On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...

On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

Your outrage is outrageously funny considering the sort of fellow you
are. ;0(

On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.

On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:08:08 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

If the company is guilty of wrong doing, I'll pretty well imagine that when all is said and done, she'll come out way better ahead than if she was still hired on . Even if she was granted a LOA.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/1/2014 6:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to
say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




Life's a bitch and then you die. If you spend it depending on someone
else to protect and provide for you, you are doomed to getting your ass
kicked.

On 2/1/2014 6:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:08:08 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

If the company is guilty of wrong doing, I'll pretty well imagine that when all is said and done, she'll come out way better ahead than if she was still hired on . Even if she was granted a LOA.


And if the company is found guilty of wrong doing it means it broke a
law and the law was enforced. That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)