-6 cans of Pepsi a week to poor productivity and low work ethic?
A danger of a capitalistic mindset is that productivity trumps all. Efficiency is important, but so are people, and as technology and science advance, we will be confronted with new and ethically complex questions about employment, childbirth, eating and drinking, and other issues yet unforseen.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said smokers ring up $1,600 more per year in medical bills than nonsmokers and they miss more days of work.Why not? It might motivate folks to end that disgusting habit. A similar issue looming on the horizon is employment and obesity. I may be perfectly qualified for a job, but the employer may hire the guy next to me, who weighs 150 lbs, instead of 240-lb me (theoretically). From a purely economic standpoint, this makes perfect sense.
But it raises significant questions about how much an employer can dictate your personal life if you want to keep your job. How far will companies go? Sex life, reading habits, political views. What should be on the honor system, what should be investigated and monitored? Insurance companies use complicated mathematical formulas to calculate various costs. How long until an employer uses economic statistical data to justify not hiring someone because, statistically, his time per week playing video games indicates a tendency towards anger in the workplace? What if a statistical link is established between drinking 3-6 cans of Pepsi a week to poor productivity and low work ethic?
A danger of a capitalistic mindset is that productivity trumps all. Efficiency is important, but so are people, and as technology and science advance, we will be confronted with new and ethically complex questions about employment, childbirth, eating and drinking, and other issues yet unforseen.
posted by Seth at 3:15 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Seth-
Thanks for dropping by the blog. I appreciate your comments. I'll be sure to stop in often.
MA is a tough state in which to be a conservative but someone's gotta be in the trenches. Hope all is well.
A private organization should be allowed to hire whomever they wish, for almost any reason. Civil rights activists may complain that things like obesity are things that cannot be helped. Besides being false--in the case of obesity--that is beside the point. After all, an engineering firm does not have to hire accountants to design, say, micro-processors. It does not seem unreasonable to me to exclude smokers and fat folks from certain jobs.
The only time this becomes problematic is when the particular facet cannot be changed--as with race. When the discrimination is pervasive, the government may need to step in at least for a time. But in a truly free market, profits are king, and people will be hired based on whether or not they can do the job at hand. While cruel, it seems to serve as a basis for hiring practices. I don't think many reasonable people will claim that affirmative action is really helping our nation, and a similar plan for fat people or smokers would be equally as foolish.
Post a Comment
<< Home