[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

These policies are legal and may or may not be fair but if the widow in this instance wanted money when her spouse died, "They" should have taken out a policy.

I know for a fact that in Canada. for years parents took out insurance policies on their children and then cashed them in when the child turned 18 and the policy matured. I'm also pretty sure that most of the kids never saw one red cent of that money, if they we're even told about the policies.

So since these parents weren't big corporations the question now becomes we're these parental "Dead Peasant" Life Insurance Policies anymore fair than an employer looking out for his company?

Well duh, thanks. I actually figured out they were legal all by myself. I'm wondering why they are legal. Why are you creating an incentive for employers to want their employees to die prematurely? Why should someone with that much control over your life be able to take out a life insurance policy on you without you even knowing it? Life insurance is to help people get by when you die. It's not supposed to be an investment vehicle.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

All interesting and such...except you didn't answer my question. How exactly did Walmart force him to work 48 hours in three days? Was it something like..."If you don't do it, we'll fire you!" type thing, which I'd totally disagree with and hopefully the relatives sue Walmart, or was it "Hey, a shitload of people are calling in sick, can you cover for overtime?" Which might have been stupid on the manager's part, that's for sure, but doesn't seem to have intent to kill him, especially since I don't think the manager called State Farm for the insurance policy.

I don't know anything about the case. Instead of being rude about it, tell me it. Don't toss out statements/facts/opinions/whatever that does not have to do with what I addressed.

I think I did answer your question. To summarize:
(a) Walmart has a history of forcing employees to work (specifics avaiable at Wiki)
(b) This person's widow alleges that Walmart contributed to her husabnd's heart attack
(c) the deceased work 48 hours the last three days prior to his heart attack.

I think that's a pretty strong case that they worked this guy to death and then cashed in on him even when he was dead, but regardless of this specific case, why should an empoyer be allowed to take out life insurance policies on its low-level employees without their knowledge. This creates a perverse incentive for the employer. Life insurance was not designed to be an investment vehicle--that's why individuals and companies get a tax break.

And on top of that it's macabre and creepy.

$1:

What final comment? My only comment is that you're going on about stuff I really couldn't care about.

Exsqueeze me? I baking powder? This is the purpose of this site--to bring up issues like this and discuss them. OK, so you don't care--no one is forcing you to read this--move on. Some of us do care.

Maybe I'm just a bit idealist or whatever, but I don't think companies or individuals insure their properties, only to destroy them for the money, even if there are cases of people doing that.
[/quote]

Their "properties"? Properties???? Let me get this straight...you think that employees are the "property" of their company. Well, why didn't you say from the start you support going back to slavery. Then your comments would have made a lot more sense.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think I did answer your question. To summarize:
(a) Walmart has a history of forcing employees to work (specifics avaiable at Wiki)
(b) This person's widow alleges that Walmart contributed to her husabnd's heart attack
(c) the deceased work 48 hours the last three days prior to his heart attack.

Not that I disagree with you on the principle of treating employees like capital...taking insurance on them just like you'd insure the building against fire is pretty dispicable, but heart-attacks come from years of lifestyle and heredity, not whatever passes for 'work' for a WalMart employee. If this turns into a lawsuit, it's a frivolous attempted hold-up.

[OldChum]

All this proves is the American greed machine is alive and well, and needs to be ruled in to respectability

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think I did answer your question. To summarize:
(a) Walmart has a history of forcing employees to work (specifics avaiable at Wiki)
(b) This person's widow alleges that Walmart contributed to her husabnd's heart attack
(c) the deceased work 48 hours the last three days prior to his heart attack.

A) Fine, but this isn't confirmed as a specific case, is it?

B) The widow can say anything, to be honest. I'd rather have a doctor say that the guy died from exhaustion.

C) Can be a coincidence, and it does not prove that it is Walmart's fault.

$1:

I think that's a pretty strong case that they worked this guy to death

I disagree, because you haven't connected all three of your points together to form a strong case. Specifically, the statement that Walmart worked him to death, instead of him working himself to death.

$1:

and then cashed in on him even when he was dead, but regardless of this specific case, why should an empoyer be allowed to take out life insurance policies on its low-level employees without their knowledge.

They shouldn't be allowed to do that. That's not what I said. I just said that I have no real issue with companies insuring their employees, as long as the company provides safe work conditions, and a reasonable health package.

$1:

This creates a perverse incentive for the employer. Life insurance was not designed to be an investment vehicle--that's why individuals and companies get a tax break.

Fine, but companies insure their high level executives do they not? Why do they? I mean, all they could get is papercuts...unless the corporate jet crashes, they get kidnapped by terrorists/criminals, whatever. Companies see their employees as an investment. You put in money, time, and other resources to train people to perform jobs for the company to make money. It doesn't matter if its a multi-million dollar executive, or the guy on the assembly line.

$1:

Their "properties"? Properties???? Let me get this straight...you think that employees are the "property" of their company. Well, why didn't you say from the start you support going back to slavery. Then your comments would have made a lot more sense.

I said their properties. Their cars, factories, jets, offices, houses, boats. Things people own. If you thought anything different, you're having issues that are not my fault. Once again. Companies AND individuals ensure their properties (as in, vehicles, buildings, furniture, whatever) in case something bad happens, like a fire. Individuals and companies ensure their relatives or high-ranking employees because, once again, shit might happen. If you really think that companies ensure their low level employees to kill them off to make money, fine, think what you like.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I disagree, because you haven't connected all three of your points together to form a strong case. Specifically, the statement that Walmart worked him to death, instead of him working himself to death.

...or eating himself to death or smoking himself to death or dying because every other male in his family tree suffered from heart disease.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

commanderkai commanderkai:

I disagree, because you haven't connected all three of your points together to form a strong case. Specifically, the statement that Walmart worked him to death, instead of him working himself to death.

...or eating himself to death or smoking himself to death or dying because every other male in his family tree suffered from heart disease.

Exactly. If I have a heart attack now, is it my school's fault for overworking me with papers? No. If it is true that Walmart forced him to work 48 hours, within three days, by threatening him with losing his job, then they should be sued shitless. But I'm missing the connection.

[Donny_Brasco]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Save the soapbox. The government had just as much involvement with the crash, and of course, gave those companies their saving grace. Oh...but let's ignore that, because corporations are evil, and must be overthrown to...something or other. Have factory communes or something.

Bullshit, the government did not the banks give morgages to people who didn't qualify by letting people fudge their numbers and incomes, they did not make the banks bundle the risky debt and did not make the investment companies buy the bundles up like they were solid gold.

Furthermore it is the regulation and forsight of the Canadian government and regulations that prevented that scale of greed here in Canada.

If government was to blame it was due to lack of regulation, not their involvement.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Not that I disagree with you on the principle of treating employees like capital...taking insurance on them just like you'd insure the building against fire is pretty dispicable, but heart-attacks come from years of lifestyle and heredity, not whatever passes for 'work' for a WalMart employee. If this turns into a lawsuit, it's a frivolous attempted hold-up.

Well, without regard to this individual case, the fact is that Walmart took out insurance polices on 350000 of its employees between 1993 and 1995. These weren't high-faluting executives it would cost a mint to train and replace--these included the lower echelons of the staff, with the purpose of reaping tax-free windfalls on their insurance policies if these employees died. The courts repeatedly found that the company lacked sufficient financial interest in its lower employees. Walmart admits, in its suit of various insurers, that the purpose of the dead peasants insurance policies was to reap the tax benefits.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, without regard to this individual case, the fact is that Walmart took out insurance polices on 350000 of its employees between 1993 and 1995. These weren't high-faluting executives it would cost a mint to train and replace--these included the lower echelons of the staff, with the purpose of reaping tax-free windfalls on their insurance policies if these employees died. The courts repeatedly found that the company lacked sufficient financial interest in its lower employees. Walmart admits, in its suit of various insurers, that the purpose of the dead peasants insurance policies was to reap the tax benefits.

And that's dispicable, but they aren't complicit in the deaths of the employees they cash in on.

[commanderkai]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

Bullshit, the government did not the banks

Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac. These are the guys who insure the various loans by private banks. Banks were also pressured by various government policies, specifically the Community Reinvestment Act to give out loans to those who probably could not afford them, with the assurance that they will be insured in case of collapsed by...Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac.

$1:

give morgages to people who didn't qualify by letting people fudge their numbers and incomes,

Pray tell, do you really think the massive wave of defaulted loans were paying off their loans completely beforehand? No, because they wouldn't have defaulted in the first place. Paying the minimum doesn't give a bank a profit, especially since they needed to toss out 200,000 for somebody to buy a home.

$1:

they did not make the banks bundle the risky debt and did not make the investment companies buy the bundles up like they were solid gold.

Don't disagree with that. But you're forgetting one thing. Who's fault was it for those people to accept those loans that they could not afford? The banks? We're not robots, we have choices. Banks fucked up. Government fucked up, Investment companies fucked up. And we fucked up.

$1:

Furthermore it is the regulation and forsight of the Canadian government and regulations that prevented that scale of greed here in Canada.

Because the government did not make incentives for banks to create risky loans. The fact is, why would any bank give out a loan to somebody who can't afford it? They wouldn't. Various policies like the CRA not only deregulated banks, but created incentives for banks to give out bad loans.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

They shouldn't be allowed to do that. That's not what I said. I just said that I have no real issue with companies insuring their employees, as long as the company provides safe work conditions, and a reasonable health package.

Well, as Walmart provides neither very good working conditions nor a very reasonable health package, I imagine you should have agreed with me then.

$1:

Fine, but companies insure their high level executives do they not? Why do they? I mean, all they could get is papercuts...unless the corporate jet crashes, they get kidnapped by terrorists/criminals, whatever. Companies see their employees as an investment. You put in money, time, and other resources to train people to perform jobs for the company to make money. It doesn't matter if its a multi-million dollar executive, or the guy on the assembly line.

Do I really need to point out that there is a difference between insuring the employees you have a huge investment in so you can recoup your company losses if they die, and insuring thousands rank-and-file employees as an investment scheme? And seeing as many people don't work at Walmart all their lives, what business did the company have with life insurance policies on former employees?

$1:

I said their properties. Their cars, factories, jets, offices, houses, boats. Things people own. If you thought anything different, you're having issues that are not my fault. Once again. Companies AND individuals ensure their properties (as in, vehicles, buildings, furniture, whatever) in case something bad happens, like a fire. Individuals and companies ensure their relatives or high-ranking employees because, once again, shit might happen. If you really think that companies ensure their low level employees to kill them off to make money, fine, think what you like.

Employees are not planes or cars. They're not just investments. They're people. Walmart has lousy working conditions, lousy healthcare and they cashed in on their employees kicking the bucket early.

Incidentally, Walmart ceased the practice some time ago, though several companies still do it. Walmart was losing a lot of court cases and some politicians were taking up the issue and moving to close the loopholes.

[Zipperfish]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Save the soapbox. The government had just as much involvement with the crash, and of course, gave those companies their saving grace. Oh...but let's ignore that, because corporations are evil, and must be overthrown to...something or other. Have factory communes or something.

Bullshit, the government did not the banks give morgages to people who didn't qualify by letting people fudge their numbers and incomes, they did not make the banks bundle the risky debt and did not make the investment companies buy the bundles up like they were solid gold.

Furthermore it is the regulation and forsight of the Canadian government and regulations that prevented that scale of greed here in Canada.

If government was to blame it was due to lack of regulation, not their involvement.

Funny you should mention that--they're doing the same thing with life insurance policies now. Business Week, July 2007

$1:

Death bond is shorthand for a gentler term the industry prefers: life settlement-backed security. Whatever the name, it's as macabre an investing concept as Wall Street has ever cooked up. Some 90 million Americans own life insurance, but many of them find the premiums too expensive; others would simply prefer to cash in early. "Life settlements" are arrangements that offer people the chance to sell their policies to investors, who keep paying the premiums until the sellers die and then collect the payout. For the investors it's a ghoulish actuarial gamble: The quicker the death, the more profit is reaped.

...

Investment banks have already drawn up their sales pitches to well-heeled institutional customers. Firms say death bonds should return around 8% a year, right between the expected returns of stocks and Treasury bonds. Moreover, they're "uncorrelated assets," meaning their performance isn't tied to what's happening in other markets. After all, death rates don't rise or fall based on what's happening to commodities, say. Uncorrelated assets like these are highly prized in an increasingly connected global financial system.

It all sounds great, except that many of the life settlements that Wall Street firms are buying fall into categories ranging from sketchy to toxic. "They are creating a very risky product," says Janet Tavakoli, a Chicago financial consultant who specializes in advising clients on asset-backed investments. "They may be planning to sell them to sophisticated investors, but they could be roping in people who don't appreciate the risk."

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, as Walmart provides neither very good working conditions nor a very reasonable health package, I imagine you should have agreed with me then.

I'm glad you finally stopped saying that Walmart killed the guy. I'm not going to agree with saying Walmart killed the guy for money. Did Walmart do something I'd consider unethical? Sure, but you've argued yourself ethics is not a concrete term.

$1:

Do I really need to point out that there is a difference between insuring the employees you have a huge investment in so you can recoup your company losses if they die, and insuring thousands rank-and-file employees as an investment scheme?

Either for A) The tax deduction, or B) In case of some accident, or incident that kills said employee, which will then lead to a lawsuit and then they just give the family the insurance policy money.

Who knows? I don't run a company. If somebody wants to close the loophole? Then I'll support them, but I'm not going with this "Corporations kill employees for money" Chest thumping.

$1:

And seeing as many people don't work at Walmart all their lives, what business did the company have with life insurance policies on former employees?

Ask the company. For all I know it's a bigger hassle, or they just like keeping the tax deduction.

$1:

Employees are not planes or cars. They're not just investments. They're people. Walmart has lousy working conditions, lousy healthcare and they cashed in on their employees kicking the bucket early.

To a company they're just investments. Pretending otherwise will lead to major disappoints in life. You really think a company really cares about the person, or the bottom line? Outside of maybe the local coworkers/boss/employees, the management level really doesn't care, because if they did, they wouldn't be good managers.

What are you expecting? Managers hire and fire based upon their value to the company, not because they have a cute family or whatever else.

Walmart is a shitty job, with shitty conditions, with shitty benefits, and shitty pay. That's most service jobs for you. Tim Hortons, McDonalds, and dozens of other companies aren't that much different, except Walmart is the big kid on the block.

$1:

Incidentally, Walmart ceased the practice some time ago, though several companies still do it. Walmart was losing a lot of court cases and some politicians were taking up the issue and moving to close the loopholes.

Good, make sure they finish the job then. Those other companies are going to abuse the loophole to screw over the government much like any of us might whenever we see one.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I'm glad you finally stopped saying that Walmart killed the guy. I'm not going to agree with saying Walmart killed the guy for money. Did Walmart do something I'd consider unethical? Sure, but you've argued yourself ethics is not a concrete term.

Exactly. Not even considering the ethics, from a strictly objective point of view, this could clearly create an incentive for employers to do what they can--hopefully within the law--to limit the life of their employees. That is not the kind of policy that is conducive to a high-functioning society.

And no, I'm not particularly ethical, but sometimes even I still shake my head and go "What the %$*(*&^?"

$1:

To a company they're just investments. Pretending otherwise will lead to major disappoints in life. You really think a company really cares about the person, or the bottom line? Outside of maybe the local coworkers/boss/employees, the management level really doesn't care, because if they did, they wouldn't be good managers.

Which is exactly why we need socialism, IMHO. Which is exactly why we need a government to intrude on the free market and say "Hang on there fellas, you're not gonna be pulling that crap on my watch. We're talking about people here."