Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UPS to drop 15,000 spouses from insurance, cites Obamacare
Atlanta Business Chronicle ^ | Aug 21, 2013, 5:13am EDT Updated: Aug 21, 2013, 7:13am EDT

Posted on 08/21/2013 5:22:33 AM PDT by Perdogg

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

(Excerpt) Read more at bizjournals.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; aca; democrats; economy; epicfail; insurancedropped; jobs; obama; obamacare; pelosi; spouses; ups

1 posted on 08/21/2013 5:22:33 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Ha All Obot voters I'm sure.
2 posted on 08/21/2013 5:23:55 AM PDT by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Like the other stories, this will be revised and quashed by dinner time..


3 posted on 08/21/2013 5:24:22 AM PDT by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

and it just keeps getting better and better


4 posted on 08/21/2013 5:24:23 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angcat

Unlikely. UPS is a very conservative company as are a large majority of the employees. Plus this only applies to “management” not the union employees:

“According to Kaiser, UPS told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014.

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only,”


5 posted on 08/21/2013 5:27:44 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: angcat
Prolly working spouses that get a better deal with hubby's insurance than the crap from Dewy, Cheatem and Howe where THEY work.

If so ... mixed feelings

(except of course ozero is the cause of all that's happening bad in America ... now.)

6 posted on 08/21/2013 5:28:03 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Prolly working spouses that get a better deal with hubby's insurance than the crap from Dewy, Cheatem and Howe where THEY work.

That shouldn't matter. An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities. When an employer covers a spouse and other family members under its insurance plan, that's effectively what it is doing.

7 posted on 08/21/2013 5:37:52 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Obamacare and gay marriage.

And companies refuse to hire or massively cut back.

The unintended consequences of a “progressive” government.

And they will never blame themselves why their economies don’t work. They will just blame evil corporations.


8 posted on 08/21/2013 5:42:14 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities.

Granted. BUT, it has been a benefit and part of the employee's overall compensation. The company gains by attracting employees who value that. At one time, it was economically feasible to make that decision. Now, not so much.

9 posted on 08/21/2013 5:44:25 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Teamsters: “Wait! What?”


10 posted on 08/21/2013 5:45:08 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Oh, unions exempt - for now.


11 posted on 08/21/2013 5:46:14 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities.

This has always been a way for UPS to attract better workers while keeping pay rates low. It is in effect, a pay cut for those employees who make use of this freely negotiated benefit.
12 posted on 08/21/2013 5:48:50 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

The union employees have a contract which will be renegotiated at some point, and I expect health insurance will be a big part of the negotiations.

Expect to see more of this as companies of all stripes look at the numbers. It will just make economic sense. Employers who have benefited from employees married to spouses working at Cadillac coverage companies will start to shift their plans as well. In the end the path leads to obamacare.


13 posted on 08/21/2013 5:51:52 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Technically, an employer has no OBLIGATION to provide ANY benefits whatsoever. However, to retain employees and attract new employees, employers often DO offer benefits. . . . Assuming that since it is not compulsory, then it is forbidden is a Lefty thought-process, friend. . .


14 posted on 08/21/2013 5:53:40 AM PDT by Salgak (http://catalogoftehburningstoopid.blogspot.com 100% all-natural snark !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yet their direct competitor, FedEx, has not found it necessary to invoke such “austerity measures” for its management.

The difference? UPS is a union shop.


15 posted on 08/21/2013 5:54:53 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Obamacare and gay marriage.

And companies refuse to hire or massively cut back.

The unintended consequences of a “progressive” government.

I disagree, those consequences are entirely intended. Just oiling the slippery slope.

16 posted on 08/21/2013 5:56:28 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.

Wow, a bit of an oversight, no?

17 posted on 08/21/2013 6:02:07 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Kill Obamacare not wound it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Have you thought,"Why would the ones who espoused obamacare as the best thing since sliced bread, are the ones that are now saying how bad it will be?" That they did not realize how bad it was? Not the answer. They were informed over and over again by not just one but many of what it would lead to, do, and its long term effects. Those who tried to warn were ridiculed and ignored.

The answer is Obamacare was designed to do three things: Bankrupt private insurance companies and the medical profession. 2. Fail. 3. Pave the way for a single payer system, a/k/a socialized medicine.

Now that the Supreme Court has declared it Constitutional it will accomplish goal one and in accomplishing goal one fail, thus accomplishing goal two.

What is happening now is laying the groundwork for goal three; the design and implementation of a single payer system. Bullshit, you say, it is preposterous to consider obamacare a failure and it is too early to even think of a single payer system. Recall how many years it took the Democrats to get obamacare passed? The Democrats heed the lessons learned from their mistakes. The Republicans don't.

18 posted on 08/21/2013 6:03:17 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

“this only applies to “management” not the union employees”

Come the next contract, it could get interesting.


19 posted on 08/21/2013 6:05:58 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.

“Wow, a bit of an oversight, no? “

The DemonRats war on Women and Gays, news at 5:00, or not.


20 posted on 08/21/2013 6:09:52 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

Indeed. It’s going to depend on who is running the negotiations for the Teamsters. The rank and file are extremely dedicated and hard working guys (I worked for UPS for 8 years) who won’t want to strike. If it’s still Hoffa he has already come out and said that Obamacare will destroy their health plans: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/15/labor-leaders-obamacare-will-shatter-their-health-benefits-cause-nightmare-scenarios/


21 posted on 08/21/2013 6:14:44 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.

“Wow, a bit of an oversight, no? “


no oversight at all. Spouses are expected to get off their bottoms and go out there and work for the state! Bring in those tax dollars, Baby!

Stay at homes add value but their services are not taxable, yet.


22 posted on 08/21/2013 6:24:30 AM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

It is bringing UPS to equal pay for equal work—instead of paying married employees, via their spouse’s healthcare—far more than single employees.


23 posted on 08/21/2013 6:26:41 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Just because stay-at-homes at value doesn’t mean single employees should get less pay than married ones.


24 posted on 08/21/2013 6:28:09 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

But I would be upset if they took my spouse off the healthcare, but not the stay-at-home spouse of someone else. Seems like they could continue to cover the spouses but charge the full premium (no subsidy from UPS), and then it would be more of a “choice” to the employees, rather than seemingly a penalty.


25 posted on 08/21/2013 6:37:30 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think that the drivers are Teamsters, so they are just getting what they endorsed.....


26 posted on 08/21/2013 6:38:19 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angcat

I believe they are all Teamster members.


27 posted on 08/21/2013 6:46:38 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Right, isn’t UPS a Union shop?


28 posted on 08/21/2013 6:56:10 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

However, the other side of the story is that if a worker is worried about his/her family not being taken care of (such as medical insturance), that employee is going to be distracted from doing his/her best work. Just my two cents worth. In other words, this is just part of the total compensation packaged considered when filling a position.


29 posted on 08/21/2013 7:23:28 AM PDT by upbeat5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This has been the plan all along: Make private insurance unaffordable then make government insurance the only plan available then allowed.


30 posted on 08/21/2013 7:35:51 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

They are behind about 2 decades.

The company I worked for an many others, started refusing to pay medical costs if the spouse was covered until the spouses’s costs exceed their company’s limits.

So if your spouse had a health insurance policy covered by another company, our insurance became a secondary insurance.

When the group of doctors, who were my wife’s employers started to pay for health insurance, she negotiated an great one time raise in lieu of going on their plan. It worked well for her employees and her.


31 posted on 08/21/2013 7:39:30 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obozoliar and his thugs in his outhouse lie 24/7/365. They are unable to tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

And the reality probably would be that all spouses would choose insurance through the exchange, or whatever, rather than pay the full load for the super-premium packages that most employers have offered.


32 posted on 08/21/2013 7:45:19 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT
Right, isn’t UPS a Union shop?

Yes, and ultra-liberal.
33 posted on 08/21/2013 8:56:37 AM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Just because stay-at-homes at value doesn’t mean single employees should get less pay than married ones.

_______________

Huh? Left field?


34 posted on 08/21/2013 10:43:42 AM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

That’s what currently happens: married workers get upwards of $10K a year more than their single colleagues—in the form of spousal healthcare benefits.


35 posted on 08/21/2013 10:57:20 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

So some disease ridden guy marries a UPS manager in a gay marriage and he is not automatically covered? Wow will he be pissed!


36 posted on 08/21/2013 11:24:33 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Kill Obamacare not wound it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Epic fail.


37 posted on 08/21/2013 6:45:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

As planned.


38 posted on 08/21/2013 7:21:29 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Ha.

Suck on that labor unions. :)


39 posted on 08/21/2013 7:46:56 PM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Excatly. That is why they call them “Benefits”


40 posted on 08/21/2013 8:39:35 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: angcat

“Ha All Obot voters I’m sure.”
___________________________________________

I would not be so sure of that. I was a UPS shipper, and saw the driver every day. I remember only three guys that serviced my company, one was black, but all seemed to be conservatives. This, of course, was long before anyone had heard of Obumbo, 1970s to 90s.


41 posted on 08/21/2013 8:48:59 PM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT

The jobs like driver, sorter, loader, washer are union, management and the relatively few hourly clerks in a couple of departments are not.


42 posted on 08/21/2013 11:33:26 PM PDT by kelly4c (http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2900389%2C41#help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I disagree with that thought process.

I say this as a married man with no children. The same mindset could describe employees who have no children versus those who do as feeling they are discriminated against because they somehow get less than those with children.

I do not begrudge any “extra” benefits given to a worker who has children in the same way I never begrudged any benefits to married couples when I was single.

If a company offers benefits to attract quality workers, it is up to them to decide how they want to do it.


43 posted on 08/22/2013 3:20:02 AM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere.

DUH!

Who AIN'T???

44 posted on 08/22/2013 3:43:53 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Yes, you can also argue that companies should be able to pay men way more than women for the same work, if they so choose, but I don’t think that’s right any more than I think it is right to pay someone almost twice as much if they are covering an entire family with health insurance. Let people get paid the same for the same job and then choose how much of that they’d like funneled into the various benefit options.


45 posted on 08/22/2013 6:11:53 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: angcat

Interesting UPS is not mentioning GAY RIGHTS and parasitic marriage as the culprit, but that makes sense now.


46 posted on 08/22/2013 6:16:12 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Funny no one speaks about women getting the men’s paycheck anyways.


47 posted on 08/22/2013 6:18:03 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

48 posted on 08/22/2013 9:35:38 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

If it is a mandate, that is wrong.

If a company offers it as a benefit to attract people, that is different, and that is what I am referring to.

I should be able to run my company as I see fit.


49 posted on 08/22/2013 9:43:11 AM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson