First a link to the source article. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
I worked in an "office" or "downtown" enviorment in MN local government before retiring last year. If you consider that more than 6,000 people work in the Hennepin County Government Center you see very few going outside for a smoke. I'd guess that well under 10% of the downtown office" workforce there smokes, but there were always people coming down with major medical problems that didn't smoke. A key factor seemed to be the sedentary nature of the office-desk work. Also, for decades, the "family" or dependent medical coverage costs have increased at double the annual rate of the "individual" coverage. These rates are basically based on past useage. Hennepin County (or for that matter any Minnesota government entity does not offer "gay" domestic partner" benefits so these are in the "individual" coverage group which I noted has half the cost increase of family/dependent coverage.) Hennepin County has a lot of gay and lesbian employees. Beside the HIV related costs this the GLIB group has a disproportionately high number of smokers as does the "individual" coverage people in general. As I said, the cost of individual coverage increased at only half the rate the family/dependent coverage did.
Most county employees who smoke tend to be in the work that involves more physical activity. "Exercise" is not just the gym! Also, those involved in work that is "less sedentary" tend to have workplace injuries other than carpal tunnel syndrome.
The "lost productivity" claims are suspect. Just as the way someone can claim the lost productivity when Brittany Spears gets in the news the lost productivity per cigarette smoked can be theoretically calculated. The so-called "water cooler chatter" in an office is much harder to calculate. I don't want to indict my former employer here they seemed very typical of "downtown office" but working nights most people "burning the midnight oil" that I dealt with said they could get a lot more accomplished because they weren't being distracted.
The article itself had several contradictory claims. "The city argued that each smoker cost taxpayers $4,611 (in 1981 dollars) annually because of medical bill". Say what? 1981 dollars?
I googled a CPI inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
"What cost $4611 in 1981 would cost $11462.19 in 2007. " In a real world that would require almost all medical cost be attributed to smokers. The premiums portion that employees pay don't cost the local taxpayers.
Also, the article states "The county currently pays about $31 million annually in health benefits for 3,600 employees, or $8,600 per worker." Hmm! We can only infer that employee smoking, presumably away from the work place in offices at least, reults in some yet undescribed contagious disease that "infects" all others in the office since the current dollar $11462.19 cited above is almost $3000 more than the total per employee cost. The cited insurance costs are likely 2007. Hmm!
The article also states: "County officials based their decision not to hire smokers in part on a Centers for Disease Control study that said employees who smoke cost their employer about $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses."
Since the study is undated we can assume that it is recent. Note "lost productivity". With the CDC we can assume that it includes the pay and benefits time smoking a cigarette. That said, even with so-called "lost productivity" included it is only one fourth to one third the claimed "medical expense only" cost cited above.
"Some companies even extend the smoking prohibition to spouses of prospective employees."
Behold the future! Greg Lang
Here is the article link again. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
No comments:
Post a Comment