4 ms·

There are reports from strikers trying to refill medication that the medical benefit suspension has already unilaterally gone into effect. The university has g

by munk-a 4y ago

There are reports from strikers trying to refill medication that the medical benefit suspension has already unilaterally gone into effect. The university has gone ahead with their threats in that regard (which is especially shitty since it's pretty standard in the US to give employees a health insurance grace period on termination). I am really confused about what the university thinks they're going to get out of these actions.

giantg2 4y ago
Would COBRA come into play here?
- munk-a 4y ago
  They should all be eligible for COBRA, but COBRA is pretty insanely expensive (which is hard to pay for if you're striking and don't have a regular income - especially if you don't have much money in general like most grads). And people weren't actually informed their healthcare would be cut so they weren't aware they'd need to apply for bridging coverage.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    COBRA is the real cost of healthcare insurance, which is hidden because the employer pays for X % + because the employer and employee both paid with pretax dollars (something that is not possible for COBRA since you are now a former employee) Its not that COBRA is expensive, but that all tax-subsidized employer insurance is prohibitively expensive and typically costs 15-25% of the median worker's after-tax earnings Healthcare insurance subsidies by employers are the biggest piece in wage increases... that are hiding from most "wage growth" statistics
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    I've been on COBRA a couple of times: 1. For young, single people, especially if they have the option of a high deductible plan, I wouldn't call it "insanely expensive" (now, family coverage I'd agree). In any case, what the sibling comment said is correct - it's just the full cost of the premiums since the employer isn't paying any. 2. Every time I went on COBRA I had a "grace period" of something like 4-8 weeks between when I left employment and when I had to make my first COBRA payment. Even if, for example, I got injured before I decided to officially sign up for COBRA, I still had the option of gaining coverage backdated to the date when I left my employer if it was before the end of the grace period.
andrew_ 4y ago
I'm confused by that. When my health care ends by termination (of any flavor), I can continue to use that policy number and card for some time. I can then sign up for COBRA and continue my coverage using the same cards. Perhaps there's something else at play, but very strange to suddenly not be able to fill prescriptions.
- jahewson 4y ago
  > I can continue to use that policy number and card for some time That would be the grace period.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  That's interesting, every time I've left a job the insurance was canceled more or less instantly.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Are you in the U.S.? It's law https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra
    - jrumbut 4y ago
      Yes, but that is a separate purchase (that is usually extraordinarily expensive). You don't just get continued coverage.
      - andrew_ 4y ago
        That's why I had said "... I can sign up for COBRA... "
        jrumbut 4y ago
        They could also just buy a plan directly from an insurer, but if it's massively expensive like COBRA coverage (especially for the kind of premium plans universities frequently offer), it's not really a practical option.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
What do you mean? The university is trying to teach a lesson by inflicting pain on those who stood against it. I thought that was clear. Do you maybe mean "what makes them think that this is legal?" I doubt they do. But they likely decided that value of sending a "don't fuck with us" message was higher than the cost of the likely mild consequences.
- munk-a 4y ago
  Oh - as far as I'm aware it's quite legal for them to be doing all this. But, especially in the US where healthcare is not guaranteed universally, cutting such an essential service is just going to create an even bigger wave of bad PR. A lot of people in the US have very strong feelings about the healthcare system and Temple just decided to highlight how cruel it can be in their dealings with a strike and bring that debate into the middle of their labor negotiations - that isn't a good thing for Temple as it's more likely to attract big names and get political. But legally, they're certainly in the clear - after Reagan forced air traffic controllers back to work it's been pretty clear that unions in America have essentially no guaranteed rights.
- komali2 4y ago
  > on those who stood against it Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being. It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work. What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?
  - bruceb 4y ago
    >That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? How many people apply for each position? For many areas (not CS) its a buyers market not a sellers one in terms of faculty labor.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Hopefully an entire new administration.
wwweston 4y ago
Perhaps from the University POV the point is less to not be wounded as to exact as high a possible cost for striking so that anyone involved and any future strikers don't think they have anything to gain from it, even if the University has things to lose from their choices. Or to use a phrase that goes around these days: the cruelty is the point.
pxc 4y ago
[flagged]
- munk-a 4y ago
  Violence is never a good response as long as there are other avenues open. I absolutely agree that Temple's actions here are loathsome, but even reciprocal violence should be avoided if possible.
  - komali2 4y ago
    Given that some are arguing that we open the definition of violence to include things beyond what society has traditionally thought of it to be (punching people in the face) to society's detriment imo, how do you feel about the statement "removing healthcare is violence?" Can you think of other forms of similar violence that may sit well with you? Some might argue that a strike itself is a form of violence against profits. Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else.
    - pxc 4y ago
      > Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else. Exactly. Punching faces is probably not stategic, and the strikers likely have other ways to respond in the course of this strike. But we should not mince words about what they're responding to, and we should bear the university's violence in mind when examining and discussing whatever the strikers decide to do next.
- speakfreely 4y ago
  I really wish people would stop trying to redefine the word "violence" to mean anything they don't like. In almost every instance it's a strong signal that you're dealing with an emotional person who is incapable of having a rational conversation.

by munk-a 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

Would COBRA come into play here?

munk-a 4y ago
They should all be eligible for COBRA, but COBRA is pretty insanely expensive (which is hard to pay for if you're striking and don't have a regular income - especially if you don't have much money in general like most grads). And people weren't actually informed their healthcare would be cut so they weren't aware they'd need to apply for bridging coverage.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  COBRA is the real cost of healthcare insurance, which is hidden because the employer pays for X % + because the employer and employee both paid with pretax dollars (something that is not possible for COBRA since you are now a former employee) Its not that COBRA is expensive, but that all tax-subsidized employer insurance is prohibitively expensive and typically costs 15-25% of the median worker's after-tax earnings Healthcare insurance subsidies by employers are the biggest piece in wage increases... that are hiding from most "wage growth" statistics
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I've been on COBRA a couple of times: 1. For young, single people, especially if they have the option of a high deductible plan, I wouldn't call it "insanely expensive" (now, family coverage I'd agree). In any case, what the sibling comment said is correct - it's just the full cost of the premiums since the employer isn't paying any. 2. Every time I went on COBRA I had a "grace period" of something like 4-8 weeks between when I left employment and when I had to make my first COBRA payment. Even if, for example, I got injured before I decided to officially sign up for COBRA, I still had the option of gaining coverage backdated to the date when I left my employer if it was before the end of the grace period.

andrew_ 4y ago

I'm confused by that. When my health care ends by termination (of any flavor), I can continue to use that policy number and card for some time. I can then sign up for COBRA and continue my coverage using the same cards. Perhaps there's something else at play, but very strange to suddenly not be able to fill prescriptions.

jahewson 4y ago
> I can continue to use that policy number and card for some time That would be the grace period.
jrumbut 4y ago
That's interesting, every time I've left a job the insurance was canceled more or less instantly.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  Are you in the U.S.? It's law https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra
  - jrumbut 4y ago
    Yes, but that is a separate purchase (that is usually extraordinarily expensive). You don't just get continued coverage.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      That's why I had said "... I can sign up for COBRA... "
      - jrumbut 4y ago
        They could also just buy a plan directly from an insurer, but if it's massively expensive like COBRA coverage (especially for the kind of premium plans universities frequently offer), it's not really a practical option.

CobrastanJorji 4y ago

What do you mean? The university is trying to teach a lesson by inflicting pain on those who stood against it. I thought that was clear. Do you maybe mean "what makes them think that this is legal?" I doubt they do. But they likely decided that value of sending a "don't fuck with us" message was higher than the cost of the likely mild consequences.

munk-a 4y ago
Oh - as far as I'm aware it's quite legal for them to be doing all this. But, especially in the US where healthcare is not guaranteed universally, cutting such an essential service is just going to create an even bigger wave of bad PR. A lot of people in the US have very strong feelings about the healthcare system and Temple just decided to highlight how cruel it can be in their dealings with a strike and bring that debate into the middle of their labor negotiations - that isn't a good thing for Temple as it's more likely to attract big names and get political. But legally, they're certainly in the clear - after Reagan forced air traffic controllers back to work it's been pretty clear that unions in America have essentially no guaranteed rights.
komali2 4y ago
> on those who stood against it Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being. It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work. What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?
- bruceb 4y ago
  >That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? How many people apply for each position? For many areas (not CS) its a buyers market not a sellers one in terms of faculty labor.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Hopefully an entire new administration.

wwweston 4y ago

Perhaps from the University POV the point is less to not be wounded as to exact as high a possible cost for striking so that anyone involved and any future strikers don't think they have anything to gain from it, even if the University has things to lose from their choices. Or to use a phrase that goes around these days: the cruelty is the point.

pxc 4y ago

[flagged]

munk-a 4y ago
Violence is never a good response as long as there are other avenues open. I absolutely agree that Temple's actions here are loathsome, but even reciprocal violence should be avoided if possible.
- komali2 4y ago
  Given that some are arguing that we open the definition of violence to include things beyond what society has traditionally thought of it to be (punching people in the face) to society's detriment imo, how do you feel about the statement "removing healthcare is violence?" Can you think of other forms of similar violence that may sit well with you? Some might argue that a strike itself is a form of violence against profits. Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else.
  - pxc 4y ago
    > Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else. Exactly. Punching faces is probably not stategic, and the strikers likely have other ways to respond in the course of this strike. But we should not mince words about what they're responding to, and we should bear the university's violence in mind when examining and discussing whatever the strikers decide to do next.
speakfreely 4y ago
I really wish people would stop trying to redefine the word "violence" to mean anything they don't like. In almost every instance it's a strong signal that you're dealing with an emotional person who is incapable of having a rational conversation.