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

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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?

We offer that very same discount at work. We offer one for no-tobacco, and another for "healthy lifestyles" in which you ahve to pass 2 of 3 health screenings to get the discount (and the bar is raised every year).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

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.

So I can pay twice as much and can't write it off until the premiums exceed 7.5% of my adjusted gross.... right, no "dictating" there. No need to even get into the fact that getting coverage outside employer-provided is frequently impossible due to health restrictions, etc.

It's not "choice" when the deck is intentionally stacked against you. It's not a free market either.

 

[1EZduzit]

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.

Fair enough, but then let's be fair and eliminate the cigarette tax that 2 pack a day smoker is paying. Currently the average tobacco tax is 13 cents per cigarette.

Average tobacco tax now 13¢ per cigarette, CMA reports

That works out to be $2.60/pack, over $5/day for that 2 pack a day smoker your complaining about, or almost $1900/year.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

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.

Fairt enough, but then let's be fair and eliminate the cigarette tax that 2 pack a day smoker is paying. Currently the average tobacco tax is 13 cents per cigarette.

Average tobacco tax now 13¢ per cigarette, CMA reports

That works out to be $2.60/pack so figurre $5/day for that 2 pack a day smoker your complaining about, or almost $1900/year.

All for it. We should also stop penalizing people for being financially successful... but that wont happen either, so we just gotta live with it.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

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.

So I can pay twice as much and can't write it off until the premiums exceed 7.5% of my adjusted gross.... right, no "dictating" there. No need to even get into the fact that getting coverage outside employer-provided is frequently impossible due to health restrictions, etc.

It's not "choice" when the deck is intentionally stacked against you. It's not a free market either.

You do have valid points... but that doesnt make employer-provided health care dictatorial... it just makes it a much smarter decision on your part. If it all comes down to dollars and cents, then you need to decide which option is cheaper for you. That is how you make choices. Employers dont dictate your health care choices. They just make group coverage MUCH more attractive. Sounds like they are doing something good for the employees. There is nothing that requires them to do that... but then you would complain that they dont offer a health plan. So... damned if they do... damned if they dont. You wouldnt want socialized medical care by chance would you?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

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.

Fairt enough, but then let's be fair and eliminate the cigarette tax that 2 pack a day smoker is paying. Currently the average tobacco tax is 13 cents per cigarette.

Average tobacco tax now 13¢ per cigarette, CMA reports

That works out to be $2.60/pack so figure $5/day for that 2 pack a day smoker your complaining about, or almost $1900/year.

All for it. We should also stop penalizing people for being financially successful... but that wont happen either, so we just gotta live with it.

One has nothing to do with the other.

This is about making cigarette smokers pay more for their helath insurance and pay more then their fair share of taxes because they smoke. It has nothing whatsoever to do with income, which is what I assume your trying to imply.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

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.

So I can pay twice as much and can't write it off until the premiums exceed 7.5% of my adjusted gross.... right, no "dictating" there. No need to even get into the fact that getting coverage outside employer-provided is frequently impossible due to health restrictions, etc.

It's not "choice" when the deck is intentionally stacked against you. It's not a free market either.

You do have valid points... but that doesnt make employer-provided health care dictatorial... it just makes it a much smarter decision on your part. If it all comes down to dollars and cents, then you need to decide which option is cheaper for you. That is how you make choices. Employers dont dictate your health care choices. They just make group coverage MUCH more attractive. Sounds like they are doing something good for the employees. There is nothing that requires them to do that... but then you would complain that they dont offer a health plan. So... damned if they do... damned if they dont. You wouldnt want socialized medical care by chance would you?

No, I don't. :roll:

Should I use smaller words so you can understand? You already have "socialized" medical care. The govt, both directly through subsidy and indirectly through tax breaks (let's not even get into the fact that Medicare pays close to 50% of all medical costs in the US as it is), already pays a portion of your medical care, but if and only IF you get it through an employer, which is why their provided coverage costs less. That is what I'm complaining about.
Please read up on the history of medical care in the US, eh? All this goes back to around WWII. The govt. started subsidizing "the blues" so that war contractors could compete with the unions.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, I don't. :roll:

Should I use smaller words so you can understand? You already have "socialized" medical care. The govt, both directly through subsidy and indirectly through tax breaks (let's not even get into the fact that Medicare pays close to 50% of all medical costs in the US as it is), already pays a portion of your medical care, but if and only IF you get it through an employer, which is why their provided coverage costs less. That is what I'm complaining about.
Please read up on the history of medical care in the US, eh? All this goes back to around WWII. The govt. started subsidizing "the blues" so that war contractors could compete with the unions.

I dont think I have been condescending with you, I would appreciate the same courtesy. Thank you.

Ah... NOW I see your angle. There are a LOT of things that are socialized via that interpretation, including child care, mortgage insurance, charitable contributions, farms, etc. I would agree with you on that line of thought. What is the answer then?

 

[Vic]

If I seem condescending, it's because I already gave it. Open up the system. Take it away from employer control. If it must be subsidized, then give those subsidies to the people to spend, not for their employers to control. Then this Whirlpool thing wouldn't even be an issue. Nor would anyone but the smokers be worried about smokers having to pay more.

BTW, something along these lines is what all 3 of the candidate propose to do. Despite your protestations in the other thread, there are no UHC proposals on the table, except that Hillary occasionally likes to give that label to her plan to force everyone to buy private health insurance (and garnish your wages if you don't).

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic
If I seem condescending, it's because I already gave it. Open up the system. Take it away from employer control. If it must be subsidized, then give those subsidies to the people to spend, not for their employers to control. Then this Whirlpool thing wouldn't even be an issue. Nor would anyone but the smokers be worried about smokers having to pay more.

BTW, something along these lines is what all 3 of the candidate propose to do. Despite your protestations in the other thread, there are no UHC proposals on the table, except that Hillary occasionally likes to give that label to her plan to force everyone to buy private health insurance (and garnish your wages if you don't).

I would only add that you cant (shouldnt) pick and chose. Government substidizes a lot of things. If you want to strip out all subsidizations, good. If you only want to pick on health care, then I would ask why not everything else? For that matter, scrap the IRS and start over. There has to be a simpler way.

We can be friends Vic... even if you are smarter and more educated than I am.

 

[bctbct]

Paying more for insurance because you smlke is a scam. It raises the profits not decreases the premiums.

If a person works at a company for 10 years and has no smoking related illnesses...the extra premium is pure profit.

Just another way to kick smokers.

 

[BoberFett]

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

Government forcing private business owners to ban smoking is A-OK, but private companies firing people for partaking in the same activity is not? Dave? A hypocrite? Tell me it ain't so!