Joining plan may be legally required.

Byline: ON THE JOB By Dan Grinfas For The Register-Guard

Question: I work for a school district and am required to participate in the health insurance coverage. Apparently, the insurance company mandates this. Unfortunately, my employer does not cover all of the premiums, so I have to pay approximately $200 per month for my coverage. I might not need this coverage in the near future, because I may be covered under another plan. Can I refuse to participate? Can they require me to pay out of pocket for coverage I do not desire?

By the way, they charge me a `composite' rate. If they would let me be charged a single person rate, I wouldn't be paying a dime out of pocket. I feel like I'm paying for everybody else's kids, and this really steams me! Is it legal?

Answer: Certain employer insurance plans permit employees to `opt out' of coverage, and some employers even offer workers cash in lieu of the monthly premium. But other plans, such as yours, require 100 percent employee participation.

It is up to your employer and the particular plan it selects to determine the rates you will be charged and whether you must enroll in the plan.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries takes the position that an employer may require participation in a bona fide benefit plan, such as group health insurance, as a condition of employment, including requiring employees to enroll dependents in the benefit plan.

It is legal for your employer to require you to contribute to the cost of its insurance plan, so long as the contribution required does not have the effect of taking you below the minimum wage.

The wage collection laws in Chapter 652 of the Oregon Revised Statutes permit an employer to deduct from a worker's paycheck when the deduction is for the employee's benefit, when the employee has provided written authorization, and when the employer has recorded the authorization in its books.

Since the law that permits such a deduction, ORS 652.610(3)(b), does not require that the authorization be voluntary, your employer could require you to sign the authorization for insurance premium deductions as a condition of employment.

The interpretation of the law is that insurance coverage for you and any family members is `for your benefit,' even though you may prefer to obtain coverage outside of your employer's plan.

If you were to voluntarily choose to purchase coverage through your employer for your `private benefit,' then a payroll deduction would be legal even if it resulted in your receiving less than the minimum wage.

But deductions are not considered to be for the private benefit of the employee if the employer requires them, if they are a condition of your employment, or if your acceptance of the benefit is involuntary or coerced.

Question: To reduce insurance costs, is it legal for an employer to suggest that employees participate in weight management or smoking cessation programs?

Answer: This could be problematic, depending on how it is done. Certainly, it is fine for an employer to offer all workers the opportunity to participate voluntarily in health improvement programs, as a perk of employment.

But you don't want to run afoul of ORS 659A.315, a statute that makes it unlawful for Oregon employers to require, as a condition of employment, that workers refrain from using lawful tobacco products on their own time.

Also, since obesity is often linked with various disabilities and may sometimes be a covered disability in and of itself, you don't want to treat employees differently on the basis of being overweight or step into the role of the employee's doctor in advocating specific exercise or diet plans.

On The Job is written by Dan Grinfas of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Contact BOLI at [phone], or BOLI, 800 N.E. Oregon St. No. 32, Portland, OR 97232.