Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If employers choose to offer good benefits to its employees, more power to them. Let them offer any benefit package they darn well please. It's a necessary evil for employers. It's one way they use to hold on to (or attract) good employees.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete
Until now the City of El Paso has offered health benefits only to employees, their married partners and their dependents. At a recent city hall meeting this was extended to unmarried partners including gay partners
I am struck at the comments (in link) that employers, especially public sector employers, should not extend any health benefits to any dependents - that married employees should not recieve any more benefits than single employees.
That is just stupid. Only the "party of family values" would say such drivel that ones wife and kids should not have medical insurance.
Yeah didn't Michael Steel say that same-sex marriage costs small businesses?
Well heck, wouldn't ALL marriage and procreation cost small businesses if they have to provide health care for everyone?
yeah drive your employer bankrupt and then cry about getting laid off good idea
it's not about making the employer bankrupt. It is totally about distributing the resources fairly in the workplace and not favoring one group over another.
I'm not a fan of employee provided insurance and think they should just get out of that business entirely and turn the $ over to the employees to buy their own coverage.
If employers choose to offer good benefits to its employees, more power to them. Let them offer any benefit package they darn well please. It's a necessary evil for employers. It's one way they use to hold on to (or attract) good employees.
It's one way they use to hold on to (or attract) good employees.
Pfft. I bet anyone could be replaced with someone equal or better in today's economy. I don't buy this particular excuse for insanely high salaries, perks, or bonuses either.
I think it's pretty fair since most employers offer coverage for dependents.
I also think it would be nice if people could get health insurance for say their parents. If the employee is paying for it, why should it matter who they cover?
As long as everyone has an equal chance to get the ones they cared for covered, I don't care.
Most employers do not offer coverage for dependents.
I worked in the public sector (teacher) for 37 years. My employer paid for my coverage only. I paid for dependent coverage.
Insurance benefits are part of compensation and need to be spread evenly, not favoring one group or another. when i took a job for a Co with a generous healthcare benefit, I noticed that the Co paid a little over $9k in annual premiums for an empl + Family but only about $4,500-5K for me (a single employee). When I negotiated the base salary, I asked for $5k more than my married with kids counterpart, b/c she was after all earning more comp than me b/c of her marital status (unfair). They gladly paid me the extra $5K. Everyone needs to study these plans at their workplace and place their input so that nobody gets screwed with.
Exactly...it's just a form of compensation that you should consider when negotiating your salary....of course if you're in a union you can't do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.