Some quick Googling tells me that Labor Day in the U.S. was first officially celebrated 129 years ago. It is primarily to mark the contribution of America's great workforce, currently about 139 million strong. When we think of workers, we think of people whose hourly labor is the basis for their compensation, as opposed to investors and hedge fund managers, whose work consists of capital gains rather than productivity as usually understood. There is a strong component of Labor Day related to collective bargaining and the protection of workers' rights against corporate interests.
We might wonder about worker health on Labor Day. Over the last 100 years, the evidence indicates that work-related injury and death is less likely to occur today than in the past. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that anything approaching comprehensive data on worker health was even available: a reflection of the minimal importance placed on the welfare of workers in earlier times. Small government advocates today bridle against government provisions designed to protect the health and safety of workers, but it is clear that the free market would not be so benevolent. The gains we have seen in protecting and preserving worker welfare is a tribute to a long series of legislative and regulatory measures, not the natural working of markets.
Aside from the great strides we've made in protecting workers from toxic exposures and safety hazards, companies have steadily increased their investment in programs to improve worker health in other ways. It is somewhat ironic that as we've progressed in paying attention to work-related injury and illness, the nature and extent of health problems unrelated to work have become greater concerns. Almost half of workplaces now have worksite health promotion programs, such as nutrition and weight control, physical exercise and smoking cessation. There is stronger and stronger evidence that investments in these health programs produces a return. Depending on the nature and extent of programs and facilities provided, companies can recoup more than the expenditures. These programs tend to be in larger corporations, in which the economies of scale make employee health promotion more feasible. The challenge is with smaller companies of a hundred or less.
Recently there has been exploration of a proposal to provide state tax credits for dollars invested in worksite wellness. The idea is that if a small business was to invest, for example, $5,000 in such programming, he or she could get most or all of it back in corporate tax credits. Any additional benefits, such as decreases in worker sick days or health insurance costs would essentially come for free. The rationale behind this proposal is that state government health agencies have a mission to improve citizen health, and so it is appropriate to invest in these proven programs. The problem is that in difficult budget times, such as we've seen in the U.S. for the last couple of years, health program tax credits represent a loss of revenue that must be made up by cutting somewhere else. Some would make the case that over the long run, lower health costs will help the economy and eventually pay back the cost of the tax credits. Though a plausible argument, it is a leap of faith without any evidence at the present.
So the two great challenges of worker health are to continue the safeguards against work-related injury at a time when many people charge this is government over-reach, and to find ways to extend the benefits of health programming to all workers, at a time when there is tremendous pressure to ship jobs overseas. We can rely on the spirit of Labor Day to champion this cause for social and health justice.
We might wonder about worker health on Labor Day. Over the last 100 years, the evidence indicates that work-related injury and death is less likely to occur today than in the past. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that anything approaching comprehensive data on worker health was even available: a reflection of the minimal importance placed on the welfare of workers in earlier times. Small government advocates today bridle against government provisions designed to protect the health and safety of workers, but it is clear that the free market would not be so benevolent. The gains we have seen in protecting and preserving worker welfare is a tribute to a long series of legislative and regulatory measures, not the natural working of markets.
Aside from the great strides we've made in protecting workers from toxic exposures and safety hazards, companies have steadily increased their investment in programs to improve worker health in other ways. It is somewhat ironic that as we've progressed in paying attention to work-related injury and illness, the nature and extent of health problems unrelated to work have become greater concerns. Almost half of workplaces now have worksite health promotion programs, such as nutrition and weight control, physical exercise and smoking cessation. There is stronger and stronger evidence that investments in these health programs produces a return. Depending on the nature and extent of programs and facilities provided, companies can recoup more than the expenditures. These programs tend to be in larger corporations, in which the economies of scale make employee health promotion more feasible. The challenge is with smaller companies of a hundred or less.
Recently there has been exploration of a proposal to provide state tax credits for dollars invested in worksite wellness. The idea is that if a small business was to invest, for example, $5,000 in such programming, he or she could get most or all of it back in corporate tax credits. Any additional benefits, such as decreases in worker sick days or health insurance costs would essentially come for free. The rationale behind this proposal is that state government health agencies have a mission to improve citizen health, and so it is appropriate to invest in these proven programs. The problem is that in difficult budget times, such as we've seen in the U.S. for the last couple of years, health program tax credits represent a loss of revenue that must be made up by cutting somewhere else. Some would make the case that over the long run, lower health costs will help the economy and eventually pay back the cost of the tax credits. Though a plausible argument, it is a leap of faith without any evidence at the present.
So the two great challenges of worker health are to continue the safeguards against work-related injury at a time when many people charge this is government over-reach, and to find ways to extend the benefits of health programming to all workers, at a time when there is tremendous pressure to ship jobs overseas. We can rely on the spirit of Labor Day to champion this cause for social and health justice.
2 comments:
The rationale behind this proposal is that state government health agencies have a mission to improve citizen health, and so it is appropriate to invest in these proven programs.
The problem is that in difficult budget times, such as we've seen in the U.S. for the last couple of years, health program tax credits represent a loss of revenue that must be made up by cutting somewhere else. Some would make the case that over the long run, lower health costs will help the economy and eventually pay back the cost of the tax credits.
Post a Comment