
Why Pay Employees to Exercise When You Can Threaten Them? - petethomas
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-15/why-pay-employees-to-exercise-when-you-can-threaten-them
======
orangecat
Exhibit #637 for why your employer should have nothing to do with your health
care or insurance.

~~~
SixSigma
I agree, it should be the government imposing lifestyle taxes.

------
jonesb6
They gave a few hundred people $42 a month, and deducted $1.40 for every day
they didn't reach 7,000 steps. That's hardly threatening.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Sure, if you can afford the $42 per month. If you aren't making much, $9-11
per hour, that's a sizable chunk of money. More so if you have children.

The company I worked for that did this "helped" us meet goals by offering
discounts at a gym that not only wasn't available in the area, but still cost
too much after discount for the low-level employees. This was the norm for
most of such benefits. They first raised the standard price of insurance, then
offered the "bonus" if we did the bloodwork and met the goals.

Since people were used to getting such "benefits" from the company (It was
obvious people were out of touch with the lives of their employees), the
benefit didn't upset people as much as being fined for not going along with
the company plans. Their "escape plan" for disabilities was that you'd not get
charged if you had a form from your doctor saying the measurements were
impossible for you to meet. Most people were very bitter at the fine and many
did it simply because they couldn't afford the increase.

~~~
jonesb6
"281 employees at the University of Pennsylvania". If anything its a signal
that the study itself is useless as it has an extremely small sample size with
obvious biases.

