krs
|
posted on April 18, 2002 09:23:29 AM new
Jane Sims always knew her husband was a valuable employee to Wal-Mart. She just didn't know how valuable. Sims discovered recently that Wal-Mart, the company her husband, Douglas, worked for before he died, had taken out a life insurance policy in his name.
When Douglas Sims died in 1998 of a sudden heart attack, Wal-Mart received about $64,000. She got nothing from that policy. "I never dreamed that they could profit from my husband's death," said Sims, whose husband worked in receiving at Wal-Mart's distribution center in Plainview for 11 years.
Companies routinely take out secret life insurance policies on the lives of their low-level employees and collect thousands of
dollars when they die. The families never know the policies are in place and typically receive none of the money.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing wrong with that, right? Perfectly legal - even if it could be claimed that the company worked him to death. A sort of severance pay for corporations who suddenly lose the benefit of a worker's presence in life. What a great idea!
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1368123
|
gravid
|
posted on April 18, 2002 02:29:52 PM new
Let's say I want to take a policy out on my boss they should consider that acceptable because if anything should happen to him as my mentor and department head my job will be at risk. Think that will fly?
|
stusi
|
posted on April 18, 2002 03:43:20 PM new
"Key man" insurance is quite common in the corporate world where the loss of an important executive would create a hardship. I do not believe that insuring low-level employees is a viable practice as I believe it is technically illegal. There has to be an "insurable interest" between the parties-that is a family relationship or a documentable hardship. such a hardship is not created by the loss of a janitor. This may bring the practice into the open and if it is true that it is so common, I would expect legislative investigations to blossom.
|
nycyn
|
posted on April 18, 2002 04:04:07 PM new
I knew that.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 13, 2002 05:10:12 PM new
this is why we ned an armed revloution
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 13, 2002 05:24:25 PM new
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
la la la de la de da
|
REAMOND
|
posted on May 14, 2002 09:23:44 AM new
Democracies don't need armed revolutions, that's why they are so "neat".
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 14, 2002 10:09:02 AM new
Reamond I nkow that life is filled with Unicorns and fuzzy bunnies and people experiencing the joys of the oneness of the being with the force and all that. Now turn of the tv and use BRAIN,
I suppose you could pose your answer to the citizens of Chile who had to resort to armed revolution to get rid of Allende or better yet Explain to me what exactly it was that Washington, Jefferson and franklin were doing with their free time from 1774 to 1789 ?
|
REAMOND
|
posted on May 14, 2002 01:17:35 PM new
They were all starting a democracy.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on May 14, 2002 03:16:28 PM new
The takeover in Chile was a military coup.
I don't know anyone who defines a military coup as a democratic revolution.
Until now.... 
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
REAMOND
|
posted on May 14, 2002 03:32:48 PM new
I wasn't referring to Chile.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 14, 2002 03:38:31 PM new
your statement is a good example of how misinformed people make up their mind. you dont know me, you have only seen 2 or 3 short posts. just because you think the overthrowal of the marxist scumbag allende was a military coup does not mean it was or that it was perceieved as such by most directly informed people. I noticed you stayed away from the rest. And while I am at it democracy does not always mean freedom
The german democratic republic had to put up a wall to keep its citizens in. usually when you look up the names of 'liberated' african countries you find they have names like the nice guys easy going democratic peoples republic of the dungeon or something Like Zimbabwe. I at least am willing to make a complete statement bonilar desquirel and others do the same the smaller minds content themselves with vague short stab because its what they understand the best.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on May 14, 2002 04:02:14 PM new
Reamond, I was addressing auroranut.
just because you think the overthrowal of the marxist scumbag allende was a military coup does not mean it was or that it was perceieved as such by most directly informed people
LOL!
More like the military killing civilians.
How much time did you spend in Santiago in the 70s and 80s, aurora?
The desparecidos were not just in neighboring Argentina.
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
nycyn
|
posted on May 14, 2002 04:35:37 PM new
>>Democracies don't need armed revolutions, that's why they are so "neat".<<
Been one around here lately, tho'? You know, when the popular vote is irrrelevant.
I'm collecting stuff to sew into hems. I'm not feeling particularly optimistic about this democraacy at the moment.
D.A.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on May 14, 2002 05:09:36 PM new
When you think about it nycyn, the electoral college makes sense as opposed to a popular vote for president- I assume you are referring to the presidential election.
Using a pure popular vote for president would allow regional blocks of populations to choose the president every time. But being from New York, you may not mind that ! LOL!
Small regional populations voting power would be severely diminished without the electoral college.
The electoral college allows a state to cast its full weight for one candidate, and prevents regional population majorities from choosing the president.
With just a handful of states casting votes for one candidate with an average turnout it would guarantee a candidate's election.
People in a state like Nevada or maine or Rhode Island would never have a real chance at effecting an election unless they allied themselves with east coast populations like New York.
The college helps prevent regionalism, as well as some of the larger population states colluding to choose the president at every election.
|
nycyn
|
posted on May 14, 2002 05:39:45 PM new
>>Using a pure popular vote for president would allow regional blocks of populations to choose the president every time.<<
So what? I'm not trying to be difficult or even make a point. Remember you are talking to a woman with a 6yo who is still trying to finish "Baby's First Year." (Well, I exaggerate--I gave up on it.)
And besides I'm 50% Georgian; 5.06 acres worth. So there!
So explain to me in layman's terms why popular vote is not sufficient and "democratic"?
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 14, 2002 07:03:36 PM new
so when we cant come up with any facts we call names ? While I am at it you never stated your position on the origin of this thread. Do you think that it is right for a third unrleated party such as an employer to take out an insurance policy that has no benefit to the inuured party or their family and or estate? I said armed revolution the difference between us is that I can see this is beyond straightening itself out.
|
Borillar
|
posted on May 14, 2002 08:49:03 PM new
I heard a lot of rationale and reasoning behind the electoral colledge this last Presidential election cycle. I heard so much of it, I still doubt it. I mean, having been in business for so many years, you hear so many lies and crap from con artists, you begin to spot someone sweating over a forged check at a glance and these proponents seemed no different to me. If the Popular Vote were tallied and a majority declared, I think it would work very well. I don't see any problem with large population centers getting the advertising dollars: there's more voters there, so the lion's share should go there as well. And with the Town Hall Meeting approach, no voter is left out colder than they already were. I mean, this ain't the days before radio, ya know?
|
msincognito
|
posted on May 15, 2002 12:07:53 PM new
This seemed like an urban legend to me....so I hit Google. Turns out....
It's true! Commonly called "Dead Peasant Policies," or "janitor's insurance" (word!) their proper name is "Corporate Owned Life Insurance," and they have become sneakily popular among big corporations as a tax-sheltered investment. What makes it even worse: Until 1996, companies could take tax-free loans against the policies! My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
The investment option led many corporations take a very liberal definition of "key personnel."
There's a good story about it on NPR's website (from May 9) but it's getting old and I don't know how long it will be before it falls off their server.
I will try to post a link but it's to the Google cache of the site, not the NPR site itself.
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:FjgjAZZO_doC:news.npr.org/business.html+%22profiting+from+death%22&hl=en
|
BittyBug
|
posted on May 19, 2002 12:00:16 PM new
The US of A is not a democracy...it is a republic. There are very big differences between the two.
Please call me Charlotte so I don't have ta change my ID.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on May 19, 2002 12:06:50 PM new
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
|
