by
Segen • Jun 25th, 2008 at 11:30 pm •
14 comments
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of sharing an extended bus ride with an Illinois state legislator. We got to talking about many things, one of them being the day-to-day operation of her office. I asked what her budget was like for staff in Springfield, to which she replied, it was meager. She said that she had to get creative with the budget and learn how to make a dollar last. Her solution: hiring two people who rely on their husbands for insurance coverage for the price of one employee who needs benefits.
As a person who is currently looking for a job (need an employee…?) and does not have a spouse or anyone else that covers my insurance, I feel discriminated against. If I was an applicant for a staff position in Springfield and it came down to me and another person who had a husband or wife footing the insurance bills, I wonder who would get the job…
Another very “creative” form of job discrimination, if you ask me.
Comment by kofi the the sooner we can nationalize the healthcare and energy industries, the sooner we can bring these kind of efficiencies to everyone on 26 June 2008 at 12:07 am:
See this is what is wrong with our legislators. They do not understand simple math. Employee benefit expenses do not even approach annual salary. In most cases they top out near a third of total compensation. Since investigation is not your strong suit (deja-vu moment), I will do the math for you: the legislator would have to hire three non-benefit employees to make room for one additional normal employee. But this is not the case. The explanation: Her sob story is bullshit. It is complete crap. She is either lying to you to through her teeth, or she is too dumb to understand the reality of the situation. Pick your poison.
Comment by Segen on 26 June 2008 at 12:23 am:
Kofi,
What do you mean “deja-vu”?
My basic point is that this legislator would prefer not to pay benefits to anyone–and therefore seeks to hire those who do not need it.
Thus, discrimination.
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 26 June 2008 at 12:24 am:
I know a particular Illinois pol who has two part timers and a full timer because they get something like $100 or $150k for staff budget. The rest of their staff is provided by the committees and a pool controlled by party bosses in a parliamentary system. It’s no small wonder why IL legislators have no independence
Comment by Kiyoshi Martinez on 26 June 2008 at 12:37 am:
Kofi: It’s possible that the situation is something like Brandon describes: two part-timers at half-time instead of one at full time w/ benefits.
The money saved can then be used by the legislator to go toward other things, such as a district mailing or event.
Now, if these were both full-time employees, well, yeah, it doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Segen on 26 June 2008 at 12:42 am:
I’m sorry. I do not know if those employees were full or part time.
I guess I could ask…but that might be a very, very awkward phone call…
Comment by Segen on 26 June 2008 at 12:48 am:
Oh, and for the future commentors to this post:
I am seriously looking for employment. Please let me know if you know of a position you think might fit me. I WILL be needing insurance (ha)…
I am willing to move anywhere–in the world–sans…Iraq and a handful of other nations…
Comment by JayBandit on 26 June 2008 at 3:47 am:
Kofi, my benefits package is 39% of my salary…fyi. So you’re pretty dead-on with your estimate.
However, I think this is a totally plausable scenario. If you have only 3-4 employees, that 1 extra is a huge difference. Insurance costs have sky-rocketed in the last decade to do the extremely outrageous number of lawsuits people file and actually win every year. The company my father works for has had their insurance nearly double in the past decade, and that seriously puts a cramp on their style…if you know what I mean.
Comment by kofi the in twenty minutes of watching the today show ive counted a dozen ridiculously leftist positions pushed on 26 June 2008 at 6:42 am:
Alright well turning to the point of the post, this is just one of those types of discrimination that is not really discrimination. If they didnt want to hire you because you had a family and that would mean higher benefits costs, you could sue. If they didnt want to hire you because you were old and would have higher beneifts costs, yould could sue. If you were disabled and they didnt want to hire you because of the benefits cost — again, you could sue. You apparently arent a member of a protected class, so its ok to discriminate against you. Get used to it.
Comment by Anonymous on 26 June 2008 at 8:36 am:
Segen, had you considered marrying someone with insurance?
Comment by tet on 26 June 2008 at 8:59 am:
I find it ironic that a woman is complaining about a situation that makes it more likely that a woman will be hired for a job.
Tom
Comment by Segen on 26 June 2008 at 12:51 pm:
Anon–
I don’t think marriage has anything to do with my job. Therefore, I would not marry someone just to get insurance.
Tom–
Women should be treated equally with all other types of employees. This insurance situation does not deal specifically with women–there are probably lots of men without insurance, too.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2008 at 3:19 pm:
There are men without insurance, Segen. However, there are a lot fewer men that have wives providing them with insurance, which was the analog to the situation you presented in your article.
Her method of hiring definitely will result in women gaining a job preference.
Tom
Comment by Segen on 26 June 2008 at 8:29 pm:
Ok. I see your point now, Tom. In theory, women can gain a job preference based on the fact that more women are on their husbands insurance plans. But now we have a problem of women with insurance vs women without insurance. There are a lot of single mothers out there…with no husband to take care of the insurance.
Anyway, I still do not agree with the entire premise of this discrimination, however.
Perhaps employers should provide benefits to EVERYONE–and if there is some sort of “doubling up” with a wife/husband situation, then one set of insurance benefit money should be donated to a general insurance fund, that can help other uninsured people or be some other sort of tax generation for something. Then we won’t have this insurance discrimination.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2008 at 11:13 pm:
Segen, the main problem with the insurance situation as it is now is that the insured are overusing the system.
Before there was widespread medical coverage (say in the 1950s and 60s) young people simply did not bother to go to the doctor at all unless they were in some kind of accident. Children went in before they went to school to get vaccinated, but otherwise only saw the doctor when they had something really wrong with them.
The problem with the current setups is that otherwise healthy people are going in on the slightest pretext. Doctors, in order to protect themselves from suits are overprescribing both medications and tests.
Since in any economy where goods and services are overused, prices go up, those who really need medical services cannot get them now because they’re too expensive.
The problem with increasing the amount of insurance coverage is that the amount of overuse will INCREASE, since there’s no incentive to keep usage down. This means that medical costs will increase faster.
It’s a positive feedback loop that may not have a solution without changing people’s opinions on when medical care is needed. We seriously need a less-safe society. With any luck, there’s one right around the corner.
Tom Trumpinski