Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Severance Insurance

OK, it's time to be a cynic. Who me? The more time I spend on trying to figure out what is driving the heads behind the website that has "magically" appeared, the more cynical I become. Give me a break...good for the company that is doing the firing and just as good for the poor SOB who gets fired. No way! The corporation saves money. The worker loses money. How does that translate into being good for both sides?
I guess you could take the position that the corporation saves money up front and the worker has his/her severance benefit controlled, so (s)he doesn't get a lump sum and blow it all at once. Wow, that sure gives new meaning to equality.

Struggling to be less cynical, which ain't easy for me, I suppose I could take the position (as I have on occassion before) that there's not a whole lot different between losing your job because of an illness or injury and being eligible for disability, and losing your job because the corporation just doesn't need you anymore and being eligible for severance insurance (disemployment) as a result. They sort of both take care of you, while you're not working.

But how similar are they? Managed disability insurance is a reality. Do you suppose the quants behind are thinking along the lines of managed severance insurance? That would certainly fit with my concept of "service severance".


No comments: