Poor Health Is a Stark Byproduct of Income Inequality—and We’re Striking Back
Health is a class issue. As the rich have become even richer, they’ve enjoyed better health and longer lives. In 1980–1982, the most affluent Americans could expect to live 2.8 years longer than those in the poorest group; by 1998–2000, the gap had increased to 4.5 years . Just imagine how much the chasm has widened since 2000.
It’s hard to imagine a more stark class dividing line or a more poignant reminder of the heartbreaking consequences of income inequality.
The deteriorating health of America's working families, as reflected most notably in obesity rates, has led directly to enormous treatment costs. The rise in chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes has become an epidemic.
Worse, many employers are reacting to rising costs by imposing invasive tests and financial penalties on workers who don’t meet certain health criteria—only adding to the financial burden and stress, for people who can least afford it. This is the wrong way to solve a real problem.
Should unions take a stand for longer, healthier lives for our members? Shame on us if we can act, and choose not to.
We have two choices. We can oppose invasive, unfair wellness programs after employers implement them. Or, we can propose fair, voluntary programs that help our members live longer and healthier lives. This is the right way to solve a real problem.
Our Union Coalition took the second road. In 2012's,national bargaining, our employer wanted to cut back on our fully paid family health care, the cost of which is skyrocketing for nearly everyone in this country. We proposed an alternative: an incentive for our members to achieve modest, realistic improvements in health as a group . An incentive for making modest improvements in key health indicators—blood pressure, cholesterol levels, smoking and body mass index— would improve health while lowering costs, allowing us to protect our health care benefits in the long run.
No one is singled out. There are no penalties. Workers are not required to participate if they don’t wish to. Data is measured in the aggregate—information on individual health status is not even available to the employer.
The financial incentive is just one piece of a comprehensive labor-management effort to create a healthier workplace. We’re also providing better food choices at the worksite, opportunities to stretch and exercise at work, “walking meetings,” and a host of free online and in-person resources to help those who want to improve their health.
Better health, longer lives, a collective approach to a healthier workplace, protecting our benefits, no penalties for anyone and an opportunity to earn some extra cash. The program is a great idea with no downside.
Creating better lives for working people. Isn’t that what the labor movement is all about?
