View Full Version : Life Insurance



Thunder
02-07-2009, 08:57 PM
I've thought of this while driving home. This could be a nice topic to discuss.

I'm curious if the employers are taking out life insurance on all of their employees? I'm sure this is common. However, I just want to read what everyone think about this. Is it right? Is it greedy? Share your thoughts. :tiphat:

I figured that Walmart have life insurance on all of their employers. They have a program that when an employee dies after a year with the company, then the family will be paid the full amount that the employee made a whole year prior to death. Walmart could be having millions $$$ when an employee die, but they only pay a small portion of it toward the family.

Is it right for Walmart to take out life insurance on employees? Shouldn't life insurance be taken out only by family members?

Just a thought on how much money the employers are making out there.

Millie
02-07-2009, 09:31 PM
Life insurance should be taken out by anybody with a financial stake in somebody's life. Employers have a huge financial stake in people's lives, when you consider the cost that goes into recruiting, hiring, training, retaining, etc. employees. It can cost some companies tens of thousands of dollars to replace professional employees, and much more than that to replace executives.
Does WalMart lose much if a cashier dies? Not a ton of money, but I bet it is more than you would think. And I really doubt that the company is investing much if anything in insurance for the lowest level workers, especially since most of those positions have such high turnover.
Beyond all that, though, what's the harm? The company has the right to invest its dollars however it wants and if it sees insurance premiums as a good investment, so be it.

Thunder
02-08-2009, 12:09 AM
Another thing to add. Should we have the right to be notified when an employer takes out life insurance on us?

TaoMaas
02-08-2009, 06:04 AM
Is it right for Walmart to take out life insurance on employees? Shouldn't life insurance be taken out only by family members?


I have no problem with Wal Mart taking out life insurance on it's employees. I have a HUGE problem with Wal Mart making themselves the beneficiary of that policy. This isn't something done for the the employee's benefit. It profits the company and I think it's pretty morbid. Even in death, they want to squeeze some extra dollars out of you. For what it's worth, this is a massive change from some of the entrepreneurs who came before the Wal Mart kids. I say "Wal Mart kids" because Sam seemed to be of the old school which believed in taking care of their employees first and America, in general. Remember how Wal Mart first built their empire? It was when jobs were going overseas. Wal Mart would run heart-touching commercials about how they bought towels from a small textile factory in Louisianna that were as good or better than towels that were being imported from overseas and in the process revitalized a community. Why not give jobs to Americans if they could compete with imported products? That's a danged good philosophy, IMO. Except....Wal Mart was forced to abandon it. Now, it's just "The lowest prices..everyday", with no regard to whether it's American-made, foreign-made or how they treat their workers. Low price is the altar at which we worship. It's crucial that we recognize that it hasn't always been this way. I was watching a show last night about chocolate. George Hershey pretty much created the town of Hershey, PA. His philosophy was that if he built a community of people dedicated to the Hershey Company, he would get a steady supply of good workers. So...he took care of folks. This may seem rare by current standards, but it used to be the rule. Here within Oklahoma, E.W. Marland used to pay his workers what he called "a saving wage". Not just enough to get by on....but enough so that you could pay your bills and still have enough left over to stick some money back into savings. It was such a powerful force that when Marland got bought out by J.P. Morgan, they tried to run Marland out of town because they knew that, given a choice, the workers would opt to work for Marland, instead of Morgan, because of the way he treated them. IMHO, this is the hang-up with "trickle down economics". It's put into place under the assumption of the old school...that employers will do what's best for their workers. But it's implemented under the new school, which is "every man for himself".