your name here

Whirlpool Suspends 39 Employees For Using Tobacco

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/whirlpool-suspends-39-emp_n_
98136.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5osogf

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

the big n

Make sure you're standing in line when they hand out the brown shirts.
LOL!!

Speaking of "firing", it's time for The BIG N to fire one up. Thanks
for the reminder, Her Name.

your name here

I wonder whose job it is to watch the smokers and compare them to
the list of non-smokers?

Hey, "Big N" could stand for "Big Narc" when you become an
undercover smoker for a big corporation.

Your mom would be so happy, finally a reason for you to
leave the house!

Hey dude,
You smoked in front of Hitler or Himler, they sent you to the Russian
front - where you could smoke all you wanted to. A pretty fair deal.
I hope those guys loose their benefits, their jobs, their houses,
their families, etc.....

norm

And I'm sure some out there think this has something to do with smoking. Its
about fraud. If they signed a paper saying one thing and the opposite is
true, they are liars. They willingly mislead the other party to a contract
in order to achieve a financial advantage. People go to jail for that sort
of thing all the time. If they were willing to do that what would stop them
from more traditional forms of theft? If you were an employer wouldn't you
do everything you could to rid yourself of dishonest employees?

robert

You idolize those guys, don't you?

Then they'll close to you in the unemployment line.

shawn hirn

You make a good point, but the lie they attempted to purport is born out
of their nicotine addiction and their desire to hide it from their
employer.

robert

The company lied when it said smokers submit more health care claims, and the opposite is
true. The company willingly misled workres to a (unilateral) contract in order to achieve
a financial advantage. Unions are formed all the time to defend against that sort of
thing. If the company is willing to do that, what would stop it from destroying the town's
economy by moving the jobs offshore? If you were an employee, wouldn't you do everything
you could to resist such exploitation?

norm

they don't use tobacco and then were


Based on one questionable study of 1300 people you had to go all the ay to
Japan to dig up versus a myriad of contradictory studies (including some
figures you have presented yourself) and plain old common sense?


The company did not say they were doing one thing then do the opposite
behind the workers backs.
The workers in question did.

If nothing else the company rid itself of some incredibly stupid people. If
your job description siad you were expected to wear white all the time,
would you get up in the morning and put on your black shirt to come to work?
Why wouldn't they at least make an effort to hide the fact they were smoking?

These were manufacturing jobs. Are you saying they did not have a union?


The town's economy is not the company's responsibility. The blame for moving
jobs offshore lies with the governments who allow or create conditions
favourable to this change. The companies job is create a return on investment.


Predictably, their method of resisting this "exploitation" was not
particularily effective, was it?

malcolm

Robert told a whopper when he wrote this:

"Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are
addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, *** addicts
are addicted to ***, food addicts are addicted to food or religion
addicts are addicted to religion." -
Robert, April 15, 2008