Smoking (and lying about it) could cost you your job
Filed under: Insurance, Ripoffs and Scams, Health
Yesterday it was reported that Whirlpool Corp. suspended 39 employees for lying about tobacco use. The employees had signed paperwork indicating that they did not use tobacco, but they were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. The company's stance is simple: They have employees fill out paperwork that asks them about tobacco use. The paperwork says that they could be suspended or terminated if they lie. Whirlpool then uses the paper to charge tobacco users an extra $500 per year toward their health insurance premiums.
Personally, I don't care if people smoke or not. But I do care if they lie to their employer about it. The simple fact is that health insurance premiums are higher for tobacco users. The reasons are obvious: They cost insurance companies more. I think that employer should have every right to recover part or all of that additional premium based upon the smoking factor.
Now of course, this raises the issue of what employees should be held responsible for in regard to their health. Sicker people mean higher insurance premiums, so where do we draw the line? Who pays for the higher cost of medical conditions that are not the sick person's fault? I'm not quite sure. But I do know that for many years, employees were spoiled.
They had the benefit of health insurance policies that required them to pay very little out of their own pockets for their health care. There was little incentive to be responsible with health care, and it cost companies a lot of money. (What is "responsible" health care, you ask? Things like eating and living well to prevent illness, visiting a doctor for preventive health care measures and choosing to visit a doctor during office hours rather than running to an emergency room on the weekend.)
Health insurance premiums are costing companies far more money than many employees realize. Companies must move toward more consumer-driven health care options which force employees to be as responsible as possible with their health care choices. And forcing tobacco users to pay more for their more expensive insurance policies is right in line with giving employees incentives to live healthier lives.
I think the Whirlpool employees who were caught lying on their paperwork should have two choices. They can be fired. Or they can reimburse their employer for the full cost of their health insurance premiums since the day they lied, and be responsible for paying the full cost of their health insurance premiums going forward. Forcing dishonest employees to bear the burden of their own health insurance costs would certainly send a message, wouldn't it?
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.
Recent Posts
- Stop your wife's expensive shoe habit with this T-shirt! (1/09/2009)
- The Job Hunt: No, you're not imagining it - unemployment gets worse (1/09/2009)
- Princeton slashes budget as endowment tanks (1/09/2009)
- Analysts say unemployment makes a bad year to buy a home (1/09/2009)
- Mayor defends city buying himself a gas guzzling Hummer (1/09/2009)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-23-2008 @ 3:17PM
Jack (SFC: 4983 4617 3409) said...
What if a person takes up smoking after they are employed? Would the "right" thing to do be to tell the employer?
Or what if one smokes rarely? Do they deserve the full $500.00 addition to their premium?
I'm not defending the caught employee by the way. I can't believe they were stupid enough to smoke at work anyway. I don't understand why we're even allowed to use drugs at work at all.
Reply
4-23-2008 @ 4:51PM
Tracy Coenen said...
Yes, and yes.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 5:00PM
Isis said...
What if employees were seen smoking off the job and off company property?
Do you test them for nicotine?
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 3:09PM
Tracy Coenen said...
Yes!
5-01-2008 @ 7:08PM
Isis said...
You are correst in saying that employees should be truthful. I am particularly interested in this situation because I am the Wellness Director in a company whose leader wants to nicotine test all employees with insurance who say they are nonsmokers just to catch the few who may be lying...mainly because one or two of them were spotted smoking in one of the company parking lots on company time. Again I stand by my remarks that to do this openly is brazen and opositional, but I am concerned that the nicotine testing policy will have a very negative effect on morale and will divide what is now a fairly unified and cohesive staff. I am hesitant to spearhead such an initiative since this company is in one of the "29 states" mentioned in my previous entry. My concern is a potential legal mess.
Reply
5-05-2008 @ 2:50PM
Isis said...
There are 29 states (including Indiana) that protect employees from their employer interfering with legal off the job activities, which includes smoking. How does a company get around that law as well as HIPAA, ADA, and even the 4th admendment if they start nicotine testing people who were allegedly seen buying cigarettes or lighting up in their living room on a Saturday night? Are companies supposed to hire smoking police? Or have employees tell on one another?
Isn't that what they did in old Communist Russia?
I too think the Whirlpool employees were brazen and openly oppositional by using tobacco during work hours, but where does a company's control over their employees lives begin and end?
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 5:21PM
Tracy Coenen said...
They're not "getting around it" at all. They're not telling any employees that they're not allowed to smoke.
All they're doing is requiring smokers to pay part of their increased cost of insurance. (Incidentally, paid health insurance is a perk of jobs... something not required, but kindly paid by the employers anyway.)
And they're just asking employees to be honest when filling out forms.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect these employees to pay for their higher insurance premiums. Smoking is a choice.
5-05-2008 @ 3:00PM
Isis said...
My entry dated 5/05/08 was originally posted on 4/30/08 and answered the same date. Sorry, I'm sure I hit a wrong key or sometrhing to make that happen(that is the date change from 4/30 to 5/05)...just didn't want anyone who is following to be confused.
Reply
5-05-2008 @ 3:03PM
Tracy Coenen said...
It's the mystery of our blogging software. It happens all the time, and I have no idea why. :)
Reply