Introduction
In the business environment, there are a series of ethics that define the moral obligations expected of the business actors. Business ethics are applied in the management and corporate social responsibility to ensure that the business is sustainable in the short and long term since each business operates within the confines of moral obligation. Business ethics are moral obligations that the management of a business should follow in doing business activities. Reflectively, when a business fails to follow these moral ethics, ethical dilemmas are likely to occur and negatively affect such business. Based on the code of ethics, the business environment must be proactive to ensure that the interests of all employees are addressed. Moreover, good business ethics define objectivity and motivation in maintaining trust in providing benefits to employees. This paper will attempt to explicitly examine whether or not it is ethical to issue health insurance surcharge to employees who go against medical advice. Specifically, the paper will focus on issuing health insurance surcharge for employees who continues to smoke and drink against medical advice by examining the ethical dilemmas that might arise when a contrary decision is made. The paper argues that it is ethical to issue health insurance surcharge to an employee who goes against medical advice.
Description of the Dilemma
An ethical decision can be defined as a decision with a moral and legal appeal to the wider community. The aspect of commitment is a crucial element in examining the ethicality of a decision. In precision, for these decisions to hold and be positively assimilated into the work environment, a series of tests are carried out by gathering facts and incorporating them in defining issues surrounding ethics to test the consciousness in the application. Thirdly, the aspect of competency is critical in separating the premises from assumptions in making ethical decisions. In the case of refusing to issue insurance surcharge to employees suffering from lifestyle ailments and do not respect medical advice, the main ethical dilemma that might arise is a discriminatory work environment.
Analysis of Issues
The topic of issuing a health insurance surcharge to employees who continue to smoke or drink against medical advice has attracted a great deal of hubbub from different quarters consisting of the protagonists and antagonists of offering insurance benefits to this group. Specifically, the main concern against issuing a health insurance surcharge to such employees is the cost of insurance cover against other competing needs in such organizations. The merits and demerits of issuing a health insurance surcharge to employees who do not heed to medical advice suggest that an alternative decision may lead to a serious ethical dilemma when balancing the rights of these employees and the goals of such organizations. It is almost impossible for companies to discriminate against such employees when the health costs from other diseases are higher than the cost of insuring employees who not follow medical advice.
It is paradoxical for companies to refuse to issue a health insurance surcharge to employees who go against medical advice yet they have avenues for caring for the sick employees through different health insurance covers, which are payable by insurance companies since all employees are ensured. In many organizations across the globe, employees are entitled to health benefits that cover even lifestyle diseases since it is difficult to separate different diseases when issuing insurance. A company that may attempt to refuse to cover their employees who do not follow medical advice when suffering from certain ailments may open a can of worms since this group would want an explanation of the rationale for the decision. Factually, the cost of health insurance for this group may be questioned against the cost of health insurance to another group of employees who may not suffer from lifestyle ailments. Since companies have insurance cover for those who suffer from other lifestyle diseases such as HIV and cancer among others, it would be discriminatory to deny some works the right to health insurance when their ailments are also as a result of personal choices.
The primary reason for companies to refuse to issue a health insurance surcharge to employees who smoke or drink against medical advice is the fallacious argument that such employees in the work environment are conscientious to the recent rising cost of health care. Therefore, this argument which supports denying employees, who suffer from lifestyle ailments and do not follow medical advice, medical cover is simplistic since the rationale cannot be justified under the spirit of equality and fairness when distributing benefits. This reasoning suggests that addicted employees have control over their addiction and can abandon it without any support. Therefore, refusing to issue a health insurance surcharge to employees who go against medical advice on smoking or other behavioral activities would not be a solution to a problem that has developed over a lifestyle. The addictive nature of such behavioral activities is sometimes beyond the control of the victim. Therefore, refusing to issue surcharge to such employees may amount to victimization, despite the perfect performance of roles and duties allocated to such personnel in an organization.
Almost half of those addicted to behavioral activities such as smoking and drinking against medical advice are competent in their areas of specialization. Although nearly everyone would wish to follow medical advice when it comes to lifestyle practices that affect their health, they have very little power to decide on their own without social support. However, their position should not be discredited as long as the addiction does not interfere with their performance of roles and duties in an organization. Any action to block this group from accessing health insurance as a company policy would attract discrimination and victimization, which are examples of ethical dilemmas that arise from unethical policy decisions. When a company refuses to issue insurance cover this group, the organization is guilty of unfair treatment of the employees who need support to overcome their lifestyle ailments, despite not being in a position to voluntarily quit some of the lifestyle habits as a result of addiction.
Isolating employees who continue to indulge in lifestyle activities against medical advice as the only reason for the rising cost of health care in companies is unrealistic when issuing insurance surcharge. Other ailments in any organization often account for the largest share of medical bills that such an organization has to incur annually. For instance, covering an employee suffering from cancer is six times more expensive than covering another employee who suffers from diabetes. In the real sense, the high costs of health insurance often result from other factors, rather than the lifestyle addictions that might be used as an excuse to deny employees health insurance surcharge. It is therefore illogical to apportion liability for the high cost of medical cover to just a group of employees who suffer from lifestyle ailments and cannot take heed of medical advice. This is a fallacy that might lead to ethical dilemmas such as employee go-slow, strikes, and reduced performance, especially when the arguments for denying insurance surcharge is discriminatory.
The physiological influence in an organization occurs in three forms such as behavior, personality, and perceived effects on the organization culture. Under personality effects, the variables that interact include reflex, development, and cognition to different stimuli. For instance, an employee or employer may create or have expectations and beliefs about organizational culture, which is not consistent with the ethical environment. These perceptions may influence the party’s ability to control, influence, and remodel the expectations to ensure that the final decision is inclusive and proactive. Business ethical values that have a positive impact on its performance include confidentiality, rationality, good communication, high morals, respect, and promotion of equality. These elements form the strength of successful business culture. Positive ethical aspirations are achievable through action-oriented respect, mutual coexistence, and deeply entrenched social values, which are vital in the peaceful coexistence of all the employees. Despite the heated debate on the topic of whether or not to issue health insurance surcharge to employees who suffer from lifestyle ailments and do not follow medical advice, there is no evidence to suggest that such employees do not perform their roles as expected and abscond duties assigned. This means that those who support the withdrawal of insurance cover to such employees do not have scientific evidence that equally suggests the same action. Most of their arguments are private thoughts and individual perceptions, which cannot be applied as evidence-backed policy.
Conclusion
In summary, a sustainable business must have strong ethical principles that guide employees when carrying out their duties. The ethical code consists of laid down structures to keep staff in a healthy and stable mind in their duty of serving the interests of the restaurant through regulatory ethical communication models. Companies cannot refuse to refuse to issue a health insurance surcharge to employees who smoke or drink against medical advice since this will be discriminatory to the basic right of benefits entitlement as entrenched in the employment contract. It is unfair to treat the lifestyle addictions that are discouraged on medical grounds as absolute voluntary activities when issuing health insurance surcharge to employees. In a real sense, an organization should be focused on the most elevated moral models in offering health insurance benefits to all employees as long as each employee follows all pertinent laws, guidelines, and regulations when performing his or her obligations. Therefore, it is unethical to refuse to issue health insurance surcharge to employees who go against medical advice.
Anticipated Outcomes
From the findings, the expected outcome of denying employee health insurance surcharge based on lifestyle ailments and medical advice is a discriminatory work environment in the short run. In the long run, the employee will quit their roles or under-perform as a form of silent protest. These employees would be denied their rights to employment benefits, which cannot be used to manipulate the lifestyle of employees since this action attracts an ethical dilemma in the form of a discriminatory work environment.