Dead Peasant Insurance ...

It seems to be a whinge about the Company taking out an insurance policy against you, with them as the beneficiary.

Good luck to them.

As an employer, I am free to protect my interests in my assets - my staff to name one, so if I can insure against their death at work etc, then it is good business sense to do it.

If the relatives wish to do the same, they can go right ahead.

It's all just another example of the victim mentality, the boss versus the poor employee attitude, life's not fair etc.

In fairness to the relatives though, the Companies should be telling them of these policies and arrange for them to receive some of the proceeds.

To me, this should be the standard arrangement for these policies.

But, who's going to pay the relatives half of the premium??

Oh, hang on; we want the benefits, but not the involvement, sacrifice and commitment.

It's the way of the current Western World, yes?
Dare I say "Only in America?"

And apart from this clause, "Insurable interest is usually a big deal for insurers. They want to make sure whoever is buying life insurance doesnt have an incentive for bumping off the insured. Insurers usually require purchasers have a strong familial or emotional connection to the people being insured, or that they would suffer significant financial losses if the insured people died." you could theoretically insure anyone! Guy next door sort of thing.
why does anyone care? it's just another sort of gambling.
companies place bets on employees lives, so what?

i don't see how the families would be entitled to any of that money if they didn't pay the premium. if they want to profit they can do the same thing - purchase the life insurance policy themselves
Nothing new about the concept of "Key Man" insurance, even in Oz. Don't know about "peasant" insurance though but I'm not about to inflict MM on myself and watch/read.

It is also common at "partner" level, where the widow is paid out and the surviving partner does not end up with the widow owning half his business. But even then the widow only gets her due share of the business. She is not the beneficiary of the insurance, the surviving partner is.
Why on earth is the author upset that the payout in the event of death would go to the corporation? Insurance policies taken out voluntarily go to the person/organisation paying the annual premium - is this a revelation? If the persons family wants an insurance payout then they can pay their own premium each year.

Sheesh, talk about making something out of nothing! But then I guess it is MSN Money which would be read by mums and dads and their goal is to increase their site hits. :rolleyes:
I think the point is that insuring a partner or high-level exec is more transparent and justifiable. Insuring the guy who sweeps the floor when he can be easily replaced (no offence intended) does reek of opportunitism.
So, people complain when they're fired, and when they're not, they suspect it's because the company wants to work them to death and collect insurance?

Get over it, people. It's not a conspiracy. You're just a number.
If it came here in Australia there would be all sorts of WHS implications and any payout would probably go to paying out the fines to the WHS regulator or court determined payouts to families.

I can see it leading to executives being prosecuted even more for a workplace death as there would be the connotation that the company killed the worker to gain the payout.