Today, Narcolepsy is my Friend... oh, and some Moore good news
2003-11-06 04:07:26 ET

4 hours of sleep. I s'pose that's what I get for going to see a late movie of Kill Bill and then staying up to hunt the internet for cool looking swords that I can't possibly afford.
So today I'll be falling asleep at the wheel. I can't really help it. I'll just tell my boss that it's a sudden case of narcolepsy and that it runs in the family.

So I was reading more Moore on the subway today (instead of sleeping). If any Americans are reading this and are working for some sort of corporate company (staff, not contract), have a good look at your insurance policy that the company probably took out on you (they're so nice, aren't they? read on...):

During the past twenty years, companies including Disney, Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, Dow Chemical, JP Morgan Chase, and Wal-Mart have been secretly taking out life insurance poicies on their low- and mid-level employees and then naming themselves - the Corporation - as the beneficiary! That's right: When you die, the company - not your survivors - gets to cash in. If you die on the job, all the better, as most life insurance policies are geared to pay out when someone dies young. And if you live to a ripe old age, even long after you've left the company, the company still gets to collect on your death. The money does not go to help your grieving relatives through hard times or to pay for the funeral and burial; it goes to the corporate executives. And regardless of when you croak, the company is able to borrow against policy and deduct the interest from its corporate taxes. -Michael Moore, Dude, Where's My Country?

A lot to take in. My jaw was on the subway floor when I read this. Makes me wonder if the same thing is happening here in Canada. I mean, I know we're not as greedy as corporate-America, but still, greed begets greed, and corporate-Canada has made America its model. How deep does the river run?

Any thoughts...?


2003-11-06 06:33:55 ET

To the best of my knowledge, the companies listed above are all "for-profit" corporations, meaning that their primary objective is to make money for their stock holders. To this end, taking out insurance policies on employees seems to make sense: if an employee dies, there are certain tangable costs associated with replacing him: overtime for covering his position, interviewing and hiring of a replacement worker, and the like. An insurance policy would help cover these costs.

I believe Moore is attempting to conjure up outrange amongst people: "OH MY GOD THOSE GREEDY COMPANIES, DON'T THEY THINK OF THE PEOPLE! WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE!!!" But the fundamental flaw in his logic lies in the definition of a for-profit corporation.

This type of practice would not suprise anyone who is familiar with how businesses and corporations operate. But I don't believe that many business-savvy people fall into Moore's target audience.

2003-11-06 06:37:45 ET

corporate BS. writing about these things in the newspaper does not change them. lawsuits dont change them.

there's something morally wrong in the backbone of HUMANITY for god's sake.

and i think michael moore as a spokesman for saving the lives of the unrich and unlucky is just hilarious

(anyone ever seen that film about the general motor's company?)

2003-11-06 06:55:52 ET

"taking out insurance policies on employees seems to make sense: if an employee dies, there are certain tangable costs associated with replacing him: overtime for covering his position, interviewing and hiring of a replacement worker, and the like. An insurance policy would help cover these costs."

I'd agree with you, m0xie, if the job being replaced was a high-end and specialized field, and that the policy would only get a few hundred or maybe a grand at the most, but this insurance is for low- and mid-level employees - grunts. And the companies are seeing, in some cases, as much as $180,000 back from an employees passing. I don't think that money is needed to find and hire an entry-level worker and cover the overtime other workers may put in in the 2 weeks that the position is open.

Couple that with the fact that family members don't see a dime from this? That just doesn't seem right. Especially when work place standards are dropping, air quality is getting poorer and companies don't see a profitable reason to improve conditions for workers. Seems hypocritical of the Bush admin to go around to other countries, berating them on there human rights issues, when America has some of the same issues in its own backyard.

2003-11-06 07:32:25 ET

It all circles back to the basic definition of a for-profit corporation: to make money for the share holders. A company is under no obligation to be "nice" to the family of an employee who has died. That said, many corporations do have life insurance policies that pay out to surviving family members. [My company does: if I were to die right now, my cat would be able to live the rest of her life quite comfortably.]

Is this a sleazy practice? It depends on your perspective, I suppose. Corporations would do a lot worse things to their employees if they could get away with it. And in the past, they certainly have: think child labor, discriminatory hiring practices, and the like. There is nothing new about this, and it is certainly not tied to any particular administration.

Unlike human beings, corporations don't have feelings-- they have stockholders who want to make money. This is the inherent incompatibility that causes "corporate america" to look like such a monster in the eyes of many.

2003-11-06 08:34:52 ET

thoughts? I want to move back to Canada.

2003-11-06 09:13:15 ET

Come back to us, Sky. *hugs*

As for the life insurance aspect.. I'm really just too disgusted to even come up with a coherent comment on the lot of them.

  Return to The Cheshire Cat's page