Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking

[UpInArms]

Source: Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS - Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.

A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.

As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.

"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.

Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_bi_ge/smokers_suspended

[dmallind]

1. Cue vapid obesity and alcohol comparisons in ......... NT

[IsItJustMe]

2. Welcome to facism.

[pattmarty]

3. And I thought it was the "right" that doesn't want ANY ..........

.....government intervention in the "markets". I agree with you, although I think "our" brand of Fascism will look more like Chile in the 70's.

[reclinerhead]

5. Huh?

Fascism? Because smokers couldn't resist a nicotine-fit until after work, and they failed to honor an agreement with the company? Smoking is not a right, believe it or not.

I believe Whirlpool is doing a good thing by at least offering some kind of incentive for people to live healthier. It's been proven that most people won't do it for themselves. If they don't like the rules, well, Wal-Mart is probably right next door.

[YankmeCrankme]

9. Yeah, I bet their CEO and board of directors adhere to that policy too. nt

[Occulus]

11. But it restricts the rights of employees to do something legal when "off the clock".

It doesn't matter what they did; I would think this policy also extends to behavior in their homes. That's a big problem, or at least, it should be seen as such.

The toe of the camel is now in the tent, as it were.

It would be much like a company telling its employees they cannot visit XYZ fast food place, especially if they used the same "reasoning". As I've mentioned before, if employers are going to start expecting employees to "live right" when they're off the clock, or face punishment from the employer, then employees should be expecting 24/7 pay- for even the least intrusion upon their legal behavior when off the clock and off the premises.

[Mimosa]

34. Corporate fascism

I don't believe employers or governments should tell us we can't smoke, drink or eat what we want. Tobacco is legal. I do not smoke. I grew up around smokers. I don't like it too much. My mother died at age 72 of lung cancer. But people who've never smoked or have been exposed to tobacco smoke also can die of lung cancer.

As Joyce Elders once said "We're all gonna die from something."

People may need their pleasures and as long as tobacco is legal it shouldn't be demonised. I think demonising tobacco and making it harder for youngsters to obtain makes youth go to the more harmful drugs, btw.

[Thor_MN]

42. Does their health insurance stop when they are off the clock?

I believe this is about people who are attempting to take advantage of lower insurance rates for non-smokers. If they were buying life insurance on their own, they would have to answer the same question.

I don't think this is about employers expecting their employees to do anything other than be honest. They are offering a plan that lets the people who DON'T smoke the opportunity to not subsidize the health insurance of those that do. Those that lie are essentially stealing from their non-smoking co-workers.

My previous employer's plan was always playing out more in benefits than it took in in premiums. Each year, rates went up by insane amounts and benefits went down. The dental insurance cost about as much as paying for two cleanings a year out of pocket. Since I didn't use ANY benefits other than dental checks, I was subsidizing the employees that were drawing benefits. Granted, had I needed coverage it was there, but I would have welcomed the opportunity not to pay for the risks that the people who choose to smoke incur.

[pattmarty]

23. So you're for companies controlling their employees time EVEN...

....when they're not at work? Then that makes you a fascist. And what about "piss tests" ass hole?

[reclinerhead]

37. Read much lately?

The OP says that the individuals were fired for smoking or using tobacco on company property, after they made an agreement not to do so. They could have left the company property on break to smoke, no?

#1 - How did you turn this into Whirlpool trying to say what they can or cannot do at home, or off the company property?

#2 - Why are you calling me an asshole? You're a friendly one, eh?

I stand by my original message.. Whirlpool is not the bad guy here.

[superconnected]

32. Scary.

Even the nazis had supporters... Someone has to be the supporters.

Certianly isn't hard to find the heartless type who would be.

[reclinerhead]

38. Your post is what's silly

Let me get this straight... you're comparing me to a fucking Nazi supporter, because I believe that if you make an agreement, you stick to it?

Let me guess... smoker?

[superconnected]

40. Nope, No smoker. just not a nazi.

[reclinerhead]

41. Probably pointless, but oh well

I may have a low post count, but I've been around for since 2003 or so, and I remember that it USED to be rude at DU to call someone a Nazi.

Stay classy!

[Itchinjim]

4. Well they did voluntarily sign paperwork claiming they did not use tobacco

and then got caught smoking on company property. Maybe they should have been suspended for stupidity.

[bean fidhleir]

25. Maybe they only started after they signed.

How would the company know when they started?

[Orsino]

48. If they didn't promise never to do so, that's irrelevant. n/t

[poppysgal]

6. A little harsh

wouldn't you say, I mean how about a little warning first. How about just asking the workers not to smoke "a verbal warning". Did you ever think that these poor people probably had to stop and fill up their tanks with gas in order to get to work and they needed a smoke in order to quit shaking (lol). I just think that there is such a thing as incentive and there is such a thing as control.:smoke:

[poppysgal]

8. I agree and

I am not a smoker.
Lord Acton,
"Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being."
:patriot:

[pokercat999]

43. I think dear "Lord" Acton was correct up to the word

self-control. after that he should have STFU.

The basic problem is that Americans are depending on their employers for health insurance, Health care should be a basic right for every citizen and provided by our newly formed National Health Service.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. The problem is that they signed statements saying that they did not smoke in order to get

a discount on their health insurance.

[Xithras]

18. Yep, it's theft.

And it's an important distinction. They aren't being fired for smoking, they're being fired because they lied about smoking in order to take advantage of a financial bonus the company was offering to nonsmokers.

[reclinerhead]

39. Agreed.

Though, it seems for me to say so, with a post count of less than 1000, automatically lumps me into the Nazi and Fascist category.

[mac2]

27. That is lying to the company.

[YankmeCrankme]

51. BS

Companies are charging more for health care not giving discounts! Why should they be force to pay more? If health care costs are going up maybe these companies should advocate universal health care. Well, they don't so fuck them. It's the bed they made with supporting privatized health care and not supporting universal health care.

Working folks shouldn't get shafted with the higher costs that these businessman support. They're too stupid to see the cost savings they'll have because taxes will have to go to support it. Can't have that, those taxes need to go to fight unending wars and for corporate welfare handouts not to give healthcare for everyone.

Boy, the way some people think here. See through the real issue. It's all about controlling people and behavior and greed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. You are advocating committing fraud against you employer if you do not like their political stanes?

:shrug:

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. Do we know they were smoking on company property? Or

were they smoking on their own time in places other than company property.

This reminds me of stuff that went on when I lived in Salt Lake City. Students from BYU could get in serious trouble if they were caught smoking or drinking off campus - like down in a bar in Provo. The school had people out in the town watching to see what students were doing.

I have heard of other cases where people have been fired for smoking outside of work.

I'm sorry. This stuff has gone too far.

I just checked - article says they were on company property. That is dumb. But I wonder what would happen if they were seen smoking off company property.

[onehandle]

10. I don't hire smokers.

Not because of the insurance issue (I'm a director, not an executive), but because they take more breaks and are sick more often.

I don't ask them if they smoke, I can smell it. And personally, I find the smell offensive.

[Occulus]

12. You don't have any business denying anyone on that basis

It could be a roommate or a family member who smokes, and not the applicant.

How about, it should be illegal to deny employment on the basis of engagement in a legal activity. Put that in your pipe an.....

...oh, never mind.

[onehandle]

13. I've always gotten it right.

The way we hire, there is a "try-out period." I can release them at the end of that time.

I did hire a smoker last year because she was the far best candidate at the time.

She was caught by the building management smoking in the ladies room. I had to stick my neck out to keep her, but eventually she proved to be unreliable and a hothead. I had to let her go.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. There is no law prohibiting employers from refusing to hire smokers

They are not a legally protected category.

[Occulus]

17. In many cases, nonsmokers ARE a legally protected category

and that's who I'm talking about: the nonsmoker who is around smokers, and is refused on the basis that they might be a smoker.

Even better, someone who doesn't smoke who was lately around someone who does. It's just too arbitrary a standard for it to be anything close to a fair hiring practice.

[Xithras]

20. Why not? It's a personal hygiene issue.

If someone walked in smelling of feces, or with overpowering and offensive body odor, that would be grounds for dismissal if it couldn't be remediated. That the smells may have come from someone else is irrelevant. Smoke, to myself and to many people, smells just as offensive as BO. In that it's a choice people make, it's also no different than workplaces banning perfumes or colognes.

[Occulus]

29. What if someone walked in

who had just been exposed to a smoker for several minutes?

What about a roommate who smokes? A family member?

This is a petty reason to deny employment. Smoking is legal; denial of employment on the basis of "smoke smell" should be illegal. Why? See the above.

Maybe you don't have a problem with a business punishing you for your (insert_nonrelated_thirdparty_here)'s 'misdeeds', but I would prefer our society not punish someone based upon what those around them do.

Note, I'm defending nonsmokers here, who happen to live among or happen to be around those who smoke. Are we really going to advocate punishing the literally innocent in the attempt to stamp out cigarettes and the like? Has it really gone that far?

(As an aside: Not so very long ago, I was assured that the anti-smoking zealots would never, ever go so far as to regulate what smokers did inside their own homes. True to form, those hypocrites have no problem with what's going on in CA. Out there, they're taking steps to eliminate smoking inside residences which share walls.

I was told, point blank, in no uncertain terms, that nothing of the kind would ever happen, by more antismokers than I could count. And yet, here I sit, defending them from being not hired simply because they happened to be around a smoker.)

Is fast food next? How about porn stores? Perhaps a particular bar known for its fights and police calls is off limits to employees. Will insurance companies decide volunteer firefighters are at an increased risk of injury, and raise premiums based on that? What's to stop them?

There are too many reasons to be against these policies, and one and only one- money- to be for them. We need to abolish these policies, for our own freedom's sake.

[Xithras]

36. Nothing to do with money. Smoke smell makes me nauseous.

As for the rest, it's an applicants duty to make sure he shows up for an interview in a good hygienic state. If the person shows up reeking of body odor, smelling of cloying perfume, or stinking of cigarette smoke, they're not going to get a job with me. That has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the fact that I'll be working with these people every day and have no interest in having to suppress my gag reflex while I do so.

Smokers stink.

[Xithras]

19. I don't hire smokers because they stink.

It's a funny thing, because I used to be a smoker myself, and I never realized how BAD smokers smelled until after I quit. The smell is offensive to me.

The break thing is an issue too. The one and only smoker I've ever hired had an absolute COW when I told him that he was only permitted two smoke breaks per day, and that cigarette butts had to be fully extinguished (wet) and placed in a wastebasket because butts on the ground around our office looked bad. I wasn't spending the money to place ONE commercial outdoor ashtray outside for a single person (those units cost a couple hundred bucks). The quality of his work slid quickly when we wasn't allowed to run outside for a smoke every 30 minutes, and he quit less than two months later.

[fed_up_mother]

28. I wouldn't hire a smoker, either

I'm seriously allergic to cigarette smoke, so I would know if they were smoking. It would be like forcing me to hire someone who would eat peanuts next to me everyday, even though I had a peanut allergy.

Asthma is not fun. :(

[Occulus]

30. Suppose it was one of their family members.

What then?

[fed_up_mother]

31. Still wouldn't hire anyone who smelled like cigarette smoke

for whatever reason. Actually, I'm very allergic to two things: cigarette smoke and cats.

These allergies can really get in the way of my social life, too, sometimes. :(

[superconnected]

33. Just tell people your narrow minded opinions and see how your social life goes.

[fed_up_mother]

45. It's narrow minded to want to BREATHE?

If I were hiring for a large company, I wouldn't care who smelled like cigarette smoke two floors below me.

If I were hiring someone to work right beside me, I can assure you that my right to breathe supercedes anyone's right to that particular job.

Do you know what it's like to live with two inhalers, eye drops, and nose sprays for stupid allergies like this? :( You don't think someone with asthma is in a more "protected" class than someone who smokes and makes breathing difficult for the asthmatic? By the way, this is all hypothetical. I'm currently not employed for anyone, and have never asked for any kind of protected rights.

[superconnected]

46. Smoking is forbidden in most work places. I would assume they

would smoke somewhere else. You are simply discriminating.

[fed_up_mother]

47. The smoke is all over their clothes

Just the smell makes me sick.

And I'm not the only one.

[superconnected]

49. Yeah, you wouldn't hire someone because you don't like their smell.

Got it.

We all know what smokers smell like, but you poor flower really hate that smell. So wouldn't hire them. got it. And I think I nailed you correctly from the start.

[fed_up_mother]

50. Forget it. Either you know how serious asthma is, or you don't. YOU DON'T.

[Zuiderelle]

21. Wow, that's really horrible.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. So, they lied about their tobacco use in order to pay less for thier health insuranse

Sound like they will be lucky if all they get is a suspension.

[Book Lover]

22. It is only a lie when information is withheld from people with a right to that information

I am sure you can tell I don't agree that a business has a right to that information.

The long-term answer, of course, is single-payer health care with risk spread out over the many millions of US citizens. But I'm not holding my breath for that.

[Zuiderelle]

24. This sort of thing causes people to avoid healthcare in order to avoid admitting their bad habits.

It's ultimately much MORE costly.

[barnel]

26. i have mixed feelings about this

if they had been scen OFF company property, I'd side against the company

but since it was ON company property, then, they violated their agreement

anyone who follows my posting knows that im rabidly against stuff like h-1b that makes workers have less power, and thus less choice about signing such agreements

i do recall working as a contractor at a place that was fanatically corporate liberatarian (my experience there was pretty good, as companies go), yet, they did not allow employees to be smokers, you couldnt even smoke in your car in their lot. so, on this issue, their liberatarianism mean 'you were free to obey them'

I do think however, the best way to protect emplyoyee rights is to protect their bargaining power - if you dont, one way or another, they end up as serfs, pasivly accepting whatever the employer says, rather than picking and choosing what they concent to agree to

this is more than theory to me. as an independent contractor in the 1990s *before both parties stomped me with H-1b*, we did just that. if you were treated right, you'd renew. abused? Buh-Bye.

but now, without bargaining power, you're trapped. that's why they love h-1b indentured servents - 'yes master'

[KamaAina]

35. Coming up next: Pee tests for tobacco

:puke:

[toopers]

44. TBS use to have a no smoking police. . .

they would not hire smokers . . . regardless of where you smoked. They did not hire smokers - at least that was their written policy.