The Ethics of Fitness Programs

Let’s imagine that you work for a company that offers an employee discount on everything they sell in their retail stores; say, 20%. Let us further imagine that the company makes a whole range of fitness and wellness programs available to its employees, either at no charge or at cost. Assuming that there are no other barriers that would prevent any employee from using any or all of these programs, the question is should the company offer incentives to people for using the fitness and wellness programs, losing weight, and bringing their body-mass index (BMI) into standard acceptable ranges? Incentives beyond the obvious benefits of better health, lower medical bills, a longer life, and so on? And, if they do, does this constitute discrimination against people who can’t or don’t want to use such programs or can’t/don’t want to conform to the BMI standard for correct weight?

Before you answer, consider that (as reported by the “Consumerist” website), Whole Foods is doing exactly that; offering a larger employee discount to people with lower BMI ratings – which the company provides, free of charge. The original employee discount was 20%, and the company has presented the program as an extra 10% off for anybody who can achieve their “healthy” BMI rating, but this still raises a number of ethic questions…

On the one hand, there’s no doubt that some people are naturally more able to comply with this body mass standard than others – be it because of an active metabolism, a relatively low natural fat content, a love of sports or exercise, or many other reasons. This policy is therefore offering a greater benefit or perk to those people, while requiring much greater effort from other people to receive the same benefit, and withholding it altogether from still others. This is especially problematic in the case of individuals who do not conform to the mainstream BMI rankings. In my case, for example, the “healthy” BMI number for a man my height would require a weight I have not seen since high school (and could not safely reach under my circumstances), yet I would still be denied the higher discount rate if I fail to reach it. The same problem would occur in the case of someone of high BMI rating who can’t exercise or lose weight because of a disability, but would still like to receive the discount and eat healthier food…

On the other hand, there’s really no arguing with the fact that people who are fit will, in general, work more productively for more years while costing the company less in both health benefits and working days lost to fitness-related illness. Therefore it is definitely within the company’s interests to pay their employees to achieve and maintain better health. Certainly, there would be no controversy over the company paying employees a bonus for better or harder work, which means that paying them extra to maintain their physical condition so that they COULD do better or harder work isn’t exactly outrageous. Which leads me to pose the following questions: Does the company have the right to reward its employees for maintaining a more utilitarian physical condition? Can they incentivize people to achieve a lifestyle that benefits the employees as well as the company? Or are they required to provide all of the same compensation, including perks, to all personnel, regardless of physical condition or the consequences thereof?

It’s worth thinking about…