Companies do NOT care... - Page 2

the chi · 07-07-2010, 01:03 PM

Does she have the insurance that covers loss of work? As in the type that makes sure you still get paid at least a portion of your regular paycheck...often you have to not get paid for a certain amount of time before those benefits kick in tho...

shmike · 07-07-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the chi

Does she have the insurance that covers loss of work? As in the type that makes sure you still get paid at least a portion of your regular paycheck...often you have to not get paid for a certain amount of time before those benefits kick in tho...

Sounds like she does and that is what is causing the issues.

It is a benefits/insurance case at this point, regardless of what her team leader says.

karl_1052 · 07-07-2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

They are holding her job for her while she is away. What more should she expect? Should the company continue to pay her for not working?

Unless they have a benefits plan in place, no.

If she does have benefits, and the insurance is dicking her around, then the company should step in, and have HR deal with it. It is their job to ensure that the employees are taken care of.
An HR manager will have a lot more pull than a regular employee when dealing with an Inusrance company.

Papa_Complex · 07-07-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

We have regulated capitalism.

While I agree that people should not have to fight with their insurance companies to have legitimate bills paid, the company should also be expected (and allowed) to do their due diligence to make sure it was a covered loss. To be honest with you, I find it hard to believe that the insurance company is even involved at this point.

Regarding the companies do not care comments, I believe that those comments were made in regard to the ex's employer not her insurance carrier. I originally said she should get an attorney (I misread and assumed she had been fired). I no longer feel that that is necessary.

They are holding her job for her while she is away. What more should she expect? Should the company continue to pay her for not working?

While this tragic event is more assuredly going to cause a huge financial strain on the family, I'm not sure how that is the fault or responsibility of her employer?

The way that I see it, it's a case of two companies not meeting their responsibilities. The 'employer' is failing to be an advocate for the person they employed, who is now in dire straights. This strikes me as a failure of corporate responsibility, the washing their hands of the entire issue. What else is an HR department for?

As to the insurer, they're doing what many companies have been slapped down for on numerous occasions; delaying, delaying, and then likely denying. I have no problem with a company working to be profitable but this strikes me as both abrogation of basic human responsibility, and breach of contract by failure to perform. Insurance companies in the US have a very poor track record for fulfilling their responsibilities, and allegations (founded) of paying performance incentives for finding ways to avoid those responsibilities.

*EDIT* Kaneman, next time your ex talks to the insurer, tell her to get a case number from the contact. Whenever she calls them back tell her to reference that case number, rather than letting them run her through the gears yet again.

shmike · 07-07-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaneman

They're not paying her anymore. Both her kids were near death, in ICU, and despite getting assurances from a team leader, a group leader and an HR rep that she would get paid during her leave, they stopped paying her.

Now, when she calls HR they tell her to call the insurance company as they are no longer involved. I mean, these motherfuckers (Human Resources) have an entire area of the building off to themselves, they have 7 reps...yet they can't help you deal with THEIR insurance company.

Everytime she calls the insurance company they make her tell the story over again to a new rep, describe the children's injuries, tell them what she does all day, etc. etc. So the company that she has worked at for over 10 years is forcing her to deal with this all on her own instead of just fucking paying her. All they have to do is cut a check, its that simple, they can do it right out of the office...

That totally sucks and I can understand your frustration.

It really sucks that a few bosses gave her what seems to be inaccurate information.

She should be getting paid out of her STDI plan or whatever she has.

However, you know as well as I do that big companies have procedures to follow and HR can't just cut a check because someone is in a tight spot.

azoomm · 07-07-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karl_1052

Unless they have a benefits plan in place, no.

If she does have benefits, and the insurance is dicking her around, then the company should step in, and have HR deal with it. It is their job to ensure that the employees are taken care of.
An HR manager will have a lot more pull than a regular employee when dealing with an Inusrance company.

This.

If this doesn't work - hire an attorney to light the fire.

shmike · 07-07-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The way that I see it, it's a case of two companies not meeting their responsibilities. The 'employer' is failing to be an advocate for the person they employed, who is now in dire straights. This strikes me as a failure of corporate responsibility, the washing their hands of the entire issue. What else is an HR department for?

As to the insurer, they're doing what many companies have been slapped down for on numerous occasions; delaying, delaying, and then likely denying. I have no problem with a company working to be profitable but this strikes me as both abrogation of basic human responsibility, and breach of contract by failure to perform. Insurance companies in the US have a very poor track record for fulfilling their responsibilities, and allegations (founded) of paying performance incentives for finding ways to avoid those responsibilities.

I whole heartedly agree that the employer should have some type of advocate on her behalf. She should have an HR person assigned specifically to her until the issue is resolved. The fact that she doesn't is shitty.

Neither of us knows anywhere close to enough about the situation to deal with the insurance issue. If the boy is denied any medical services because of the insurance company delaying or denying the claim, I'll be the first person to shout "SUE!"

shmike · 07-07-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karl_1052

Unless they have a benefits plan in place, no.

If she does have benefits, and the insurance is dicking her around, then the company should step in, and have HR deal with it. It is their job to ensure that the employees are taken care of.
An HR manager will have a lot more pull than a regular employee when dealing with an Inusrance company.

It would have saved me a lot of typing if I had seen your post first.

I agree 100%.

Papa_Complex · 07-07-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

I whole heartedly agree that the employer should have some type of advocate on her behalf. She should have an HR person assigned specifically to her until the issue is resolved. The fact that she doesn't is shitty.

Neither of us knows anywhere close to enough about the situation to deal with the insurance issue. If the boy is denied any medical services because of the insurance company delaying or denying the claim, I'll be the first person to shout "SUE!"

In this case the insurance issue appears to be failure to pay for compassionate leave, under a STD or LTD agreement.

Angee · 07-07-2010, 01:19 PM

FMLA should also protect her too.