Pepsi Is Right to 'Punish' Employees for Smoking

on December 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Pepsi Co. may not make a product that's part of a healthy lifestyle, but that doesn't mean they're okay with the people who work for them being unhealthy. Since February, the company has been charging workers in its bottling division who are smokers a $50 monthly fee on top of what they already pay for their company health insurance. The company began enforcing the penalty without really giving workers much warning, never telling the Teamsters union that covers many employees that they were "going to a different plan for employees."

While the way they went about putting the levy on their workers is certainly shady, I'm all for "sin fees" on smokers like this one. It's a smoker's decision to keep on smoking -- to not even try to quit. And hey, if they'd even make an attempt to quit, they wouldn't have to pay the penalty!

That's right -- the company will waive the fee if workers participate in a four- to six-week anti-smoking program -- whether they quit or not. So instead of griping about the fee, why not just sign up for the program? After all, if workers could successfully quit, they wouldn't only be saving themselves the $600 a year in penalties. They'd save the cost of the cigarettes themselves and tons of money in health care costs they'd be bound to incur if they kept up their nasty habit. (Clearly, I don't have much sympathy for people who smoke. My parents are both middle-aged smokers, and I talk to them about this kind of thing all the time.)

See, that's the thing. Smokers, by the nature of their habit, end up having higher health care costs linked to something they can absolutely control. (It's definitely not easy, but anyone who sets their mind to it can quit.) So it makes perfect sense to me why they should have to pay more on a group insurance plan. It stinks that the penalty just crept up on these Pepsi Co. workers, but maybe they should see it as a blessing in disguise. $600 is a nice chunk of change -- certainly enough to motivate them to clean up their dirty act.

Do you agree with smokers being charged a "sin penalty"?

Image via Fried Dough/Flickr

About the author Maressa Brown

has enjoyed reporting and writing for a variety of entertainment and women's magazines and websites. More often than not, you'll find her blogging, reading, researching something on her iPhone, laughing, chatting at an above-"normal" volume, or getting her caffeine fix.

Filed Under: smoking, health insurance, general health

Comments (37)

Kritika

on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Yes.

Report this comment

Mama2MonkeyBoys

on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Yes, I do. Because they drive up healthcare costs for the rest of us. Now, the way our insurance works is that you get a DISCOUNT ($40 per paycheck) for not smoking or taking the smoking cessation course. Of course, there are people who abuse that. So, it's essentially the same thing, but it's better marketing to say you get a discount for quitting than if you have to pay a penalty for smoking.
I think you should also get discounts for other healthy choices you make - like if your BMI is in the "healthy" range, or you don't drink alcohol. I wouldn't get either of those discounts (come on, weight loss!), but I think people who make good choices about their health should definitely be rewarded with lower premiums.

chigirl1228

on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM

First of all its probably not pepsi that is giving the sin penalty, its the different insurance company that probably has higher rates for smokers and pepsi doesn't want to shell out the money. Which is fine their company their choice. BUT it is also a smoker's choice to smoke therefore your providing a slippery slope. When does it stop? You can no longer drink because alcohol is bad for your health and if you take part in casual drinks then you have to attend AA for fear of a sin penalty? Doesn't sound fair.

fave82

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM

NOPE.

Nonmember comment from CB

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM

I don't agree at all! And I bet many more people wouldn't agree either if they started getting "sin fees" on their unhealthy choices. McDonald's, the tub of ice cream, fried anything...but I bet you want to be able to eat what you want without being penalized for it.

angevil53

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

how about a cleaning penalty? bc i'm sick of walking through the butts to go to the grocery store.

AyaTachihara

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I think it makes perfect sense. If people want to pollute their bodies (and in the case of some horrible people, pollute their children's bodies with the crap in cigarettes) then they should pay a higher health care cost. If nothing else, maybe it will make at least one person get a clue and stop smoking. Exactly what does one get out of smoking anyway? What I always hear is "it helps my stress". Well, take a freaking prozac, don't kill your lungs. I think it's perfectly fair. And I agree with angevil....dude, seriously? Where are the litter police when you need them? They will give you a ticket for dropping a wrapper on the ground if they see you, but walk right past someone just tossing cigarette butts on the ground in where my children walk and play? There's something very wrong with that.

Facebook comment from Sharon Barker

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Whine, whine, whine. Get a life and let grown adults make their own decisions regarding LEGAL substances.

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:32 PM

^^ They can make their own decisions. And they can face the consequences for those decisions. Like adults.

Facebook comment from Amy Harrison Dutcher

on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM

No. What if they did the same for every employee that uses tanning beds? I consider that to be a dangerous thing that otherwise sane people expose themselves to. Did you know you need a dangerous chemicals license just to transport something like Pepsi? How is that for healthy? Everyone puts toxins in thier body on some level and they do it knowingly. So why single out smokers? People may not like it, but it is a legal substance and grown ass people who can take care of themselves shouldn't have their personal life choices under everyone's microscope.