Lies about smoking burn workers

They should fire the jerks. How can you possibly trust a liar. Who knows what else they are being untruthful about.

At work in the designated smoking area, these poor folks need a union or democrat to protect them from themselves.

You're Fired!!!!

The "smoking penalty" bothers me. It seems like a slipperly slope before people are charged more for healthcare based on other factors too, like weight, age, even genetics.

It's just too Big Brother for me.

That said, these fools falsified their documents, essentially committing fraud and theft. I'm not feeling too much pity.

I think the policy was wrong AND I think these employees were wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do!!! ;)

With what we get ripped off for in health care costs, I completely understand these employees lying to their employer. I don't normally condone lying, but I have a problem with the concept of these wellness monitoring systems.
It is none of my company's business what I eat, whether I smoke or any aspect of my personal life. Their right to know ends when I walk out the door at the end of the day and only begins when I enter in the morning.
These employees should have refrained from smoking on the property. Not bright to give others a chance to narc them out.
We need reform in the healthcare system and that does not include Big Brother monitoring.
I hope they don'tfind out who "tattled" on them. I wonder if Big Brother rewarded them with some money.

MDK wrote:

They should fire the jerks. How can you possibly trust a liar. Who knows what else they are being untruthful about.

TOO TRUE!!!!!

This is fraud. Fire them. It will be cheaper for the company in the long run. These smokers will run up the healthcare costs of the company with all of their heart and lung disease bills.

People who lie about one thing will lie about other things, would you want people like that working for you ?

John wrote:

With what we get ripped off for in health care costs, I completely understand these employees lying to their employer. I don't normally condone lying, but I have a problem with the concept of these wellness monitoring systems.
It is none of my company's business what I eat, whether I smoke or any aspect of my personal life. Their right to know ends when I walk out the door at the end of the day and only begins when I enter in the morning.
These employees should have refrained from smoking on the property. Not bright to give others a chance to narc them out.
We need reform in the healthcare system and that does not include Big Brother monitoring.
I hope they don'tfind out who "tattled" on them. I wonder if Big Brother rewarded them with some money.

This was not Big Brother. The employees accepted a voluntary program. It is the business of the business if they have to pay for it. All the employess have to do is sign a statement when they are hired that they refuse company insurance and will pay for their own healthcare.

They should pay more for insurance based on having a habit that statistically makes them much more likely to be ill. To lie about it is absolutely fraud. They can go have cig and complain about it.

I will be surprised if they don't hire a lawyer.

After all, smoking is an addiction. And addicts are protected under the Americans with Disabilities act. Drug addicts get a second chance (or maybe many second chances), so why are folks using a legal product being penalized?

The whole point of group insurance is that it is a GROUP.

Sure, they shouldn't have lied, but they shouldn't have been penalized $500 a year, either. And before all you righteous non-smokers start yelling about being tired of paying bills for the smokers behavior, how many of you engage in 'risky' behavior? Unprotected sex, multiple partners, drink a little too much, maybe do the occassional recreational drug, drive too fast, ski, hang glide? The list is endless.... So before pointing a finger, think about your own behavior and whether you should be paying more for your insurance.

Those who forget the past will repeat it...

http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articl...

To determine who was worthy, Ford expanded the company’s Sociological Department, set up in 1913. One-hundred fifty investigators visited employees’ homes and questioned them about everything from their marital status to their savings, health, hobbies, and child care. Excessive drinking, gambling, buying on credit, a dirty home, and an unwholesome diet were all grounds for probation; if a worker hadn’t cleaned up his act in six months, not only did he not earn his $5 a day, he was fired.

The man who had engineered the assembly line was now trying to engineer his employees’ private lives.“We want to make men in this factory as well as automobiles.” he said. The Sociological Department, which resembled contemporaneous Progressive experiments like the Urban League, was at bottom a reflection of the Victorian strictures under which Ford had been raised. Critics decried the company’s intrusion into its workers’ home lives.“The payment of good wages does not give an employer the authority to seek to regulate the internal family affairs of any man,” ran an editorial in the St. Albans, Vermont, Messenger. Finally, sick of the criticism, Ford abolished the department in 1920.

These employees were only caught in a lie because they chose to indulge their habit in a place they could easily be seen by other employees. There are probably countless more who DIDN'T get caught because they only smoke at home or elsewhere away from work. Thus, the only way the company can enforce its mandate regarding smoking is if it does some sort of random testing for nicotine in employees' blood (if there IS such a test?). I'm a non-smoker but I do indeed see smokers' point, though, regarding the hypocrisy of not monitoring other unhealthy habits. Perhaps companies should also run blood tests to detect bad eating habits. And NOT just on fat people...plenty of thin people are junk-food junkies.

Wow...it truly scares me how people are so willing to lay down and take these kind of intrusions into our personal lives. Next thing you know they can make policies governing if you have unprotected sex so if some P.O.ed ex wanted to really hurt you they could tell the company you had unsafe sex.

I can't wait for the day when we need to submit a urine sample to our boss on request to make sure we haven't used tobacco, alcohol, drugs (perscription or the so-called illegal ones no one can get), and my eating habits are within the preferred government guidelines.

If we had to shop health insurance like we do car insurance, we wouldn't stand for $1200 a month premium plus copays and deductibles. Just like car insurance, if you drive risky you pay for it. If we as individuals chose to smoke, drink, or jump out of airplanes, we would pay more for health insurance individually and it would be our choice to continue to do so.

It is very easy to find proof that smokers do not cost the system more money since they usually die at an earlier age.
It's all about the new corpRATism or in more direct terms corporate fasism exercising it's control over their minion slaves.
I no longer work in the corporate world and I'm glad I escaped even if I did have to start taking disability payments.
What a horrid country we now live in.

MDK wrote:

They should fire the jerks. How can you possibly trust a liar. Who knows what else they are being untruthful about.

Please get serious. These people have families and a bad habit. What if they decided to charge more if you drive over the limit or go through "yellow"/RED lights. The Tribute just removed their extra fee for smokers

You people are all mad about insurance in general. Don't take it out on Whirlpool. They are only going along with what the insurance company dictates. And most insurance companies do penalize for being over weight and some company's do indeed insist on random urine tests; for drugs, HIV and cholesterol etc. If you don't like it, find another job. There is nothing wrong with an employer demanding sober, somewhat healthy employees.

Before the lawyers get started, it probably should be determined who is the victim here.

At first glance, it appears the suspended workers are the victims. BUT, they agreed to the company's offer to cut their premiums in return for giving up smoking. In essence, because of their actions it appears they they are in breach of contract.

Also, we should ask if is it fair to the rest of the workers to have their peers potentially increase insurance costs for everyone because of their selfish behavior.

The suspended workers KNOWINGLY violated the company's trust and are now mad that they "got their hand caught in the ccokie jar" and were suspended.

If they want to see who is ultimately responsible for their suspension, they only need to look in the mirror!

They lied about not smoking and still smoked thus they should be fired for lying!

Companies are NOT going to hire smokers in the first just to avoid problems like this.

I know of companies that already exclude smokers in the application process and give nicotine tests to prove it.