39 Whirlpool workers suspended over smoking lies
A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Indiana, 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.
read rest of article here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/23/suspended.smokers.ap/index.html
(On one hand, I feel bad for these people. On the other hand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you sign insurance paperwork with your employer certifying that you don't smoke, you should probably refrain from smoking a cig in the break room while on the job. Its not like these people were busted at home or forced to take a blood test.)
The next question companies will ask is, do you use alcohol? Then, it will be, are you overweight or eat fatty foods? The final question will be, do you believe in God and do you go to church regularly?
Wait until the laws change at the state level, to allow insurance companies to legally collect and use all information pertaining to risk factors. Married people live longer, so your marriage status will be legally considered. Etc. This can only be expected in Corporatized America. Business needs will trump any other concerns ... and those business needs turn into business profits, which turn into campaign contributions and other such bribes.
where my husband works they rarely hire smokers, although they don't come right out and say that. they also several times a year do random drug tests, and health screenings twice a year. the screenings are pretty elaborate, and they tell you what you should to to improve your health.
And yet again, Whirlpool cited how much more costly it is to insure smokers - which are false & unfair statistics, because there's a lot of proof that overweight people cost far more than smokers in medical expenses - and yet, none of these companies seem to do the fair thing & fire overweight employees (or those who drink). Just one more example of making the smokers the bad guys by saying they cost more in medical costs - just a blatent lie. So easy to find accurate statistics - they all say overweight people cost more. It's just politically correct to single out smokers.
A letter to the editor of the Blade today (Thursday, 4-24) spouts the same nonsense, and cites to the dollar how much more smokers cost than non-smokers. But nowhere do they discuss the costs of overweight people. Also, the numbers they cited are so far wrong it's laughable. I've smoked a very long time and have never had a medical problem due to smoking, and I know many smokers who can say the same. In fact, I don't know any smoker who's died because they smoked. My uncle is dying - of Berrilum (sp) poisoning from where he used to work decades ago - and he smoked heavy for most of his life - but it's not the smoking that is killing him. My grandmother died of emphasima (sp) - never smoked a day in her life or was around shs - ever. Life is a crap shoot - you either are predisposed to cancer or you are not (big theory) - or, (it's this 'or' that is the operative word to keep you all off my ass over this post) - cancer can be caused by so many other things in our daily life that have nothing to do with shs or smoking - and yet, they like to blame it all on smoking.
At any rate, It's unconstitutional to tell employees what they may do in the privacy of their off or home time. And, how do they know these employees 'lied' about being smokers? Who knows off the top of their heads when they see employees on breaks - who's lied for insurance & who has not? They'd have had to be on a witch hunt & looked into every employee they saw smoking - what their insurance policy said.
I also found it very interesting (a different letter to the editor, same day - referring to Strickland seizing tobacco funds) - that the writer seemed more concerned about the jobs that may be lost due to the taking of the tobacco funds (and she listed all the job catagories - said hundreds of people could lose their jobs in they didn't have this tobacco fund money to pay salaries, programs, to educate kids to 'not smoke'. I honestly have to wonder, what they need millions of dollars for - to educate kids that smoking is not good for them. Realistically - it's a no brainer. Ask ANY kid, of ANY age if they think smoking is good or bad for you & they will be quick to say it's not good for you & why. Kids already KNOW this - so it seems to me, the antis only want this tobacco fund money to save their crappy little jobs.
On another similar note - I found the article (below) about a new 'promising' smoking cessation drug - blathered on a bit about it (works on brain receptors - I dont know I feel comfortable with drugs playing around with my brain receptors) - but the final paragraph summed up exactly where they were going with this article & this new drug - that it will earn the pharmacutical company something like 500 million dollars in sales if approved. Just struck me as not what the article was supposed to be about (saving lives & health issues) - not net profits for the drug companies.
****************************************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/49lmtb
New Drugs May Aid Smoking Cessation
Researchers are racing to develop a potentially lucrative drug that
would make smoking as treatable as erectile dysfunction, high
cholesterol and acid reflux disease, according to The New York Times.
Major pharmaceutical companies and small startups see the potential
for billions of dollars in sales for a vaccine or a nicotine-free
pill that could end addiction at the chemical level for America's 50
million smokers, the Times report stated.
In Connecticut, researchers at Pfizer Inc. identified a brain
receptor to which nicotine binds and designed a drug, varenicline,
which latches to the same site. Varenicline is in Phase III testing,
normally the last step before a company applies for approval from the
Food and Drug Administration.
Researchers hope that the drug will attach to nicotine receptors in
the brain, preventing overpowering cravings from setting in when
someone stops smoking, the Times reported.
If varenicline's claims hold up, the drug could generate more than
$500 million a year in sales, said David Moskowitz, an analyst with
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co.