Posted on 07/03/2007 8:28:15 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The Walmart bashing bothers me too, but not nearly as much as the practice of taking out life insurance policies on people without so much as telling them. This thread is swamped with people defending the practice, as though it’s perfectly ethical. It’s not.
According to the lawsuit, the employees were not informed.
Even if some of these details turn out to not be what was reported, I still say the practice described is unethical. And several posts on this thread defend the practice. That’s where I have the problem. If Walmart engaged in it, it was wrong. If they didn’t engage in it, the practice described is still wrong. And I have a real problem with people who think it’s okay to do it.
And thus we have a she said/he said type situation.
As I said, such a practice without consent is unethical, however, I'm going to take the word of an employee that actually signed such a consent form over that of a lawyer who makes his living seeking publicity for his practice of filing such lawsuits.
Why is this article focusing on WalMart, the reason is right in the article if you read btween the lines. To avoid lengthy litigation and bad PR, even unwarranted PR, this shark in a suit is looking for WM to settle out of court. On a scale of unethical behavior, I think that is even worse.
I'm glad to see you say that (but I'm not at all surprised you have those values).
You and I are in agreement, but concerned about different things. I agree that Walmart was unfairly singled out, and might not even be guilty of the practice at all. It's just another opportunity to bash Walmart.
But what bothers me even more, are the FReepers who say it's ethical to take out life insurance policies on people without their knowledge. Do these people have any moral code at all?
Maybe the problem is they had KEYMAN insurance on a woman ?
;-)
“If you asked me, I would say they did it to make more money.”
Then the insurance underwriter for the insurance policies did it to lose money?
They don’t have to net the expenses with proceeds? I’m calling B.S.
Yeah, big surprise on the money-making part, like they’d purposely do something to lose money?
Expenses and proceeds are basically a wash ... this is more or less money laundering , turning taxable into non-taxable based on a fraudulent use of insurance which does not have an otherwise meaningful purpose.
Hmmm, interesting.
we (consumers) pay all the taxes anyway. You think prices wouldn't go up if they were not sheltering income?
Exactly. Companies routinely do this to cover expenses replacing the worker. I don't see any ethical problems here...
Better check closely, I would wager that this policy originated while Hitlery was on the board. Double check to see if she was a beneficiary through stock options.
However, “Key-employees” usually know that they are insured by the company. This smacks of Hitlery redirecting the money to her “benevolent” benefit.
What difference would it make if you knew?
“KEY-MAN insuran”
350,00 Key employee’s WOW! I would like to find just one when I need help inside their lousy stores...
Companies do lots of things without your knowledge. They spy on your emails, they do credit checks and criminal checks.
Welcome to the modern world...
If insuring people without their knowledge and consent is such a good thing, then states should buy insurance on plane loads of people and sell the premiums as lottery tickets. Or hadn’t you noticed that they no longer sell those insure anybody policies at vending machines in airports.
Key employees know that they are insured by the company and give their consent.
Does the insurance remain in force even after the employee is outsourced?
If so, we're literally worth more to them dead than alive.
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.