SignificantOwner
A Package Center Manager
It's Obama's boot on the throat of UPS and the middle class and in turn UPS's boot on the throat of employees. You don't believe only management will take a hit do you?
Management that smokes, 3 days until cold turkey
- Thread starter texan
- Start date
It's Obama's boot on the throat of UPS and the middle class and in turn UPS's boot on the throat of employees. You don't believe only management will take a hit do you?
SignificantOwner
A Package Center Manager
If you are a smoker forced to quit or you decide to pay the surcharge what do you do when you see or hear of a "non-smoker" having a cigar on the golf course or at a card game? How about when you see a coworker have a social cigarette at a bar? They are considered tobacco users according to the faqs and they have to pay the monthly surcharge. The tobacco use rate higher than the 19% claimed by UPS. Know who your friends are?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
You should assume anyone at UPS is not your friend ... especially if UPS may discipline employees for not reporting an act such as smoking off the job.
I would assume UPS takes this position since this falls broadly (OK, very broadly) under dishonesty.
I saw nothing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
SignificantOwner
A Package Center Manager
I don't smoke or chew one single bit. No surcharge for me this year. If you think down the line on this though the behavior control aspect of Obamacare is very concerning. But bitter? No.
Bagels
Family Leave Fridays!!!
Until you have supporting evidence, it remains a logical fallacy. As IBT and the IAM covers the economics for the hourly workforce, yes, I believe management will bear the hit. The 'hits' to IBT and IAM will likely be job loss through increased productivity, but churn "protects" incumbent employees from economic hits.
UPS (as other companies has done) could arrange for routine health screenings to look for signs tobacco usage. Employers have paid billions in health care premiums & claims related to issues deriving from tobacco usage. True casual smokers (those that you described) aren't the contributors to this problem. And yes, I know people who claim to have quit smoking yet puff on one cigarette a day believing (for whatever reason) it does not count. But these people are easily identified in health screenings.
Smokers are an easy target because they're easily identifiable. Although many alcoholics develop health problems, most don't display easily identifiable signs. Hence why some insurers ask to disclose DUI, rehab, or other alcohol-related incidents, in identifying alcoholics to penalize.
blee1105
Member
forget health screenings
UPS'ers that currently smoke won't have to worry about health screenings, they will have to worry about management. I'm no genius, but I can definitely see an initiative for management to find employees that still smoke. A few dollars for them, and $150 a month for the employee.
UPS'ers that currently smoke won't have to worry about health screenings, they will have to worry about management. I'm no genius, but I can definitely see an initiative for management to find employees that still smoke. A few dollars for them, and $150 a month for the employee.
SignificantOwner
A Package Center Manager
Tobacco users are an easy target because of the law (obamacare). Obamacare only allows insurers to charge premium rates for four reasons:
1) Age
2) Location
3) Family composition
4) Tobacco use
UPS has chosen to go after tobacco users and they have specifically said that casual tobacco users are included in this group. Alcohol use is not on the list so I don't understand the relevance.
UnconTROLLed
perfection
Yeah, of course I do not believe that only management will take a hit in the longer run. But again, I do think this latest move is a litmus test more than anything else. The Obamacare spin definitely contains some brown koolaid there. The same corporate criminals who likely warned management to vote for Romney or else
(Ironically, Romneycare of all people)Seems far more political internally than anyone I've talked to at work wants to reach for, maybe I'm wrong.
worldwide
Well-Known Member
It will only be a matter of time before TeamCare has the same rules and union smokers will have to pay a smoking surcharge. TeamCare is not immune to higher healthcare costs. If anyone thinks this will not happen to union employees, they have a home address located in fantasy land
UnconTROLLed
perfection
Did you bother to read my post before spouting off?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
It appears he read your post at #120.
It appears that he did not reply to your post at #130 while you thought he did.
Buck Fifty
Well-Known Member
Its absolutely the hardest thing ive ever TRIED to do. I thought when cigs went up, i would stop. Nope, never did. At 5 dollars a day,150 dollars a month, and ....wait let me get this lit....1800 dollars a year, im still at it. Maybe this would help me. Prob not. Smoke em if ya got em.
Seriously, i need to quit though.
Seriously, i need to quit though.
worldwide
Well-Known Member
Things aren't always how they appear - I was responding to post #120. Hoaxster was correct as he posted in #134. Lighten up Francis.
Bagels
Family Leave Fridays!!!
As I previously wrote, I'm limiting the scope of my discussion to five years (the life of the CBA). My supplement clearly indicates that co-premiums will not be imposed. Although it's expected that the monies received by TeamCare will be sufficient in sustaining coverage over the life over the CBA, IBT is permitted to divert a portion of our raises toward our health care should funding become insufficient. Thus, I have no problem in having persons that participate in easily identifiable high-risk activities such as smoking pay a premium. After all, people who choose to speed pay higher auto insurance, right? But per the CBA, it won't happen.
worldwide
Well-Known Member
Maybe but there are a lot of highly paid lawyers out there and they may be able to introduce something that is not defined as a "co-premium" that will allow TeamCare to introduce an additional charge for smokers within the next five years. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but it would not surprise me in the least to see some kind of "lifestyle surcharge" introduced that can still be spun to fit within the guidelines of the CBA and perhaps will cite Obamacare as being the basis of the decision. Time will tell.
S
