I was kind of shocked to read this a while ago, CVS (which for Canadians is the American version of Shopper's Drug Mart), has implemented a policy wherein employees must submit to the company their blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol and body mass and body weight readings. Employees who fail to comply will be charged $600 annually.
For smokers it's even tougher. By May 2014 smokers either must have already quit or join the company's cessation program.
From a PR perspective this is a bit mind boggling. It's one thing to implement employee wellness programs which are voluntary and which operate based on patient data which is shared voluntarily.
For the employer to force themselves into their employees medical lives is another thing all together. And to levy fines against employees who do not comply is even more absurd.
Now, I don't know why CVS decided to do this but I'd be willing to bet that it has nothing to do with their employees' health and everything to do with: 1) their insurance premiums (I bet they get some kind of discount by doing this) and 2) identifying 'less healthy' employees for potential dismissal should layoffs be required as the economy struggles.
This is a prime example of a 'to hell with PR' strategy, as brand equity is completely ignore in favour of profitability.
Now, some might say 'What's so wrong with forcing employees to live better / healthier lives?'
The answer is that there is no problem with wanting people to be healthier and helping them do so, provided it's voluntary. When an employer starts getting involved in your private life and dictating what you can or cannot do with your own body, or what is or is not acceptable with your own body, that's kind of scary.
Now, if an employee's health affects their ability to do the job, an employer has every right to let them go. An employer does not have to keep someone on staff who can't do the job. But if an employee is doing a good job, where does the employer attain the right to say 'It's great that you are doing a good job, and all your colleagues and workers love you, but I want to see your LDL and HDL cholesterol readings and if you don't give those to me I'm fining you 600 bucks."
What does this mean for older workers who obviously are going to have less healthy readings than younger workers?
Can CVS stop just at requesting those specific medical tests? Why stop at cholesterol and blood pressure. What about sexual history? Or past drug use? Or mental health issues?
The danger with such a mandatory policy is that it's not complicated to see the slippery slope. It becomes very easy for an employer to start hiring and firing candidates based not just on their job performance but rather on their physical health and/or medical history.
Why is this a bad PR move? On the surface the damage is negligible. The media hardly covered the story. The reason it was a bad PR move was that employees are your biggest brand advocates and/or critics. What your employees say about your company shapes how the external public views your brand.
By requesting medical information that should be private and by threatening fines for those who do not comply, CVS is creating a working culture of authoritarianism and fear. Employees now have to worry 'Am I going to lose my job if they see my cholesterol is sky high? Should I take the $600 hit instead of letting them see that? Will I lose my job even if I take the $600 hit simply because I'm not complying.'
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what these employees will be telling their neighbours and friends when they get home from work.
It's too bad that CVS is doing this. There's no reason they couldn't increase the health and wellness of their workforce through voluntary models. Heck, they could have gone the other way, instead of fining people for not participating, make bonuses tied to participation.
Here's the simple take away from a PR perspective:
When you use a carrot to get what you want... that's generally GOOD PR.
When you use a stick to get what you want... that's generally BAD PR.
For smokers it's even tougher. By May 2014 smokers either must have already quit or join the company's cessation program.
From a PR perspective this is a bit mind boggling. It's one thing to implement employee wellness programs which are voluntary and which operate based on patient data which is shared voluntarily.
For the employer to force themselves into their employees medical lives is another thing all together. And to levy fines against employees who do not comply is even more absurd.
Now, I don't know why CVS decided to do this but I'd be willing to bet that it has nothing to do with their employees' health and everything to do with: 1) their insurance premiums (I bet they get some kind of discount by doing this) and 2) identifying 'less healthy' employees for potential dismissal should layoffs be required as the economy struggles.
This is a prime example of a 'to hell with PR' strategy, as brand equity is completely ignore in favour of profitability.
Now, some might say 'What's so wrong with forcing employees to live better / healthier lives?'
The answer is that there is no problem with wanting people to be healthier and helping them do so, provided it's voluntary. When an employer starts getting involved in your private life and dictating what you can or cannot do with your own body, or what is or is not acceptable with your own body, that's kind of scary.
Now, if an employee's health affects their ability to do the job, an employer has every right to let them go. An employer does not have to keep someone on staff who can't do the job. But if an employee is doing a good job, where does the employer attain the right to say 'It's great that you are doing a good job, and all your colleagues and workers love you, but I want to see your LDL and HDL cholesterol readings and if you don't give those to me I'm fining you 600 bucks."
What does this mean for older workers who obviously are going to have less healthy readings than younger workers?
Can CVS stop just at requesting those specific medical tests? Why stop at cholesterol and blood pressure. What about sexual history? Or past drug use? Or mental health issues?
The danger with such a mandatory policy is that it's not complicated to see the slippery slope. It becomes very easy for an employer to start hiring and firing candidates based not just on their job performance but rather on their physical health and/or medical history.
Why is this a bad PR move? On the surface the damage is negligible. The media hardly covered the story. The reason it was a bad PR move was that employees are your biggest brand advocates and/or critics. What your employees say about your company shapes how the external public views your brand.
By requesting medical information that should be private and by threatening fines for those who do not comply, CVS is creating a working culture of authoritarianism and fear. Employees now have to worry 'Am I going to lose my job if they see my cholesterol is sky high? Should I take the $600 hit instead of letting them see that? Will I lose my job even if I take the $600 hit simply because I'm not complying.'
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what these employees will be telling their neighbours and friends when they get home from work.
It's too bad that CVS is doing this. There's no reason they couldn't increase the health and wellness of their workforce through voluntary models. Heck, they could have gone the other way, instead of fining people for not participating, make bonuses tied to participation.
Here's the simple take away from a PR perspective:
When you use a carrot to get what you want... that's generally GOOD PR.
When you use a stick to get what you want... that's generally BAD PR.
Comments
Post a Comment