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 ...
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/
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.
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.
Just because stay-at-homes at value doesn’t mean single employees should get less pay than married ones.
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.
I think that the drivers are Teamsters, so they are just getting what they endorsed.....
I believe they are all Teamster members.
Right, isn’t UPS a Union shop?
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.
This has been the plan all along: Make private insurance unaffordable then make government insurance the only plan available then allowed.
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.
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.
Just because stay-at-homes at value doesn’t mean single employees should get less pay than married ones.
_______________
Huh? Left field?
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.
So some disease ridden guy marries a UPS manager in a gay marriage and he is not automatically covered? Wow will he be pissed!
Epic fail.
As planned.
Ha.
Suck on that labor unions. :)
Excatly. That is why they call them “Benefits”
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.