4 ms·

The problem with this is the fact it further incentives them to do the bare minimum for OSHA & work safety in general. Numerous employers do the minimum already

The problem with this is the fact it further incentives them to do the bare minimum for OSHA & work safety in general. Numerous employers do the minimum already because it costs them money. If the employer is responsible for providing safety equipment, they shouldn't receive a payout from a failure of said safety equipment.

rverghes 12y ago
I disagree. If the death is in any way related to work, they will get sued or fined and lose a lot more money that way. The company is just playing the odds. If they have thousands of employees, some of them will die naturally every year. The entire scheme is just to gain the tax advantages of life insurance from those natural deaths.
- opendais 12y ago
  Actually, no. They have different insurance to cover that. That would be General Liability, Worker Comp, etc. Even if it works the way you suggest, it is just a wealth transfer from the Federal Government to Life Insurance. That is almost as bad since it means its ultimately a transfer of tax burden from Capital to Labor.
tptacek 12y ago
Did I miss something in this article that presented evidence that companies were neglecting work safety so as to earn returns from life insurance policies on the top 35% of earners in companies?
- opendais 12y ago
  It wasn't in response to the OP, it was in response to the parent comment. A financial incentive [payout] from employee deaths is the opposite incentive you'd want for any business that is paying for any kind of safety equipment. You'd want an incentive for the opposite behavior which no one really offers. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.search_form?p_doc_type=NEWS_RELEASES&p_toc_level=0&p_keyvalue=&p_status=CURRENT https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.searc... You can regularly see companies being cited so "numerous" is reasonable.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    The OSHA violations you're citing have nothing to do with life insurance. Has anyone reported on a company that got cited for OSHA violations and had life insurance policies on their employees? Also: wouldn't this be a pretty straightforward basis for the insurers not to pay out claims? I find this argument approximately as credible as the one that says that, having taken out a life insurance policy on employees, the company now has an incentive to have those employees murdered. And again: aren't they disallowed from taking out policies on anyone outside the top 35% best paid employees? What are the OSHA concerns for office workers?
    - opendais 12y ago
      Okay let me try explaining this in a different way since you seem to be materially misrepresenting what I’m saying: 1) A significant number of employers pay the bare minimum for worker safety [hence OSHA violations being relevant, such companies clearly exist and some miscalculate. I doubt these people are malicious, merely misjudged the minimum] 2) Life insurance policies being paid out on employees creates further incentive to do the bare minimum to comply with OSHA. In addition to not having to spend additional $$s on safety training & equipment, you now also have an investment vehicle to reinforce this behavior. 3) Many companies have more than 65% of their workforce [construction for instance] doing work in situations that require safety training & equipment. The limitation is based on a payroll %. I'm confused why this requires spelling out this verbosely, but there it is. Notice how at no point am I saying any of the stuff you are claiming I am?
      - thedufer 12y ago
        I think the misunderstanding is that you're trying to say "hey, this bad thing is possible" but you're wording it in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "hey, this bad thing is happening" and tptacek is taking offense to that claim not coming with any evidence.
        opendais 12y ago
        I was talking about incentives and I provided evidence for the one claim I made [that numerous companies already do the bare minimum]. So I'm just confused how he could read it that way. But alright, I guess it is on me to be clearer then. :P

rverghes 12y ago

I disagree. If the death is in any way related to work, they will get sued or fined and lose a lot more money that way. The company is just playing the odds. If they have thousands of employees, some of them will die naturally every year. The entire scheme is just to gain the tax advantages of life insurance from those natural deaths.

opendais 12y ago
Actually, no. They have different insurance to cover that. That would be General Liability, Worker Comp, etc. Even if it works the way you suggest, it is just a wealth transfer from the Federal Government to Life Insurance. That is almost as bad since it means its ultimately a transfer of tax burden from Capital to Labor.

tptacek 12y ago

Did I miss something in this article that presented evidence that companies were neglecting work safety so as to earn returns from life insurance policies on the top 35% of earners in companies?

opendais 12y ago
It wasn't in response to the OP, it was in response to the parent comment. A financial incentive [payout] from employee deaths is the opposite incentive you'd want for any business that is paying for any kind of safety equipment. You'd want an incentive for the opposite behavior which no one really offers. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.search_form?p_doc_type=NEWS_RELEASES&p_toc_level=0&p_keyvalue=&p_status=CURRENT https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.searc... You can regularly see companies being cited so "numerous" is reasonable.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The OSHA violations you're citing have nothing to do with life insurance. Has anyone reported on a company that got cited for OSHA violations and had life insurance policies on their employees? Also: wouldn't this be a pretty straightforward basis for the insurers not to pay out claims? I find this argument approximately as credible as the one that says that, having taken out a life insurance policy on employees, the company now has an incentive to have those employees murdered. And again: aren't they disallowed from taking out policies on anyone outside the top 35% best paid employees? What are the OSHA concerns for office workers?
  - opendais 12y ago
    Okay let me try explaining this in a different way since you seem to be materially misrepresenting what I’m saying: 1) A significant number of employers pay the bare minimum for worker safety [hence OSHA violations being relevant, such companies clearly exist and some miscalculate. I doubt these people are malicious, merely misjudged the minimum] 2) Life insurance policies being paid out on employees creates further incentive to do the bare minimum to comply with OSHA. In addition to not having to spend additional $$s on safety training & equipment, you now also have an investment vehicle to reinforce this behavior. 3) Many companies have more than 65% of their workforce [construction for instance] doing work in situations that require safety training & equipment. The limitation is based on a payroll %. I'm confused why this requires spelling out this verbosely, but there it is. Notice how at no point am I saying any of the stuff you are claiming I am?
    - thedufer 12y ago
      I think the misunderstanding is that you're trying to say "hey, this bad thing is possible" but you're wording it in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "hey, this bad thing is happening" and tptacek is taking offense to that claim not coming with any evidence.
      - opendais 12y ago
        I was talking about incentives and I provided evidence for the one claim I made [that numerous companies already do the bare minimum]. So I'm just confused how he could read it that way. But alright, I guess it is on me to be clearer then. :P