Anti-Union thread: 4-23-08 Whirlpool suspends 39 without pay for smoking

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,452
1
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: palehorse74
good. fvck unions.

There was a time when they were beneficial to the U.S., but no longer. We'll all be better off when they are done away with altogether.

This has been my position most of my life. Until the last few years, during which I have been employed as a salaried IT worker is a datacenter that treats me like trash. The overtime is really bad - I don't get enough time off to take the necessary steps to battle the stress that comes with the job. This was made possible by the new exemption to the wage hour law signed by GWB a few years back. A union came through not long ago trying to organize and I found that I wasn't allowed to join it because I deal with 'sensitive' information.

So, as an allegedly highly skilled IT Guy, why not just find a new job where they don't treat you like trash?
I would like to know, too.

Because I live in a place where there's very little opportunity - I've been trying to find a new job for the past year and have had no luck. I can't move at present because I own a house and houses aren't selling in this market.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The days of legal sweatshopping and labor rates to compete and rival with India and China are here.

Will this bring back manufacturing to the U.S.?

Is this really going to help?

3-29-2008 UAW membership drops below 500,000

WASHINGTON - United Auto Workers union membership has fallen below 500,000 for the first time since World War II, reflecting the massive restructuring undertaken by Detroit's automakers.

The union reported Friday in a filing with the Labor Department that it had 464,910 members by the end of 2007, compared with 538,448 at the end of 2006. UAW membership peaked in 1979 at 1.5 million but has been dropping ever since.

It sure as hell can't hurt.

IMO, your FUD about sweatshops is just bullshit. Any business that doesn't provide competitive wages and benefits will not attract quality workers. Without quality workers the business will fail. Unions had their place in history. Today they are corrupt, power hungry organizations that are counter productive to america's ability to compete on the global market. They convince their members that they are looking out for the worker's interest when all they care about is power and greed.

So there's no such thing as a sweatshop?
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
GM makes cars and truck in at least two assembly plants in Oshawa, Ontario. Chrysler has an assembly plant Brampton, Ontario. Ford has an assembly plant in St. Thomas, Ontario. Dodge Rams are made in Saltillo, Mexico. I'm sure someone else can think of more. I know there are lots of part plants in Mexico.
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
GM makes cars and truck in at least two assembly plants in Oshawa, Ontario. Chrysler has an assembly plant Brampton, Ontario. Ford has an assembly plant in St. Thomas, Ontario. Dodge Rams are made in Saltillo, Mexico. I'm sure someone else can think of more. I know there are lots of part plants in Mexico.

Toyota has plants in Canada (Cambridge and Woodstock) and Mexico (TJ) as well.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
So the UAW membership is down. I figure that the United Steelwokers is probably down also. What UAW doesnt see is that the future union membership base is not in the private sector where merit counts but in the public sector where merit has no bearing on your job. Just look at the growth of SEIU over that past few years.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I out this in the anti-unuion thread because I believe Whirlpool used to have a union.

Apparently they no longer do as unions would not normally tolerate this kind of employee abuse:

4-23-2008 Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking

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

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.

"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.
===============================
The slippery slopes gets steeper everyday
 

tw1164

Diamond Member
Dec 8, 1999
3,995
0
76
In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.

They should have just paid the extra $500.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.

How is it different from stealing $500? Not much.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.

How is it different from stealing $500? Not much.

Depends on where that 500 goes. Typically when you sign up for insurance you will get a higher rate if you claim to be a smoker or heavy alcohol user. The reason is simple. You are a higher risk for a claim due to your bad habits. If the company claims you a smoker chances are they will have a higher rate and the 500 is used to offset the costs of the higher premium. Now if they are just pocketing the cash, then yeah, it is no more than ripping them off.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.

How is it different from stealing $500? Not much.
So go work elsewhere. If the company has to pay more because of the number of smokers, the smokers should pay for it.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.

How is it different from stealing $500? Not much.

Depends on where that 500 goes. Typically when you sign up for insurance you will get a higher rate if you claim to be a smoker or heavy alcohol user. The reason is simple. You are a higher risk for a claim due to your bad habits. If the company claims you a smoker chances are they will have a higher rate and the 500 is used to offset the costs of the higher premium. Now if they are just pocketing the cash, then yeah, it is no more than ripping them off.

so what i they pocket the money? it cost the company more on insurance (they do pay part of your insurance) to have you smoke. they get a discount for non-smokers (so does the worker).

they lied. now they are not eligable for the discount.

to me its the workers stealing from the company.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I out this in the anti-unuion thread because I believe Whirlpool used to have a union.

Apparently they no longer do as unions would not normally tolerate this kind of employee abuse:

4-23-2008 Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking

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

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.

"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.
===============================
The slippery slopes gets steeper everyday

Half-truth much?

They signed up as non-smokers on the company's health plan, which saved them $500 a year on health insurance. They were caught smoking... not just once, but repeatedly. They lied. Company has a policy against fraudelnt paperwork or some such. They are following company policy.

FWIW, if their policy works like ours, then the Maytag was being thiefed, not the insurance company. The insurance company works off of group rates, pools, and past experience. The company probably incents employees not to smoke by lowering their rates. Employees lied to get the $500. I'd fire them for a lack of integrity. I wouldnt want liars working for me either.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure the point of that story. Smoking employers cost the company more, the company asked them to confirm they weren't smoking or else pay $500/year more, they lied got caught and got suspended.

How is it different from stealing $500? Not much.
So go work elsewhere. If the company has to pay more because of the number of smokers, the smokers should pay for it.

I think he was agreeing with you Skoorb :)
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.

great idea. now insurance will only cover you while at wor and since your family does not work there they are screwed.




edit: it really suprises me when people are this ignorant.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.

I would guess a couple arguements would be...

a) Health insurance is not something a company has to provide. You want it? You gotta play by company rules.

b) These employees were foolish enough to use tobacco on company property. On the clock or not, you can just do whatever you want on someone else's property and have no consequences.

c) Insurance companies govern what you can and cant do (by the claims they allow) all the time... I cant go skydiving, die, and expect my life insurance to pay off.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Depends on where that 500 goes. Typically when you sign up for insurance you will get a higher rate if you claim to be a smoker or heavy alcohol user. The reason is simple. You are a higher risk for a claim due to your bad habits. If the company claims you a smoker chances are they will have a higher rate and the 500 is used to offset the costs of the higher premium. Now if they are just pocketing the cash, then yeah, it is no more than ripping them off.

No it doesnt.

a) it isnt paying $500 more, its NOT getting a $500 discount. You have to sign up to get the $500 discount. If you are are a NON-smoker and dont sign up, no discount for you.

b) they lied. It doesnt matter where the money is going. They knew the rules, they lied, and they got caught. They are lucky they werent fired on the spot.

Sorry... it isnt "ends justifies the means here" and they arent Robin Hood. They didnt play by the rules when they agreed to.. they lose.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.

It wasn't Whirlpool, it was their health insurer. And it is common for insurance companies to offer "tobacco-free" discounts.
And it wasn't their time off, they were caught smoking on company property.

I would argue that this provides yet another reason why employers should not be dictating our health care (does your employer dictate your car insurance? of course not), but at the same time these idiots lied on their benefit paperwork, smoked openly on company property despite that, all for $500/year that they wouldn't have even had to pay taxes on.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.

It wasn't Whirlpool, it was their health insurer. And it is common for insurance companies to offer "tobacco-free" discounts.
And it wasn't their time off, they were caught smoking on company property.

I would argue that this provides yet another reason why employers should not be dictating our health care (does your employer dictate your car insurance? of course not), but at the same time these idiots lied on their benefit paperwork, smoked openly on company property despite that, all for $500/year that they wouldn't have even had to pay taxes on.

Actually they do if you have to drive a personal vehicle for work purposes :p
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I have no problem with this. It pisses me off that I pay the same health premiums as someone who smokes a few packs a day. I am essentially subsidizing their smoking habit, because it's likely they are going to be a much bigger burden on the insurance company than I am.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I have no problem with this. It pisses me off that I pay the same health premiums as someone who smokes a few packs a day. I am essentially subsidizing their smoking habit, because it's likely they are going to be a much bigger burden on the insurance company than I am.

I agree(and I still smoke ATM). I also think that health premiums should be higher for those who live unhealthy lifestyles - which is not limited to smoking. Why should the guy in the next cube pay the same as me when he is a heart attack waiting to happen? Of the guy who lets his diabetes rage out of control when it could be controlled with a healthier diet and exercise?

 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I have no problem with this. It pisses me off that I pay the same health premiums as someone who smokes a few packs a day. I am essentially subsidizing their smoking habit, because it's likely they are going to be a much bigger burden on the insurance company than I am.

oh? you mean Medicare right?
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I have no problem with this. It pisses me off that I pay the same health premiums as someone who smokes a few packs a day. I am essentially subsidizing their smoking habit, because it's likely they are going to be a much bigger burden on the insurance company than I am.

oh? you mean Medicare right?

Thats another discussion.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Personally, I very much wonder if a company can regulate what a worker does on their time off. So if a company says you must be tobacco use free 24/7/365, they are in effect saying the employee works for them, 24/7/365. And since overtime laws kick in after 40 hours a week, we are talking big bucks now if that distinction is made.

It wasn't Whirlpool, it was their health insurer. And it is common for insurance companies to offer "tobacco-free" discounts.
And it wasn't their time off, they were caught smoking on company property.

I would argue that this provides yet another reason why employers should not be dictating our health care (does your employer dictate your car insurance? of course not), but at the same time these idiots lied on their benefit paperwork, smoked openly on company property despite that, all for $500/year that they wouldn't have even had to pay taxes on.

Employers dont dictate your health insurance. They offer an environment where health insurance can be obtained at a cheaper rate than obtaining it individually. Often, they subsidize those premiums even further.

I dont see how that is dictating coverage. You can take it... or leave it. It is your choice.