For the purposes of this examination, let's set aside the fact that you can find reliable clinical research that shows that tobacco smokers cost the insurance industry less over their lifetimes than svelte nonsmokers do. This is simply due to the fact that we tend to die sooner. But that's a matter of insurance industry/government/pharmaceutical hijinx, to possibly discuss another time.

That aside, the item I'm bringing forward today is how the issue of lying smokers should be pursued by Whirlpool Corp.(NYSE: WHR). I'll not take issue against Whirlpool's insurance plan demanding a different level of premium payment from smokers. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool asking smokers to document their participation in the addiction. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool taking action against smokers who lied when claiming that they don't smoke. What I do argue against is the ludicrous notion that Whirlpool employees have turned on one another. It appears that's what the company expects us to believe.

Whirlpool management wants you to believe that they had 39 instances of one employee reporting another for serving their nicotine addiction in violation of what should be a confidential declaration of status. Whirlpool expects you to believe that these company "rats" know which smokers lied on their paper work and which didn't. Whirlpool expects you to believe that all policy violators are of hourly status and that violations by management staff either don't exist or aren't yet worth pursuing. Whirlpool expects us to believe that the company itself wasn't at the root of this all.

A recent ruling handed down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has given employers discretion in using Medicare eligibility as a factor when calculating health care benefits for retired employees, as reported by Marketplace. The AARP had raised a stink about the issue claiming that having employers shift health care costs to Medicare when applicable amounted to age discrimination. My question is, if the level of care and benefits remains the same, who really cares from what direction the bills are paid? If employers carry the burden then we all see it in our bottom line. If the government pays for it, then we all see it in our tax load. The end effect to us as a society is basically the same.

This decision reaffirms in part exactly what Medicare was intended to do. The system has two major intents. First and foremost, Medicare is meant to fill the gap in cases where health care coverage is lacking. Secondly, Medicare is intended to help free the business world from the administration of benefits for people who no longer participate as an active part of their work force.

If the level of actual benefits is in no way reduced and the process of accessing those benefits is in no way hampered, then there's no room to gripe about employers shifting the burden. In fact, this kind of move is exactly what American business needs right now. However, if this decision in any way dilutes the benefits that hard working people have bargained their working careers for, then the AARP has an extremely valid argument and they desire to have that argument tested by the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas granted class-action status to truck drivers accusing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) of using racially discriminatory practices in hiring drivers, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The suit will include all black applicants in the U.S. who were denied driving jobs since September 22, 2001, and those who say they were denied or prevented from applying for a driving job as a result of Wal-Mart's policies.

U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson Jr. said that Wal-Mart drivers were screened by a committee of drivers. The judge noted that none of the screening committees had a majority of African Americans while some committees lacked any, despite a company rule that the panels be 50% diverse.

The class-action suit is expected to include less than 10,000 people. Plaintiffs looking for punitive damages would need to separately file a suit after the class-action case, according to the ruling.

It seems that discrimination continues to affect the working man. This case reminds me of the recent FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) racial discrimination settlement (as well as the one in 2005). The suit alleged that FedEx Express discriminated against African American and Hispanic workers by paying them less than Caucasian workers, passing them over for promotion and treating them unfairly in evaluation and disciplinary proceedings.

While FedEx had denied committing any acts of racial discrimination, there was a $53.5 million payout to make the case go away. On the day of the settlement, FedEx shares were barely hurt, down 57 cents that morning. I expect Wal-Mart to look for a settlement and its shares to experience the same treatment as FedEx's on the news.

Memphis-based FedEx Corp. (NYSE:FDX) is not only the world's #1 express courier, but has been called a bellwether of the U.S. economy. So it will be interesting to see what happens when FedEx reports quarterly earnings on March 21.

• Did you know that FedEx once delivered a pair of giant pandas from Beijing, China, to Memphis, Tennessee?

According to Thomson Financial, the consensus estimate is for FedEx to announce Q3 2007 revenue of $8.7 billion, with earnings per share of $1.33. In the previous quarter, actual revenue was $8.9 billion, with EPS of $1.89. However, the early consensus estimate for Q4 2007 (the quarter ending in May) has EPS at $2.04.

The consensus recommendation for FedEx is buy (seven analysts say strong buy, six say buy, and seven say hold), with a price target of $125.15 (individual targets ranging from 100 to 144). Shares opened Wednesday at $112.20; the 52-week high was $121.42 in November, and the 52-week low was $97.79 in August.

• FedEx has the second largest fleet of planes in the world, and its planes are named after the children of employees.

On the minds of FedEx investors and watchers in these days leading up to the Q3 2007 report has to be the lackluster Q2 report back in December. Also, that FedEx announced recently a somewhat controversial plan to cap pensions, and that a judge has allowed a discrimination lawsuit brought by independent contractors to proceed.