Workplace Wellness: De-Stressing the StressEssay Preview: Workplace Wellness: De-Stressing the StressReport this essayIntroductionFreshly showered and invigorated after her 30 minutes on the cross trainermachine, Tesla Jackson walks a few steps to her workstation, ready to finish herday with motivation and energy. Jackson is not a fitness instructor–she is asystems analyst for Kraft Foods, Inc. in Chicago, IL. She, like thousandsof Americans,exercises at the workout facility provided by her company.Jacksons difficult high-tension job demands much from her, but she combatsstress with frequent use of the free wellness center located only steps away fromher desk.The image of the stressed-out American has become a common sight. TV is crammed with images of minivans and cellular phones featuring frazzled working parents and wired “multitasking” employees. Whether working productively or not, many employees feel their supervisors must see them at their desks to be considered management material or to garner a big year-end bonus (Lynch, 4). Organizations spend more time keeping their technology up and running than they do on keeping their employees happy and healthy (Bolan, 1). Current research shows that many of todays major health problems are related to lifestyle at work which carries over to home life (Archer, 1). The innovations of technology in todays work environments have indeed caused an increase in stress in the workplace. Because most businesses use intranets, Internet, teleconferences, facsimiles, and a host of other forms of communication and technology, many employees often feel intimidated by the overwhelming use of these technologies. With this intimidation comes stress. According to Delima, stress can be both positive and negative. The author identifies an example of positive stress as preparation of a presentation for prospective clients. This stress is considered “natural” and has an end result of accomplishment and reward. However, many individuals experience stress that is detrimental because it affects daily life (Delima, 1). Studies show that 67% of people attribute high stress levels to unrealistic workloads (16%), job insecurity (14%), long working hours (14%) and colleagues incompetence (13%). This 67% surveyed also take this stress home with them (Bentley, 1). A survey conducted by the International Labor Organization finds that stress and depression in the workplace is now the second most disabling illness affecting workers after heart disease. Recognition of this stress, and learning how to cope with it, helps support a healthier body and maintain effective work habits (Varhol, 1). Furthermore, many of these ailments are preventable or minimized by developing positive health habits (Archer, 1).
EvaluationWith the continuous innovation and technology, workplace stress is increasing daily. How an individual chooses to manage this stress may determine long-term health status. Workplace wellness is not a new concept. Employee assistant programs (EAPs), which began in the 1930s initially focused on alcohol abuse. However, by the 1970s, the focus began to shift from substance abuse to mental health issues, which affected employee productivity (Toran, 1). Wellness programs and EAPs are not something an organization should offer “just to be nice,” but rather to improve the physical and psychological health of its work force. Developing and implementing a comprehensive wellness program for employees can help improve overall health, job performance, job retention, and employee satisfaction. With this being said, it is important for companies to promote workplace wellness programs to decrease work-related injuries, increase productivity, and decrease corporate health costs.
Supporting EvidenceIn Joseph Lazzaras article Workplace Safety, the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, “Just as…free enterprise leads profit-seeking companies to vie for labor and customers, it works to meet the employees desire for better working conditions.” The Dallas Federal Reserve Bank report did not specifically look at the impact of government regulations on workplace safety. However, reasonable safety regulations, applied with a dash of enforcement and a penalty cost-based structure to ensure safety guidance and education, certainly can provide motivation (Lazzara, 1).
In the past few years, researchers have scrutinized how workers health has a direct bearing on productivity, but research on the flip side of the issue remains largely unrecognized: How do work environments affect workers health? Most human resources managers and corporate wellness directors intuitively understand that neither the sleep-deprived employee slumped at her terminal nor her caffeine-powered manager who hasnt taken a day off in three years is working at peak capacity. But what is “peak?” Lacking a definition, Americans have fallen into the “more is better” rut, with untold implications for their health. While at first corporations may appear to benefit from workers added effort during long, stress-filled days, rising health care premiums may show otherwise. One study based on the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, shows men who skipped their annual vacation were more likely to die from coronary heart disease than were couch potatoes or smokers who do get away for a little annual rest and relaxation (Lynch, 1). According to Publicom Incorporated, a public health screening provider, companies lose 26.7 million workdays per year to illness and disabilities, translating to $1.3 billion in lost productivity. Tenneco reports a 13 percent lower turnover rate among employees who exercise at the wellness center compared to those who do not. After the City of Glendale, Arizona, set up a wellness center for its employees, absenteeism and workplace accidents dropped by 50 percent–even after its workforce tripled (Harlan, 1).
A wellness program may cost as little as $ 50 to $60 per year per employee. “When you look at an organizations overall cost and the fact that this program will ultimately pay itself off, …its a wise investment,” according to Ed Buffett CEO and president of Whitby, Ontario-based Buffett Taylor (Bolan, 1). At Union Pacific Railroad, 29 percent of its 1990 health care claims were related to lifestyle. Upon instituting a multi-aspect wellness program that includes stretching exercises before employees begin their daily tasks, a self-assessment of off-hours drinking and regular safety meetings demonstrated a significant decline. Lifestyle-related claims now make up only 24 percent of the total, a decline that the railroad translates into an estimated $2 million in savings (Moskowitz, 1). A recent survey of 1,020 employers (the vast majority
*) found only 3.8 percent of employees (a 1 million percent drop) took medical care within their allotted time frame (Bolan, 1) and 2.6 percent (a 3.6 percent decrease) of daily work activities (Bolan, 1). There is a direct correlation between increased working hours and health claims. A recent article in the International Journal of Health Economics found that people with health insurance spend over three times as much per year as people without insurance (Bolan, 1).
How do health care claims affect health insurance premiums? ‡‧Many states, like New York, do not enforce health care claims against their employers. While it is true that many individuals with employer-provided health care services could be harmed in their health care-related claims, a study in Massachusetts by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Washington DC found that claims for the “incomplete or low cost care provided” under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to states with “health insurance systems with limited or no such systems in place, are higher than claims under the Medicare program,” (Bolan, 1). The American University researchers compared the amount of time spent on health claims among 5 million people in the United Kingdom between 1991 and 2002; it found that claims on health benefits for individuals with low health status were much higher among people of health benefits than they were for anyone else (Bolan, 1). There is much disagreement about the nature – or timing – of the differences between the different health insurance markets. Some states, like New York, and Massachusetts, have relatively little health benefits at all, while others are much more restrictive in how health insurance workers are allowed to purchase health insurance. For instance, as a direct result of the ACA health care law (apparently there is no such law in place in Massachusetts), those living in certain states are not entitled to benefits on their behalf at all, and in practice there is no federal health care provision that requires employers to provide a health plan and reimbursement for cost-sharing based on health benefits for people working in different jobs. Furthermore, despite claims from employers demanding that health care workers be covered by “insurance,” most workers have “perceived benefits of $1 for every $100 of cost-sharing,” (Bolan, 1). While costs in health claims can vary widely, there exists a clear correlation between health claims and health premiums for people with health insurance, and even among Americans with “insurance,” claims for the total amount of medical care received and costs associated with those health insurance claims are relatively high (Bolan, 1). Many people report that employers have not offered them sufficient coverage for their workers; their premiums have increased by almost 10 percent (Brogan, 22f). To remedy this, they generally require employers to reimburse workers for costs associated with their health care-related claims under the program; and most employers fail to notify workers that their workers won’t receive such covered benefits. Some studies have found that workers with health needs are less likely than patients with less needs to get care, but they continue to receive benefits because of the need for services beyond the original expenses reimbursed and because a low health care cost can be the reason for a job. This often translates to health insurance costs being significantly higher for the average worker than for any other worker