[Alberta's Child]

Prolly working spouses that get a better deal with hubby's insurance than the crap from Dewy, Cheatem and Howe where THEY work.

That shouldn't matter. An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities. When an employer covers a spouse and other family members under its insurance plan, that's effectively what it is doing.

[don-o]

An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities.

Granted. BUT, it has been a benefit and part of the employee's overall compensation. The company gains by attracting employees who value that. At one time, it was economically feasible to make that decision. Now, not so much.

[Dr. Sivana]

An employer should have no obligation to pay compensation to people who aren't employees and do not contribute in any way to the employer's business activities.

This has always been a way for UPS to attract better workers while keeping pay rates low. It is in effect, a pay cut for those employees who make use of this freely negotiated benefit.

[Salgak]

Technically, an employer has no OBLIGATION to provide ANY benefits whatsoever. However, to retain employees and attract new employees, employers often DO offer benefits. . . . Assuming that since it is not compulsory, then it is forbidden is a Lefty thought-process, friend. . .

[upbeat5]

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.