This was first published almost 10 years ago.
Conference Paper Should We Treat Workplace Inactivity like Occupational Hazar...
Now almost a decade later, has there been any progress? Chronic workplace inactivity has been a pandemic in developed societies for much longer than a decade. The healthcare and productivity costs of workplace inactivity are all increasingly well documented. Unfortunately, this sentence from 2012 probably still applies: "Employers often provide break time and specific areas for smoking, yet to do this for exercise may be considered distracting, counterproductive, and/or too expensive." .
Thank you for considering this discussion.
It's good to be concerned about community health in general. BUT this goes way over the line, in my opinion, on mandating a "Nanny State" trying to regulate all personal activity. Maybe some want that, but they will face worse consequences trying to force it on others.
Requiring employers to provide a safe work environment is not the same as assuming responsibility (illegitimately) over a person's entire lifestyle and activities. Protecting the Commonwealth from external threats (pollution, violence) by corporations or individuals (and government itself!) is not the same as mandating what a person can or may do in all life activities.
Steven Cooke
Mr. Cooke, thank you very much for your interest and opinion. With respect, your comments suggest you misunderstood what I wrote. Nothing in my publication expresses an absolutist intent to “regulate all personal activity”, assume “responsibility over a person's entire lifestyle and activities”, and mandate “what a person can or may do in all life activities”, as you stated.
I did emphasize in 2012, and maintain today, that “the ultimate responsibility to exercise remains with the individual”. Your comments did not address what I actually proposed, which is “that workplaces promote and enable brief periodic work day physical activity”.
You also suggested that employers “will face worse consequences trying to force [activity] on others”. It’s unclear what those consequences may be. Data are clear that promotion of physical activity in sedentary workplaces improves employee morale and productivity while reducing illness and medical expenses. So, what I propose benefits both employer and employee. Again, nothing I propose seeks to “force” activity on others.
Thank you again for your interest, thoughts, and constructive criticism.
Donald E. Watenpaugh - Maybe I misunderstood the stated correlation (?) to "Occupational Hazards", in which government mandates require certain things from companies for the protection of the workers. My own viewpoint (as a former corporate manager) is that employers with more engaged and healthy workforces WILL do better in the marketplace. Thus, as with much of safety as well, it is much better to educate management leaders to provide better working conditions and let the ignorant or unwilling ones suffer in their business outcomes.
Providing facilities and/or time for relaxation and exercise is a good move, but if employees prefer to remain sedentary, that is their choice. Again, they may realize at some point that their health is very important to their performance, and their performance will likely affect their continued employment prospects.
Donald E. Watenpaugh Such a nice concern about working communities or individuals. Everybody have information about obesity but sitting for long can lead to muscle atrophy that observed in long bed rest patients or the astronauts. While sitting, anti-gravity bones and muscles relaxed and gravity influences decreases, similar phenomenon observed in space. As per the literature, bad lifestyle decreases bone density by 10% per 3-6 months. 6-9 hour sitting is playing havoc with workers life. Govt or company should provide compulsory walk or stretching sessions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress