Liars getting fired

[357 mag]

good point Bubba.

[wordsmythe]

Not really. It's breech of contract any way you spell it out.

[jeezeweeze]

First tobacco then twinkies..... after all we can't have any ugly habits/cravings.

Just a matter of time

[Tee]

Corporations commonly, as part of acceptable behavior, either lie or hide the truth about earnings, employment stability, advancement, impending layoffs, etc, all the time, to their employees and it's perfectly okay. You would never hear of a corporation firing an executive for lying to 100's of his cronies and telling them that their job is secure (when they know that downsizing is slated to happen). Hell, they are the ones giving the marching orders "to lie" to their employees.

It's too bad it's not a two-way street.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

It's a good thing Congress doesn't fire those who lie....The building would be empty. Hillary would NEVER have a job again.

Originally Posted by Bubba

To get it back on track.... Did anybody ever think that at the time they filled out the papers and signed them that they didn't smoke or use tobacco, then at a later time, for whatever reason, they started smoking or using tobacco? Is there anything in the papers they signed that says they have to inform them when they start a new hobby/habit?

Why would you want to get it back on track? Don't you know that it seems mandatory that every thread here on DB can be used to slam the democrats and Hilary?

Seriously though, I agree with Tee. I like the idea of holding the employees accountable for lying, but it has to be a two way street. You have to hold the higher-ups accountable for their lies and mistakes also.

[WizardofOz]

I am just waiting for the day when your employer wants a DNA sample so the health and life insurance companies can rate you based on risk of heart attack, stroke, blood pressure, addiction probability, and general life expectancy. Take it even a step further and create a whole new type of discrimination....like the movie Gattaca.

[K C Muffin]

Smoking or not has a big impact on premiums paid for health coverage. So it doesn't surprise me that the company fired those who "storied" on their health app. If the insurer wanted to, they can revoke coverage for the entire group based on the "lies" of a few. It's a big deal. We haven't gone to that extent yes, but the Pres quit smoking a few years ago and has offered to pay part of the cost of programs to help employees quit. That offer doesn't have anything to do with the cost of health insurance, though - it has more to do with his desire to make his employees healthier.

[Flying Dutchman]

I had to take a swab test before getting my insurance to test for nicotene or whatever. Question is------if they start smoking AFTER getting the insurance is it still a breach?

[Army_Strong]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

I am just waiting for the day when your employer wants a DNA sample so the health and life insurance companies can rate you based on risk of heart attack, stroke, blood pressure, addiction probability, and general life expectancy. Take it even a step further and create a whole new type of discrimination....like the movie Gattaca.

My employer does require a DNA sample.

[K C Muffin]

That would be something to prove. Hard to tell when you started smoking. But if a person TAKES a job that has a no-smoking requirement, don't you think that would be on their mind? I dunno...I don't know many adults who smoke who started smoking in their 20's.