Tell Me Something

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by scottw

he just likes telling me I'm wrong

You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

But you were telling ScottW that he was wrong when he said that a company can afford to pay employees more if they didn't have to pay for health benefits. Yet, your wife was ablr to get more money in lieu of medical benefits?

No, what I said was that the value attributed to the benefits wasn't equivalent to cash.

i.e. if I have a 12K health insurance plan, and my company says they "contribute" 9K, they're not going to give me the option to take a 9K raise if I opt out.

Also, the rules on this might be different for a larger or smaller company. Read my freaking posts will ya...

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

No, what I said was that the value attributed to the benefits wasn't equivalent to cash.

i.e. if I have a 12K health insurance plan, and my company says they "contribute" 9K, they're not going to give me the option to take a 9K raise if I opt out.

Also, the rules on this might be different for a larger or smaller company. Read my freaking posts will ya...

-spence

The value of the insurance benefit is equivalent to cash when you factor a person's total compensation. If I choose not to get my company health plan, I can get the equivalent cash value added to my salary. It won't be the exact same amount because the insurance deduction is pre-tax. Some companies do this, while others may give a percentage back to the employee. One company I used to work for wouldn't give anything back in the form of salary adjustment for not taking medical benefits. It's all up to the employer as to what they want to do. In my company, if I choose not to take my company vehicle, I can actually make out. They base my vehicle allowance on a pretty nice car. If I were to opt out, I could downgrade the car and put extra cash in my pocket every week. Benefits do have a real cash value.

As for reading your posts, I read some of them every day. Since their all basically the same, I don't see the need to waste my time on all of them. I was keeping track of how often you were using the word "neocon", but it got out of control. I figured you'd have turned the page on your "Political Talking Points Word of the Day Calendar" by now.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't news, it's exactly what we did at my wife's work when we moved onto my insurance.

-spence

your $12,000 a year inadequate insurance

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

This is for Spence and JohnnyD. If an employee is smart enough, they should ask their employer for a higher pay rate if they decline the companies health plan. Many people don't realize this, but it is done in a lot of cases. A company pays a minimum of 60% of a health plans total premium and some pay much more. If a family plan costs an employer $600 per month and the employee declines coverage, the company saves that money. In some cases, the savings may not actually be $600 because depending on the total # of emplyees with the plan, mods are adjusted up or down. But, the savings will be pretty close to the $600 figure. If employers can save that money, it goes to the bottom line. JohnnyD should especially know this, as a business owner.

If an employee is smart and knows how to negotiate, they should ask for a higher salary in lieu of the medical benefits. In my wifes previous job, she negotiated a higher salary because she was on my medical insurance and didn't need it from her company. Because she was informed, she spoke to the HR person and was able to get almost the full cost of the insurance added to her pay.

Companies would rather people decline coverage because it's a big saving for them. The cost of medical and dental insurance, holiday pay, 401K contributions, etc... are huge for a company.

All of this I am aware of.

However, in MA, I didn't think you could negotiate increased pay to an employee if they chose not to take the insurance. I thought health insurance had to be offered, under the same terms, to all employees in a similar position. All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

All of this I am aware of.

However, in MA, I didn't think you could negotiate increased pay to an employee if they chose not to take the insurance. I thought health insurance had to be offered, under the same terms, to all employees in a similar position. All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

You're right in that you have to offer insurance to all people in a particular class if you offer it to one person in that class(ie. all salaried employees), but you can discriminate based on classes (hourly v. salary, full time v. part-time). You also can negotiate anything as far as compensation. No one can decide what a private company can pay their employees. Consider that women still lag behind men with the same experience and qualifications in pay rates for similar positions.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

You're right in that you have to offer insurance to all people in a particular class if you offer it to one person in that class(ie. all salaried employees), but you can discriminate based on classes (hourly v. salary, full time v. part-time). You also can negotiate anything as far as compensation. No one can decide what a private company can pay their employees. Consider that women still lag behind men with the same experience and qualifications in pay rates for similar positions.

That's what I thought. As such, in MA, you can't really negotiate to agree not to take health insurance for higher pay if you have anyone in the same class as you.

As such, scott's argument is invalid - like I said from the beginning.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

That's what I thought. As such, in MA, you can't really negotiate to agree not to take health insurance for higher pay if you have anyone in the same class as you.

As such, scott's argument is invalid - like I said from the beginning.

Where is there something saying that an employee in MA can't negotiate a higher salary in lieu of health benefits? I'm confused about this because I know of several people who have negotiated higher salaries because they didn't need to enroll in their company sponsored health plan. The class argument is only that it has to be offered to all employees of the same class. Some may take the insurance, and some may pass on it. If someone passes on it because they have a plan through their spouse, they save the company money. If they are smart, they tell the boss that they'd like a higher salary because they are saving the company X amount of dollars.

So from what I read above, Scott's argument is perfectly valid.

[Bocephus]

just for the record, Wikipedia is not a definitive source for anything. Its a reference point for terms and definitions, often giving vague and sometimes wrong answers. Should be used as a starting off point for research, not as a reliable source of info.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Bocephus

just for the record, Wikipedia is not a definitive source for anything. Its a reference point for terms and definitions, often giving vague and sometimes wrong answers. Should be used as a starting off point for research, not as a reliable source of info.

you forgot editorialized and/or opinionated answers...which seems odd

I only use it because it 's one of the lib's favorite sources for the "last word" on topics and definitions...gotta use NY Times, MSNBC. CNN and WIKI for sources around here or you are attacked for using right wing propoganda

[Billy]

Hi to all.
Your own and many other people's.
Don't forget about your taxes that already go to cover
people on government plans like RIte Care.