So the auditor shows up......

[skunked]

to view our payroll records for our workers comp policies here at work. It's a perfectly normal process been done hundreds of times since I've been here.

My assistant tells me she's waiting in the conference room and that she requested a glass of water. As I go into conference room I am greeted with the smell of alcohol, red eyes, shaking hands. I made sure she had what she needed and introduced her a colleague of mine that could provide additional reports as needed. Two hours into the audit she tells my colleague she has to leave because a serviceman is at her house to do work We scheduled a 4hr window for this audit with her.

So the audit is incomplete and at this point I'm not sure if I want her back to finish it.

Do I blow the whistle?

[targa911S]

hell yeah... I would.

[KFC911]

Congrats...you just "aced" the audit . Dunno what I'd do....what do you have other than "he said, she said", and I wouldn't want an auditor to have it in for me. Don't know your details, but even if you're "sqeaky clean", seems as if she could make it difficult for you and be a royal PITA.

[Zeke]

What would have the Lubemaster done? IOW, was she hot?

I'd blow it off and see what happens. If you have to blow the whistle, wait until you hold an advantage in doing so. Don't throw out your ace for the wrong trick.

[red-beard]

If you blow any whistles, you'd better have proof!!!

[skunked]

Originally Posted by KC911

Congrats...you just "aced" the audit . Dunno what I'd do....what do you have other than "he said, she said", and I wouldn't want an auditor to have it in for me. Don't know your details, but even if you're "sqeaky clean", seems as if she could make it difficult for you and be a royal PITA.

we are squeaky clean but you're correct about them making it difficult. I don't want her on a witch hunt, I've had those types here before wasting time. However she works for a subcontracted accounting/auditing firm, not a direct employee of the insurance company.

Originally Posted by Zeke

What would have the Lubemaster done? IOW, was she hot?

I'd blow it off and see what happens. If you have to blow the whistle, wait until you hold an advantage in doing so. Don't throw out your ace for the wrong trick.

She was late 50's, well worn in. My initial thought was to let it be but I'm second guessing myself after thinking about it more. These are not small policies, some pretty major coin that in my opinion should require someone with a straight head to audit accurately.

[rusnak]

Can't you appeal to Calif. State Fund if you don't agree with the audit? I don't think I'd blow the whistle on her, but it might do her good. Hard to say, but I error on the side of "it's not my call".

[skunked]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Can't you appeal to Calif. State Fund if you don't agree with the audit? I don't think I'd blow the whistle on her, but it might do her good. Hard to say, but I error on the side of "it's not my call".

we don't have coverage through them (SCIF) however I would expect I could challenger her findings if needed. However at that point the opportunity to bring the situation to light will be gone.

[Evans, Marv]

Wasn't your colleague a witness too? Maybe an email to her company and CC the proper people?

[Baz]

QUOTE:

"Nobody likes a rat!"
~Bazza

[NY65912]

I deal with our WC carrier and have had some wierd auditors. I would call and ask for the supervisor and explain that you request another auditor because of the "irregularities" with that person. Or, you can ask for a supervisor to accompany the auditor for your audit.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Can't you appeal to Calif. State Fund if you don't agree with the audit? I don't think I'd blow the whistle on her, but it might do her good. Hard to say, but I error on the side of "it's not my call".

State Fund is not a CA state agency. I can explain further, but I don't think I should have to.

[ShakinJoe]

You just did....legally. If something happens due to her drinking you are now partially liable.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by Zeke

State Fund is not a CA state agency. I can explain further, but I don't think I should have to.

State Fund is a Ca state agency. You either buy WC through a broker or through them.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by rusnak

State Fund is a Ca state agency. You either buy WC through a broker or through them.

I don't think it is. First of all, it is an insurance entity, a non profit with no obligation to the public. I believe SF is licensed with the Dept of Ins as any other. Therefore, not a government agency.

It definitely was created by the state, but it is self supporting and not directly connected with any other state government agency.

What may be at issue here is the word "agency." In government, an agency is a function of the executive branch of government. Agencies create policy and regulation in order to carry out the laws of the state legislators. State Fund does not do that.

They are there to create balance and competition to other workers' comp insurers who operate for profit.

If you know more, please post.

[Shadetree930]

She shows up one time a little hung-over and you want to ruin her life?

C'mon .... who here has not done something incredibly stupid in their job at least once. If this were a pattern, fine, but really? Ruin her over this? Maybe her husband left her last night for their au-pair? Maybe she finally hooked up with the old BF from high-school and had a long night. Maybe her pet dog of 15 years died yesterday?

Who knows what went down with her last night?

Now .. a repeat perfomance is another thing completely.

[Joe Ricard]

You can't blow the the whistle a 2nd time unless you blow the whistle the 1st time.
email to the person's supervisor. Cover your A$$

[masraum]

Originally Posted by targa911s

hell yeah... I would.

+1

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I don't think it is. First of all, it is an insurance entity, a non profit with no obligation to the public. I believe SF is licensed with the Dept of Ins as any other. Therefore, not a government agency.

It definitely was created by the state, but it is self supporting and not directly connected with any other state government agency.

What may be at issue here is the word "agency." In government, an agency is a function of the executive branch of government. Agencies create policy and regulation in order to carry out the laws of the state legislators. State Fund does not do that.

They are there to create balance and competition to other workers' comp insurers who operate for profit.

If you know more, please post.

State Fund is there to provide access to insurance, I agree. They are run as if a separate entity from the state, I agree with that too. They were created by the state legislature. However, they are really not a real private enterprise company. They are basically controlled by California, and therefore are run quasi-public.

But here's my logic/reasoning. I am scared of the Calif Dept of Labor Relations. That is the agency that enforces WC laws and levies penalties. Sometime huge ones that put you out of business. I would avoid them at all costs. I was thinking along the lines of a more calibrated response. A neutral third party like State Fund is created as a backstop against insurance market irregularities. They can and would be happy to look over an audit and provide their opinion. You can use that to go back to the insurance broker, rather than call in the jack-booted thugs over at Dept. Labor, which is totally a nuclear option. Nothing is worth that. I'd rather intentionally pay too much rather than call them in. They screw everything up, for a very long time.

[LakeCleElum]

Originally Posted by skunked

Do I blow the whistle?

There is some middle ground here. I've dealt with a lot of management issues at work over the years.

Why not start this way:

Next time she is in, have a sit down talk with a witness present. Tell her your observations/opinions. Urge her to get help and let her know you will have to report this to her superiors in the future.

You could make a friend for life....