[HN Gopher] Ex-IBM sales veteran sues for access to health benefits
___________________________________________________________________
Ex-IBM sales veteran sues for access to health benefits
Author : rntn
Score : 79 points
Date : 2023-11-19 17:41 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| neilv wrote:
| One of the things I like about some tech companies is that they
| seem to care how employees feel about the company.
|
| I haven't gotten that impression from IBM in a long time,
| however.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| In my brief tenure at IBM after they acquired Blekko I quickly
| came to realize that the near death experience in the 90's
| fundamentally changed the company. It gave their Finance team
| an iron lock on all decisions and all of their decisions were
| based on 'how much will this cost?' and 'how much will this
| save?' It made corporate politics easier, if you pitched a
| project all you had to do was code the language that Finance
| wanted to hear and even if people didn't "want" it, it could
| get approved. Quite sad in a way.
| namdnay wrote:
| I think that's an indirect consequence of tech companies being
| profitable and operating in a tight labour market.
|
| As soon as investors worry, the whole care-bear thing goes out
| of the window, and it never even existed for those cleaning the
| offices
| toast0 wrote:
| I would rather honesty. I don't want to be told to bring my
| authentic self to work, when that's not really what they want.
|
| I'm also not a fan of the company providing food, laundry,
| transportation, travel arrangements, etc, etc, etc and claiming
| that they want to ease my life or whatever, when really they
| just want to make it harder to leave to another job.
| neilv wrote:
| On those little lifestyle perquisites, those can be good for
| morale, and can also mean a person spends more time and
| attention working.
|
| Before dotcoms, I worked places that would pay for delivered
| dinner for anyone working late (otherwise, as soon as you
| leave the office, you call it a day, plus company is feeding
| you like parent, plus little social camaraderie break with
| other people working late), or would provide cab vouchers for
| people who worked late (no going home only because don't feel
| safe walking home after dark), etc.
|
| I don't think anyone has illusions about the motives there,
| and there's some alignment.
|
| The "make it harder to leave to another job" I dislike is
| things like stock options that must be exercised within 90
| days of leaving, before the stock is liquid and before you
| know whether it'll be worth anything. Or health insurance
| situations for some people (improved since ACA). Or bonus or
| retirement contribution schedules that mean waiting until the
| end of the year (and with no guarantee there won't be layoffs
| shortly before, especially given that a sociopathic company
| has incentive not to pay). (One of the big reasons I didn't
| take a nice non-blockchain fintech job offer with FAANG-like
| TC level was because of all the complex structuring of the
| compensation, with several kinds of bonuses and shares and
| retirement contributions, which supposedly were all but
| guaranteed, but all on annual schedules, and the salary alone
| wasn't going to elevate my lifestyle from an early startup.
| Contrast with a company that routinely deposits so much money
| into your bank account that you don't much have to think
| about money -- that's a nice way to retain people and let
| them focus on the work.)
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I wish him luck. I had a very humbling discussion with an
| employment attorney when I was dealing with some clearly illegal
| stuff going on at work and their advice was "First, people don't
| keep employed people who are suing them so ask yourself how much
| money you'll have at the end of the next two years if you just
| quit and work somewhere else, or spend $15K - $30K on a lawsuit
| that may or may not result in a severance package?" And then the
| kicker, "Then ask yourself what a hiring manager of a company you
| are applying to work at will feel when they find out you sued a
| previous employer?"
|
| It really is stacked against the worker here. That he is already
| retired is a good thing, one hopes there isn't a clause buried in
| his pension that cancels it if he ever sues IBM.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The best people to file these claims are those near retirement
| who have much less to lose. Otherwise, the situation for
| workers remains...suboptimal in perpetuity. It is full of peril
| as you mention.
| kshacker wrote:
| I think the amounts are big enough to warrant a lawsuit. He is
| retired. The program is for retirees so they have nothing to
| lose in terms of future employment.
|
| The article hints at annual damages being 15-20K per retiree,
| and mentions impact on 3000 people (without actually calling it
| so precisely), so if 60 M is the annual savings to IBM, it is a
| lot of money to find lawyers and arrive at a retired-employee
| friendly outcome.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| i can see both sides of the public/private healthcare debate
|
| but tying healthcare to employment is just incredibly stupid
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Technically, it is giving employers and employees a tax break
| if the employer buys the health insurance and sufficiently
| subsidizes it to incentivize sufficient employees to opt into
| the subsidized health insurance such that it passes the non
| discrimination testing. Roughly worth at least couple thousand
| dollars per year for individuals and quite a few thousand
| dollars per year for families.
|
| Basically, a way to give bigger/better funded businesses an
| advantage over smaller businesses who cannot afford all that
| employment overhead, especially HR paperwork. Plus it helps
| obfuscate labor prices so labor sellers have a harder time
| shopping around for a better offer.
|
| Retiree healthcare coverage is beyond stupid though, I would
| value it at zero as an employee unless it was the federal
| government offering it. I don't think there are any protections
| for it either, so the employer holds all the cards.
|
| I would prefer if all these tax advantages were nixed from
| employers and offered directly to all individuals, if that.
| ghaff wrote:
| My dad had some retirement healthcare through an employer. As
| I recall, it wasn't especially cheap and then, to his
| surprise, it turned out there was a cap. So basically was a
| pretty lousy deal.
|
| I agree with the broader point. There are historical reasons
| in the US for good health insurance benefits being so tied
| to, mostly, large employers. But it's just bad policy.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| People need to understand the historical significance of why
| these things came into being.
|
| Especially since we are on the verge of WWIII on multiple
| fronts. History should not repeat itself if we find ourselfs
| in a world war again
|
| WWII price controls are directly responsible for Employer
| Beneficent plans, it was illegal to raise wages, but it was
| not illegal to offer employee's health care, at the time this
| was direct health care, companies were employing nurses,
| doctors, etc that would not only see the employee but their
| entire family often free or very low rates.
|
| This morphed over time into the employer insurance model we
| have today.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| WW2 ended 80 years ago, that is plenty of time for Congress
| to change the rules if it were so inclined.
|
| The fact that they don't even want to level the playing
| field on this specific issue, which is already overall
| tilted towards big business and the rich, speaks volumes.
| grecy wrote:
| From the employer's perspective it's not stupid at all. It ties
| people to a job, even when it sucks.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I can assure you if given the choice employers would stop
| offering health insurance to employee's, it is one of the
| larges increased in employment costs, and has a HUGE
| unpredictable factor given more and more companies are opting
| for direct payment (meaning they pay the costs of all health
| expenses directly)
| shoo wrote:
| Decoupling health insurance and retirement investment plans
| from one's employer reduces friction for individuals selling
| their labor to switch jobs without worrying that it is going to
| blow up some other facet of their lives.
|
| How it works here in Australia: there's a public health system
| (~15% of federal government budget). Individuals or families
| can also purchase varying degrees of private health cover, if
| they so wish. Health insurance isn't coupled to employment.
| There's no standard or expectation that employers directly
| provide health cover to employees as part of the deal of being
| an employee.
|
| Similarly, choices for how to invest for retirement are
| decoupled from employment. 11% of gross wages must be paid into
| a "superannuation" fund, a special kind of tax-advantaged
| investment fund. The employee has the choice of which
| superannuation fund they want to use, and can elect to switch
| between funds.
|
| There is a marketplace of private health insurers and
| superannuation (retirement investment) funds. Both the private
| health insurance sector and the superannuation sector are
| regulated, which reduces the potential for the degree of
| criminality and grift. Competition is essential, but regulation
| is also essential and in the public benefit.
|
| Large companies may choose to set up and offer their own
| proprietary superannuation funds to their employees, but
| employees have the freedom to ignore this and choose a
| different externally managed fund. E.g.
| LiarsGriftersThievesMountebanks LLC might offer their employees
| the option of directing their superannuation contributions to
| the proprietary LGTM retirement fund, which invests employees
| funds in bonded whisky barrel scams run by parties related to
| the directors, and charges 2% p.a. management fees, but
| employees have the freedom to ignore this deal and use some
| other super fund. There are giant "industry funds" that
| historically were set up by trade unions & only open to people
| working in a specific industry -- they're often operating at a
| large enough scale to provide good investment returns, have low
| fees, and are operated as not-for-profits.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > But with Medicare Advantage, "once you're in a Medicare
| Advantage plan for more than 12 months, you cannot then buy a
| Medigap plan unless you meet insurance requirements," he claimed.
| So if you have a preexisting condition, they can deny you
| coverage and the retiree then has to pay that 20 percent.
|
| > Kadereit argues this state of affairs is being allowed to
| happen by Congress to avoid tough decisions about how to deal
| with spiraling healthcare costs. And business accounts
| departments like it because there's profit to be made.
|
| But what we should really worry about are Obamacare death panels.
| fragmede wrote:
| In hindsight, the argument about Obamacare death panels should
| defer to the fact that they already existed, the question is do
| you want insurance adjusters on your panel, or doctors?
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Neither, really. Doctors are famous for not wanting heroic
| measures taken.
| nativeit wrote:
| Who said anything about heroes? We just need choices about
| medical necessity to be made by something other than how it
| might benefit some company's bottom line. It's not exactly
| donning a cape.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| In case you didn't know:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_measure
|
| And yes, it's far better for triage to be done by trained
| medical people than by insurance adjusters. But if given
| the option, I'd prefer just me and my loved ones making
| medical decisions about me. Of course we don't have this
| option, but it should still be something to strive for.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > But if given the option, I'd prefer just me and my
| loved ones making medical decisions about me.
|
| But, in a system with limited resources, it makes not
| sense to have individuals that need the resources (but
| don't pay them) making the decisions. Clearly, nearly
| _everyone_ would say to use every possible medical option
| on themselves and their loved ones; even if doing so cost
| other people (with more established and inexpensive
| treatments) their lives.
|
| For any system where lots of people pay in, and everyone
| shares the resources, the decisions on how the resources
| are distributed _must_ be made by something other than
| individuals in the group that need them.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > For any system where lots of people pay in, and
| everyone shares the resources, the decisions on how the
| resources are distributed _must_ be made by something
| other than individuals in the group that need them.
|
| Actually it might be nice if all such decisions were made
| by a panel of people from just such a group. Regular
| people _may_ prioritize some classes of people over
| others, but are probably less likely to than an elite
| panel.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| This was a standard rebuttal at the time. It was obvious then
| (as it is now) that insurance companies were playing the same
| roll as the supposed death panels. But the voices saying
| "government death panels" were just louder than the rebuttals
| which wasn't that surprising since it was repeated ad nauseum
| by a certain political party as well as the largest news
| organization in the country.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| In every case I pick the private market over government.
|
| Private markets are run by contract and have at least minimal
| check via the court system via lawsuits
|
| Government actors are immune from all liability, and can not
| be sued unless the government gives you permission to sue
| them
|
| So do i want insurance death panels.... no. But I would
| prefer them over government death panels
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| US State (and subordinate) governments are forbidden by
| Constitutional law [0] from violating contractual
| obligations. They can be sued for any such violation
| without permission.
|
| For the federal government there are a variety of federal
| statutes that govern various contractual obligations, and
| provide means to sue.
|
| 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
| phpisthebest wrote:
| And you believe that would apply in government created
| single pay health situation for denial of care
|
| Press F for Doubt
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| It depends on what the contract states.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| The government has a vested interest in my continuing to
| live via taxes. The insurance company would prefer you die
| quickly. I would prefer not having to sue while I'm dying
| to get an insurance company to do what I paid them to do.
| emj wrote:
| [delayed]
| crazygringo wrote:
| There are two problems with this logic:
|
| First, you're missing the point that any private company is
| financially incentivized to end care. Their interests are
| the _polar opposite of yours_. Whereas government programs
| aren 't rewarded at all for saving money. (E.g. Social
| Security doesn't "forget" to mail you checks 10% of the
| time, the way private reimbursement programs intentionally
| will.)
|
| And second, you're completely wrong about the ability to
| sue the government. There's no meaningful difference in
| being able to sue a company or sue the government. It's all
| the same court system.
| yummypaint wrote:
| _Government actors are immune from all liability, and can
| not be sued unless the government gives you permission to
| sue them_
|
| You are misunderstanding and wrongly extrapolating
| qualified immunity. Ready any newspaper and you will
| encounter multiple counterexamples to your statement.
| Please at least read the wikipedia entry. Here's a start:
|
| "Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in
| civil litigation, and does not protect the government
| itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]"
| ghaff wrote:
| I looked through Medicare stuff recently and I came to the
| conclusion that, given that Advantage plans almost look too
| good to be true, and that every insurance company in the
| country is super anxious to sell you one, the catches (probably
| mostly about out-of-network) are more than one may want to deal
| with. Which is pretty much what I've read in the New York Times
| and elsewhere. They probably can be a good deal but are also
| probably something of a gamble relative to doing Part A, B, and
| D plus (probably) Medigap.
| Beijinger wrote:
| You were not there for me when I looked for a job. Why should I
| care for you now? Good riddance.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| As workers we owe it to each other to stick together.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| It's not a surprise that corporations prioritize financial
| interests over the lives of employees and retirees because they
| can. The mistake employees make is depending on hollow,
| unenforceable promises for financial and health security. The
| current only recourse is a lengthy, costly gamble in the courts
| that could be delayed until the plaintiff runs out of money or
| dies.
|
| It behooves potential employees to instead form worker-owned co-
| ops, that like credit unions, have different interests aligned to
| serve their members.
| taurath wrote:
| It's little known but when a retiree or on COBRA a company can
| functionally force you onto a drastically worse plan at any time,
| whenever they want, to save money. I was paying thousands to stay
| on my previous companies COBRA and suddenly my low ($1000)
| deductible plan had changed overnight to a plan with a $7000
| deductible. Suddenly I was paying for the privilege of paying.
| This is devastating to a lot of people.
| DANmode wrote:
| Linking a vital need such as healthcare to something so
| fungible as an employer seems poorly thought out in this era.
| yummypaint wrote:
| Yeah its absurd that people's employers effectively make
| medical decisions on their behalf. Death panels indeed.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Cobra makes you eligible for the health plan but you have to
| pay both the employer and the employee portions which is why it
| jumps up.
| extra88 wrote:
| They know that, that's not the problem they were describing.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Access to healthcare should not in any way be tied to an employer
| or employment.
|
| Please let's stop this system and replace it with a functioning
| one with proper incentives.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-19 23:01 UTC)