Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Employers use federal law to deny benefits


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Employers use federal law to deny benefits Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 6:30:24 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_go_su_co/benefit_battles

Looks like the little guys gets fucked again.....
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 6:34:03 AM   
chiaThePet


Posts: 2694
Joined: 2/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59



Looks like the little guys gets fucked again.....


Oooooo, saw this at the top of the page and rushed right over!

Crap, I hate the bait and switch.

chia* (the pet)

_____________________________

Love is a many splendid sting.

You can stick me in the corner, but I'll probably just end up coloring on the walls.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 6:50:08 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Lol,

This is the bad kind of fuck.

No lube or foreplay,not even a frick`n kiss....

(in reply to chiaThePet)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 7:17:56 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		LMAO!


"Schwab"    --  $610 in NSF bill payer fees.   

I am so sick of computer trumping the human, that last night- when I discoverred my auto deduct to satellite bill, logged at $91 NOT the $19 I was promised...so as of now- I cancelled  TV. 

I am tired of being the stupid one who expected too much in regards to bills.  So- I simply will participate LESS in consumer culture.

maybe in the fall- i will pick up tv again...but the fees this new error could have trigggared....   argh.   I still need to get a handle on finances.


As to insurance....I think there are too many escape clauses....to wiggle out of paying.  so- I cut that down as well. The ins knows how to bill, but to get a pay out is...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/business/05cards.html  <-- a peice on credit card reform


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 9:05:10 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Nothing to see here folks, this is just business as usual.

Let me get one chance to rip them a new asshole. I have a certain ethnic lawyer who would love to win another big one. Just one chance. Just one.

And I ain't takin no fucking annuity, I won, give me all my money now, right now.

Just one chance to fuck big business and I am in. They have been fucking us for decades, just let's get to my turn.

T

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 10:28:29 AM   
DomAviator


Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline 		You know, speaking as an EMPLOYER I have to say that people are a pain in the fucking ass with their "benefits"... I had this discussion with an employee the other day over my dental coverage. Apparently he was pissed off because HIS dentist isnt in our network...

Well Boooo Hooooo! Poor fucking baby boy! I told him that he has four options 1) Change Dentist 2) Pay out of his own pocket. 3) Get his dentist to join our network or 4) Quit and get a job with someone who offers the dental insurance his dentist accepts.

I am the fucking boss, I own the fucking company so I choose the plan, and quite frankly I chose on the basis of the best deal (best coverage / best price) for a plan that MY dentist participates in. There are over 8,500 providers nationwide in our plan network and he still had to be a whiny bitch about it.

Employees need to remember that benefits are optional. A company does not HAVE to offer them and if we are kind and gracious enough to do so then be grateful. I could just as easily say "no benefits at all" and could buy my own coverage.  If anyone doesnt like what their company offers, well capitalism is a great thing - open your own business and then you can call the shots.... If you dont own the company then all you need to say about benefits is either "Yes Sir" or "Thank You Sir".... 

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 10:52:43 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

You know, speaking as an EMPLOYER I have to say that people are a pain in the fucking ass with their "benefits"... I had this discussion with an employee the other day over my dental coverage. Apparently he was pissed off because HIS dentist isnt in our network...

Well Boooo Hooooo! Poor fucking baby boy! I told him that he has four options 1) Change Dentist 2) Pay out of his own pocket. 3) Get his dentist to join our network or 4) Quit and get a job with someone who offers the dental insurance his dentist accepts.

I am the fucking boss, I own the fucking company so I choose the plan, and quite frankly I chose on the basis of the best deal (best coverage / best price) for a plan that MY dentist participates in. There are over 8,500 providers nationwide in our plan network and he still had to be a whiny bitch about it.

Employees need to remember that benefits are optional. A company does not HAVE to offer them and if we are kind and gracious enough to do so then be grateful. I could just as easily say "no benefits at all" and could buy my own coverage.  If anyone doesnt like what their company offers, well capitalism is a great thing - open your own business and then you can call the shots.... If you dont own the company then all you need to say about benefits is either "Yes Sir" or "Thank You Sir".... 


Well good talent is hard to come by.  Supposedly there are no worker willing to pick lettuce nor are there smart ones that do computer programing so we need all sorts of visas.

On dental.  Gee -Im moving to Texas.  I could use my teeth fixed.

Supposedly I have "dental" BUT the pay out is so minute that no dentist "participates" in it.  Also- most the time dental insurance is higher cost for the dental work then cash.

People- some complain no matter what.  The lady in back - I chatted witht his morning. Gosh is it a "woman thing"- that instead of being glad that many windows are installed- the situation is bleak due to the one window that is NOT installed.  Also- same deal..on car. instead of being glad I have transportation- do I dwell on the crises that the drivers window wont roll up?   All these things cost money.  Put it this way... on things I myself can not personally "do"/"fix"/"install"/"repair"   - I must hire out.   If my income is x amount of $, then that is the limit as to what i should spend.  yes - i have a few credit cards- but a window isnt an emergency- a root canal is.... [pain]

Anyhow- the glass is 1/2 full-  not spotty from bad dishwasher soap spots!!!

So- is this a "womans thing"?   [1/2 empty...]

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 10:53:43 AM   
MusicalBoredom


Posts: 620
Joined: 5/8/2007
From: Louisiana/New York
Status: offline 		DA, I don't think the comparison is the same at all.  Benefits are optional of course.  However, when an agreement is reached as to what an employee is expected to do at work and what the compensation is for that work, i.e. pay and benefits, then that is the agreement.  In your example, you have an employee that doesn't like the agreement.  I'm ok with him asking for a new agreement but I'm with you in that you get to decide if you want to honor his request for amending the agreement or not.  I tend to listen to employees but I certainly do go changing our entire plan because one employee wants it changed.  In the article's example, the employer changed the agreement after all parties had agreed and the employee was left without the compensation that they had agreed to at the start of employment.  But the article is really about a law which, as written, allows an employer to refuse to honor the benefits and lot leave any recourse from the employee.

As an example, my dad worked at the same company for 20 years.  He missed a total of 7 sick days during his 20 year employment.  He also only took less than half of his vacation days.  He was an officer of that company and increased the market penetration in his division by over 60%.  He had opted to buy the optional short-term and long-term disability coverage.  He had a stroke and was unable to return to work.  They refused his long term coverage.  I don't think he was whining about wanting his employer to give him something.  He agreed to work for a specific compensation (salary plus benefits) and provided more work in return that he was required to.  His employer however failed to live up to the agreed compensation.

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 11:10:49 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline 		Well, being one of the millions in this country without insurance offered by an employer because of the high cost to everybody.  I spend my time talking to illegals about getting fake SS#'s so when I do go to the hospital I just give them all the false info.

Ahhh.,.. America!!  only in America

Before you respond understand I'm joking about the part with the fake SS#'s but sadly I am uninsuranced and it seems illegals get better free health care then us all with fake paperwork.

And yes I looked into those "great" insurance packages offered to people with no insurance, but those things don't pay for crap.

In Illinois I remember when they made auto insurance mandatory, they kept saying how it would save everyone money.  Yea right, we have some of the highest insurance premiums in the country and you know what the largest part of my insurance bill is, Uninsured motorist coverage, they screw use every way they can.

(in reply to MusicalBoredom)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 11:34:24 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

You know, speaking as an EMPLOYER I have to say that people are a pain in the fucking ass with their "benefits"... I had this discussion with an employee the other day over my dental coverage. Apparently he was pissed off because HIS dentist isnt in our network...

Well Boooo Hooooo! Poor fucking baby boy! I told him that he has four options 1) Change Dentist 2) Pay out of his own pocket. 3) Get his dentist to join our network or 4) Quit and get a job with someone who offers the dental insurance his dentist accepts.

I am the fucking boss, I own the fucking company so I choose the plan, and quite frankly I chose on the basis of the best deal (best coverage / best price) for a plan that MY dentist participates in. There are over 8,500 providers nationwide in our plan network and he still had to be a whiny bitch about it.

Employees need to remember that benefits are optional. A company does not HAVE to offer them and if we are kind and gracious enough to do so then be grateful. I could just as easily say "no benefits at all" and could buy my own coverage.  If anyone doesnt like what their company offers, well capitalism is a great thing - open your own business and then you can call the shots.... If you dont own the company then all you need to say about benefits is either "Yes Sir" or "Thank You Sir".... 

Yes, you're entitled to choose which life insurance plan to give to your employees. But if you do offer the plan and collect premiums for that purpose but then refuse to pay out benefits you deserve to be shot. Which is what the article the OP linked to was all about.

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 11:37:25 AM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom
As an example, my dad worked at the same company for 20 years.  He missed a total of 7 sick days during his 20 year employment.  He also only took less than half of his vacation days.  He was an officer of that company and increased the market penetration in his division by over 60%.  He had opted to buy the optional short-term and long-term disability coverage.  He had a stroke and was unable to return to work.  They refused his long term coverage.  I don't think he was whining about wanting his employer to give him something.  He agreed to work for a specific compensation (salary plus benefits) and provided more work in return that he was required to.  His employer however failed to live up to the agreed compensation.



I hear you on that one, MB.  When my dad had his stroke 2 years ago, he was originally given his long term disability insurance.  8 months later, when he was officially retired from the company due to medical inability to return to work, that long term disability insurance suddenly Ceased.  He's supposed to be getting a really nice pension from the company.  The pension plan is fighting me, trying to convince me to "restart his long term disability insurance payments" because he's not 65 yet.  Heck, he'll only be 63 later this month.  They want to wait until he's at least 65 to start paying his retirement pension - despite the fact that he IS retired - and have made it plain that if we Don't put off drawing his pension until then, he'll take a (relatively drastic) decrease in the amount of pension he gets each month.  Never mind that due to his health it's likely he won't be Alive at 65 to claim ANY of his pension - or that the way the pension is set up, his heirs aren't eligable to recieve his pension as a lump sum (or any other way) after his death.  Mom could have, as his spouce, but mom has been dead for 6 years now.  The folks that he worked with have been some of the biggest help to me in the time since his stroke - his former boss still goes by the nursing home regularly to visit him even.  Unfortunately, they were the computer programers, not the benefits administrators.  The HR gal there has done everything she can to help out, but that help is limited to giving me the phone numbers and paperwork, and helping me find the information to go ON the paperwork if I need it.
 
What I'm probably going to have to do in order to straighten it all out is hire a lawyer, then call them up and tell them flat out - either you start sending his pension payments, which he earned over the course of 32 years working for that company - or we meet in court and my lawyer has a field day with you.
 
Housesub, Oklahoma has had manadantory vehical insurance for years now - and while my premiums are no doubt lower than they would be in Illinois, they're still outrageous, and UM is still the highest portion of the cost, even if on a vehical that I'm only Legally required to carry liability on.  Full coverage?  Can't afford it, because every year the premiums go up despite there not having been any wrecks or tickets.  And now, since dad is retired and no longer an Employee of the insurance company which got our business for the past 30 years - I got a letter a while back stating that after the end of the period currently covered (which ends at the end of this month) I have to either find a different company altogether or pay more than twice the rates we've gotten - because the good rate was a benefit of having a paid membership in the Farm Beauru, and that membership ended at some point after dad's stroke.  (Not like they ever notifed me that it had anything to do with a membership in the same, or that membership dues were due to be paid - oh no, simply a notice that since they hadn't Been paid - they were always deducted from dad's paycheck when it was time - that it had lapsed and could not be renewed.)

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to MusicalBoredom)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 11:50:00 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Well DA, I guess we would be OK, me working for you. I don't want any benefits, retirement or anything of the sort, I want all my money now. You don't need an accountant to take taxes out because I will not allow it, if necessary I will present you with a bill every week. Any problems I have with the IRS (which are none) are not your's. No UI no comp, no nothing.

I want nothing, except my money. That is all.

T

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 11:58:07 AM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		Sounds like this is the result of a bad law passed by Congress back in 1993.

Congress needs to change the law and remove the loophole.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 4:34:41 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

Employees need to remember that benefits are optional. 


Which has nothing to do with the OP problem where employers tell people they have benefits, take their money for premiums or for retirement investment, then refuse to pay off, counting on this loophole to limit their liability to returning a minimal amount of bucks.

You wouldn't be so sanguine if someone found a loophole in a badly written law that let some employee take you to the cleaners leaving you broke, while the courts refused to hear your complaint.


< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/5/2008 4:38:06 PM >

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 8:27:17 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		I worked for a company whose insurance tried to get out of every claim we ever made by calling everything "pre-existing conditions."  I had to appeal three times on a claim for my wife before they finally paid.  Most people just gave up.  That is what they count on.  The company knew about it and didn't care.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 8:37:50 PM   
DomAviator


Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline 		I disagree because of a key point... As I read the article, the employer has to refund any premium the employee paid. (I incidentally dont collect premiums, they are just bundled in with the compensation package.) Since the benefits are optional and the employer doesnt HAVE to provide them, I think its quite reasonable for him to drop coverage on a high risk / high claim person who will essentially bust the employee group. Better that one person be handed back their premium and told "we're not covering you" than that the entire company be priced out of the market and thus everyone loses their bennies.

I mean Im seeing it from a non-emotional "bottom line" business standpoint. There was a similar case a few months ago involving Wal-Mart in which an employee became a quadripelegic from an unisured motorist, and walmart dropped their coverage. Well ya know it sucks for them and its tragic, and I would probably send my company lawyer to help get their SSI claim approved with the utmost haste... BUT, they would be coming off my company health insurance fast!  I cant have my insurance premiums double or triple because of providing long term care to someone.... All kidding aside, but everything in my business is a financial analysis right down to the brand of toilet paper and hand soap in the restrooms! Its all about the numbers, because 1000 little things will add up to one giant red line at the end of the quarter.

Thats heartless but business is business, and the obligation of any "for profit" business is to generate the maximum return for the stockholders. Its not a public service, non-profit, or charitable group so its fiduciary duty is to the stockholders. Im not a total bastard, a couple of months ago a waitress at the coffee shop across from the airport dropped dead from a brain aneurysim at the ripe old age of 26 and her family didnt have money to bury her. (It was really tragic, she literally dropped dead right in the place coffee pot in hand dead on the floor during breakfast!) I matched whatever my employees donated, so the family got 800 some dollars from us plus a lot more from chamber members who did the same thing in their companies... One of the local BBQ resteraunt put on a benefit chicken BBQ for her kids etc... But charity is optional, its nice to be nice but a corporation has a duty to the stockholders. Social work is in the realm of social services, not private business. If they would clean out the parasites, they would have the money to care for the people who really need it...   

< Message edited by DomAviator -- 7/5/2008 8:45:14 PM >

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 9:03:19 PM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline 		DA, while you and I tend to agree on an awful lot of things - this one I honestly can't agree with completely.
 
As a business owner, I know where you're coming from.  And yes, everything in the long run comes down to what's best for the bottom line.  Insurance companies are in business to make money, just like the rest of us who are in business.  The bottom line is important to them - as opposed to the health or well being of the people paying premiums to be Insured.  However, that being said, it's also rather short sighted of a company to constantly and continually screw over the very consumers whom they depend upon for that bottom line.  Fuck your customers often enough, and you no longer HAVE customers - and then see how long your bottom line stays intact.  How long do you think YOU would stay in business, if every time a customer called you wanting a crew for a particular type of flight, you promised them on the phone that such was available - and then the day of the flight you turned around and told them "you're out of luck, suck it up and deal with it" ?  At the very least, they would likely cease to be a customer for you - which means you lose that potential business income.  You also have to consider what it's going to do, eventually, to the company's reputation - because while we as business owners might frequently spend Billions a year on advertising campaigns, word of mouth about how a company Really treats it's customers Is STILL the most effective way to make or break things.  That customer you fucked over has friends and associates in the same line of business as themselves.  Folks that they talk to, recommend service companies to, warn people away from due to bad service.  And each of those folks knows Others.   I'm in a couple of guild/union/business groups relating directly to the type of industry I'm in - and people in those groups frequently ask others in those groups for recommendations on suppliers.  I've seen a couple of suppliers end up out of business because they screwed over just the wrong person who was rather vocal about it to Everyone they know who buys that type of supplies - and since it's a specialty/niche market, word traveled Fast.  There are a lot of insurance companies out there - it's ultimately a buyer's market when it comes down to it - and enough bad publicity or word of mouth is ultimately going to cost the bad ones big time.
 
As someone who has been on the recieving end of the shit stick from insurance companies which have Already Had The Premiums Paid, it's a very different perspective.  Things like Long Term Disability we pay thorugh the Nose for, and we do it for a reason - to see to it that the bills are paid in case one of those ugly accidents or illnesses happens.  We sure as fuck don't invest in such to get told "sorry, 'we're dropping you because you're now considered high risk" after we make a claim for the Very Thing The Insurance Was Supposed To Cover.
 
 

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 9:12:23 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		How about sticking to the agreement.That would be a good start.


This law was written to protect folks.It`s not the lawmaker`s fault that ass-wipe corporate lawyers are able to find loopholes.


That`s all the do all day and they have unlimited funds to do this.
                             

Funny thing is,we the consumer pay those shark`s salaries, through our purchases.


We actually pay corporate America ,to fuck us.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 7/5/2008 9:14:06 PM >

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 9:32:09 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Bad law, the court should have had the guts to hear and rule on it. But I do blame the law writters for the loopholes as much (EQUALLY) with the insurance company for defaulting on an agreement by finding that cheezy loophole. I'm not sure the employer is the one who needs to be sued in this case though. (Grey area).
Insurance Commisioner in the state where those policies have been using this loophole should be doing their jobs as well. Bar the companies with that practice from doing business in that state. The comapny will eeither change policy or not do ANY business in that state. (their choice).

I'm about as pro business as one can get but fair practice is fair practice write a contract saying premiums for benifits and in my mind you better pay up on the benifits part.
Simple language contracts might also be a big benifit for keeping business honest.


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits - 7/5/2008 9:52:18 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

Employees need to remember that benefits are optional. A company does not HAVE to offer them and if we are kind and gracious enough to do so then be grateful. I could just as easily say "no benefits at all" and could buy my own coverage.  If anyone doesnt like what their company offers, well capitalism is a great thing - open your own business and then you can call the shots.... If you dont own the company then all you need to say about benefits is either "Yes Sir" or "Thank You Sir".... 


You are correct...benefits are optional BUT once benefits are used to compete in the marketplace and an employee signs up...then they become an obligation or its fraud just as if you decided to pay less than you agreed and even then it is only a civil case...NOT a criminal case. If I steal from you...it's a criminal violation that could result in jail. IF you don't pay me (steal my labor)...I GET to sue. Oh Boy !!

BUT also, this is nothing new with corporate America...almost all employment laws including workman's compensation are designed to protect the EMPLOYER...NOT the employee.

Didn't you understand the ruling that the courts just legislated a 6 month 'statute of limitation' for their discrimination ? I have told you...watch the courts...and they are fucking us.

ERISA was passed because corporate scum and other wealthy individuals and their cohorts were offering high prices for the stock in hostile takeovers either to be bought off at a huge profit or as often...to raid the company's retirement fund. Kool hey ?

Kinkroids...get wise, the corporation does not a single thing to benefit society...only principals and sometimes, investors. The corporation is nothing more than a clever paper device to profit individually without individual liability...nothing more. Both Jefferson and Lincoln among others, saw all of this coming yet we have refused to follow their lead.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 7/5/2008 9:53:24 PM >

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Employers use federal law to deny benefits Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.172