It should be illegal for companies to have life insurance policies on their employees.

[LiberalFighter]

[GodlessBiker]

1. Because such policies are an incentive to murder the employees?

[kenny blankenship]

2. It's a reason not to care particularly about the quality of their health insurance

So you lose one here and there, now and then. But that dark cloud has a silver lining!

[GodlessBiker]

8. I think it's mostly when, for example, the Mets insure the life of a player...

After having given him a huge signing bonus and everything, in case the player dies before the team can make back the money on him.

[Exilednight]

9. It's not just sports teams. Companies like Wal-Mart take out insurance policies on their

employees. The question that really needs to be asked is, why?

[TheDebbieDee]

12. Dead Peasant's policies they're called.............

Smaller companies like construction firms also take out insurance on their employees.........

[GodlessBiker]

13. Walmart takes out policies on cashiers?

[Exilednight]

16. Not sure about cashiers, but I know they took out life insurance policies

on over 350,000 of their roughly 1.4 million employees, or just under one out of every six.

[GodlessBiker]

17. It's called "key man" insurance, sexist as that term is. That seems like a lot of key men.

[JoeyT]

25. It's called key man insurance when you take it out on a CEO that it will cost millions to replace.

When you take it out on a man or woman that pushes carts or runs the register, it's called "Dead Peasant".
Wal-Mart did both.

http://news.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB5SEJVN3F.html

[Donnachaidh]

24. Google Dead Peasant Policy

And see if you can find a copy of Michael Moore's Capitalism movie.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. If you were an insurer, would you sell a policy to such a company?

[DrToast]

21. Because they're exploiting tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

[rpannier]

26. It should be illegal unless they have your permission

But then a lot of things should be illegal if they don't have your permission. Example Releasing your credit score

[Exilednight]

3. I fully agree. I'm not sure how someone who calls themself a liberal or progressive can unrec this,

but I reced it and it's still at zero.

[onenote]

4. Can you explain further?

[LiberalFighter]

5. Employers should not benefit from any of their employee's death

regardless of the cause of death.

[onenote]

7. I think such insurance should be regulated to prevent tax-related abuses

and should be limited in terms of the employees that can be so insured. But "Key Man" insurance has been around a long time and is beneficial, particularly for small businesses. The problem is when such insurance is purchased not with respect to the partners in a business or the top few executives, but for rank and file workers. At one point, Wal-Mart was purchasing insurance on hourly workers, even though they had no insurable interest in those workers and were doing it principally for tax reasons and as an investment vehicle. On the other hand, a small business that has a few key employees ought to be able to insure against something happening to them as such insurance could be the difference between the business continuing after the loss of such an employee and the business closing its doors, putting people out of work.

[immoderate]

6. Why that would be missing a trick!

What do you have against us?





--imm

[shraby]

10. Adults cannot carry life insurance on other adults,

why should corporation "persons" be able to carry it on their employees? Wrong in so many ways.

[GodlessBiker]

14. Sure they can, but you must have an "insurable interest" in the person insured.

[AndyTiedye]

11. It Should be Legal, BUT…

…the insurance company should be allowed to refuse payment if the company is the beneficiary and the death is due to their negligence.

We know how insurance companies are about paying claims. :evilgrin:

[baldguy]

15. No, there are perfectly good reasons for an employer to insure the lives of some of their employees.

It was intended to insure the company against the death of a key employee with specialized knowledge and/or skills who would be difficult for the employer to replace. The theory being that the employer has a financial interest in the life of the employee, and should be able to be compensated if the employee meets an untimely death.

With the knowledge of such a policy, the employee would have an incentive to try to negotiate for more lucrative compensation than the average employee. Therefore employers tended to desire to keep it a secret from the employee. That's the first problem.

Another reason such "dead peasant" insurance is so sleazy is that unscrupulous employers don't use it in the manner it was intended. Instead, they insure everybody - from broom-pushers & stock rats to cashiers & lowly asst managers.

If such a policy is necessary, it should be limited to truly "key" employees, it should be illegal to keep it a secret from the employee, and a portion - at least half - of the insurance benefit should be required to go to the employee's heirs rather than the employer.

[Exilednight]

22. There's not many people that actually fit that demographic. You're probably talking about less than

1% of the total population. If a CEO of a major corporation keels over, then there's someone right behind him to take his place. I would also argue that in terms of true capitalism, this takes out the risk of companies and thus negates every excuse that corporations and Republicans use as a reason to support tax breaks for the wealthy.

Republicans, and some DLC types, like to argue that businesses deserve tax breaks because they take risk, but it's not really a risk of your securing your losses by means of insurance to cover any possible losses.

[baldguy]

23. Right on both counts.

[Yupster]

18. Are you sure we're not confusing two things?

Most large companies have a term insurance benefit on their employees, usually around $ 40,000 with the employee's spouse or kids as the beneficiary.

There are also reasons for a company to take out insurance on its key employees.

One reason is a partnership.

The company takes out insurance on each of the owners so if one owner dies, the insurance prodeeds is used to buy the surviving spouse out.

Theer is also key man insurance a company might take out on a few key employees. The guy who developed the tech system for the company which no one else really knows much about, the million dollar salesman who has all the personal contacts to make the sales, etc.

[The Blue Flower]

19. I wrote abook about it

"Inhuman Resources," available on Amazon kindle.

[lynne]

20. Referred to as "Key Man" life policies, they are for -

- those business partners, co-owners, officers, high-level employees who hold special skills or who deal with specialized segments of the business to the extent that the business would suffer a financial loss in the event of their death. The payout is used for expenses related to searching, training, and replacing the "Key Man" that was insured.

The company must have a legit "insurable interest" in the key man to obtain such a policy and the policies have been around for years.