The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Employer Health Care.. law?
Figgy
Fighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered User regular
Fighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered User regular
I'm working for a company right now that has recently switched from being part of the corporation to a seperate franchise. When the new franchisee took over, he told employees that nothing would change, including wages and benefits.
I was not on benefits at the time, although I was in the process of applying.
A memo went out the other day with the pricing of the new benefits package (with a new company), which is atrociously unaffordable. It would be less expensive to look into a personal package on my own. The franchisee said he will be taking care of half of the monthly premium for those employees that were previously covered under the corporation before the takeover, but all other employees must cover their own premiums in full.
During the takeover, we were told that any benefits changes would be comparable in price and quality, and the recent memo even says the new package is less expensive and has better coverage. In actual fact, the only way it is less expensive is for people who are being offered half premium compensation, and other employees would be paying almost double what they would have before.
Is this allowed? Can an employer offer co-pay to some employees but not others? I've been with the company for about three years, I am full time, the new franchisee took over a couple of months ago, and it seems like the managers were delaying my benefits package application for the sole purpose of not allowing me to sign on with the old company so that I wouldn't be incuded in this new co-pay.
Edit: I am in Ontario, Canada.
I was not on benefits at the time, although I was in the process of applying.
A memo went out the other day with the pricing of the new benefits package (with a new company), which is atrociously unaffordable. It would be less expensive to look into a personal package on my own. The franchisee said he will be taking care of half of the monthly premium for those employees that were previously covered under the corporation before the takeover, but all other employees must cover their own premiums in full.
During the takeover, we were told that any benefits changes would be comparable in price and quality, and the recent memo even says the new package is less expensive and has better coverage. In actual fact, the only way it is less expensive is for people who are being offered half premium compensation, and other employees would be paying almost double what they would have before.
Is this allowed? Can an employer offer co-pay to some employees but not others? I've been with the company for about three years, I am full time, the new franchisee took over a couple of months ago, and it seems like the managers were delaying my benefits package application for the sole purpose of not allowing me to sign on with the old company so that I wouldn't be incuded in this new co-pay.
Edit: I am in Ontario, Canada.
Figgy on
0
Posts
/american
There is, but the issue isn't with the health care company. It's with the franchisee. It's up to him to either co-pay the premium or not, but he's going to co-pay only the people who were on the previous company's health care plan.
In other words, if you had the package before he took over the store, he'll pay half your premium on the new plan. If you didn't, he won't.
I'm just wondering if this is legal or not. It seems like unfair treatment to pay for half of one employee's premium but not another's.