Jeff, you're right. Covering gays is probably something worth doing to attract the best employees. (Though I wasn't kidding about common law; I don't like it.) ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
Why can't Single people get benefits for a friend or someone? You extend a person's benefits to a second person base on their PERSON relationship. . . Why do this at all? In our society it is ok to give married or PARTNERED folx a lil extra . . but the single person gets the shaft. It seem we are debating get equal benefit for one group and f*ck the other group [in this instance Single unattached people] The ideal is basically to force people to get married. . .to make being married more beneficial, enticing , etc . . .IMO that is not the role of the government [HELL I don't think Govt should even define/ deal with marriage . . .then again I consider marriage at most a religious institution that should be excluded because of the seperation of church and state . . . .and at the least a personal decision to cohabitate between two people. . . and the Gvot should stay out of their business. . . .] I do not think this decision should curry one favor with a govt or a business because it discriminates against those who choose to not cohabitate. Rocket River but what does it matter to those who are on the receiving end of the benefits. ------------------
Rocket River, Obviously this bothers you. Maybe we can start another thread. Yes, this is a concern that some companies are addressing, but more obviously could. There are a growing number of companies that are going to a cafeteria style plan, which gives each employee a pot of 'benefit bucks' to spend. A married person might choose to buy benefits for a spouse or childcare, and a single person might use that money to buy extra vacation or college tuition. Like I said before, the problem is that benefits don't usually make people any happier or more productive. Any changes are more likely to make someone upset than someone happier, so they try not to mess with them. Cafeteria style plans end up more expensive, because it's usually adding expenses for the single employees -- not balancing it out. They are also perceived by employees with families as something against them -- so they don't rock the boat. If it makes you feel better, you aren't loosing much. Most employers subsidize family members at a much smaller amount than the employee -- the employee pays most of the cost. (At my work, we used to pay $35 for the employee, $100 for employee +1, $165 for employee +2.) The advantage for the employee is that an employer can get insurance at a MUCH lower amount than an individual can. What gets expensive for employers is if they have a high claim driving them into a higher risk pool -- so they try to reduce their risk exposure by limiting the number of people on their plan as much as they can. Changes are also very expensive, especially with the time involved for HR personnel. So the usual arguement for limiting health benefits it to legal spouses and children has been to limit their exposure to as few people as possible, and limit the changes by only including (in theory) long term, legal relationships. ------------------ Stay Cool...
