Employees found to have “moderate to high” health risks are assigned health coaches and given action plans

Setting—Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Marysville, Ohio. Dilemma—Corporate executives are concerned about rising health-care costs. CEO Jim Hagedorn backs an aggressive wellness program and anti-smoking campaign to improve health of employees and reduce healthcare costs for the firm. Scott employees are asked to take extensive health-risk assessments; failure to do so increases their health insurance premiums by $40 a month. Employees found to have “moderate to high” health risks are assigned health coaches and given action plans; failure to comply adds another $67 per month. In states where the practice is legal, the firm will not hire a smoker and tests new employees for nicotine use. In response to complaints that the policy is intrusive, Hagedorn says, “If people understand the facts and still choose to smoke, it’s suicidal. And we can’t encourage suicidal behavior.” Decision—Is Hagedorn doing the right thing by leading Scotts’s human resource policies in this direction? Considerations—Joe Pellegrini’s life was probably saved by his employer. After urging from one of Scotts’s health coaches, he saw his doctor about weight and cholesterol concerns. This led to a visit with a heart specialist who inserted two stents, correcting a 95 percent blockage. Scott Rodrigues’s life was changed by his employer; he is suing Scotts for wrongful dismissal. A smoker, he claims that he was fired after failing a drug test for nicotine even though he wasn’t informed about the test and had been told the company would help him stop smoking. CEO Hagedorn says, “This is an area where CEOs are afraid to go. A lot of people are watching to see how badly we get sued.” Critique the decisions being made in these situations. Identify how, where, and why different decisions might be made. What are the issues involved in these situations? How are they best addressed by the decision makers?