Someone would be willing to write a policy - it would just be a question of the size of the premium.
"The industry refers to it as Janitor's Insurance (though at least one Winn-Dixie executive has referred to it as "dead peasants" insurance). As I understand it, these are whole life policies, which represent an investment opportunity for the company. Is it ethical? Does it shock the conscience, or should it? I'm not sure. Because low-level people are more easily replaced, this is very different from key man insurance. Companies are competing for labor in a free market, at least in theory, so I don't think you can say that the premiums paid for the insurance somehow belong to the employee as the just fruits of his labor. I know all about corporate exploitation of little people, but I don't think that's necessarily what's going on here. OTOH is there an actuarial advantage to owning insurance on poor people? Do they die sooner, and if so, can this be associated with their lower income? (If so, you'd expect the life companies to adjust premiums - but maybe they can't do this, for regulatory and/or PR reasons.) This is where it gets ethically trickier, since by offering an inadequate health plan or encouraging unhealthy habits a company acquires - literally! - a vested interest in an employee's death. Over the long run, this can't be good. Though we have lots of low-level people in our company, I'd hesitate to recommend it - not only for ethical reasons, but because I perceive a liability risk. It should give anyone a deeply uneasy feeling to know that his company has a serious financial interest in his early death. This seems to create terrific conflicts of interest in the area of employee health and safety, and is bound to result in some very interesting labor litigation."