Twinkies


#1

Typically, when a company is about to go belly up, the employees of that company file disability insurance claims . . . most fraudulent.

My daughter works for Prudential in the underwriting department for disability insurance.

Recently I asked her what her biggest failure was. She responded quickly that it was Enron. Prudential provided disability insurance for Enron, and she underwrote it. Obviously, when they went belly up, there was a flood of disability claims and Prudential lost big bucks.

(I asked her if Pru could disallow the fraudulent claims, but I can’t remember the answer. I think it was something about it being next to impossible to prove they were fraudulent. In any case, whether or not they were able to disallow the fraudulent claims, Pru took a bath.)

Pru CAN raise prices on other accounts to make up for that loss, but that only goes so far because they have to remain competitive on prices. I’m sure a certain amount of losses are included in prices, just like any other business, but this Enron thing went wayyyyyy over that contingency.

Now I don’t know who holds the disability insurance for Twinkies (haven’t talked to my daughter since that happened), but I suspect whoever it is will take a bath.

My point is this: If you subscribe to the theory that BHO’s administration was responsible for the Twinkie meltdown (and I DO) . . . . however remote, via unions or otherwise . . . then there is a trickle down effect to the BHO irresponsibility. It’s not only the employees, it’s a lot of other economic activity.

We tend to think of negative impacts in terms of ONLY the employees of a company when something like this happens. We forget that there’s a lot more to it.

Thanks again, BHO . . . you moron!


#2

Wow. I had no idea that when a company goes belly up that employees file for disability! Not to get off the topic, but personally, I think this whole “disability” thing has gone absolutely wacky. When people file for and receive disability because they have ADD or a hair on their tongue, it speaks directly to the insanity to which this society has gone–sort of like the lady who sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot which SHE put between her legs in a moving vehicle. Are we all insane??

Anyway, I think I may be confusing corporate disability to disability provided by the gov. In what possible scenarios would a corporation provide disability to its employees? I worked in corporate America in management for years before becoming a teacher and I don’t remember ever having any kind of disability insurance. Of course, this was back in the stone age before even PCs were around…

You are right when you say it is not entirely the employees’ fault when a company goes bankrupt. I believe, for the most part, that it is the union manipulations which primarily bring down companies–at least those who have unions. I also think that deregulation–80’s style–was responsible for many industries (trucking, airlines, etc.) which put a lot of them out of business. I remember when I worked for a trucking company and I was a member of the teamsters union that the union backed Reagan for the presidency. Everyone was shocked, but they all did what the union wanted. (I did only because I was a republican unbeknownst to most of them!)


#3

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
Wow. I had no idea that when a company goes belly up that employees file for disability!
[/quote]Apparently, the thinking by these scammers is: “If I’m not going to have a job any longer, let me see if I can scam some money out of the insurance company to tide me over 'till I find another job.”

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
I think this whole “disability” thing has gone absolutely wacky. When people file for and receive disability because they have ADD or a hair on their tongue, it speaks directly to the insanity to which this society has gone
[/quote]Agree on that observation.

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
the lady who sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot which SHE put between her legs in a moving vehicle
[/quote]The lady, Liebeck (the plaintiff), placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

Well . . . duhhhhhh . . . that’s YOUR fault, not McDonalds.

And even an idiot knows enough NOT to mess with fast food coffee unless it’s on a stable platform (a table, for example, and not a LAP in a cramped space . . . she was in the passenger seat of a Ford Probe).

Right after that incident, there was a facetious obituary printed in the London Times, but even though it was an obvious sarcasm, there was a lot of truth to it. It lamented the “death” of . . . common sense!

Part of it went like this:

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend: Common Sense.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

**Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
**
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
Anyway, I think I may be confusing corporate disability to disability provided by the gov.
[/quote]As I understand it, regardless of whether you work for the state or a corporation, these entities contract with an insurance provider, so consequently, the “disability” is actually claimed through an insurance company. If the government insures itself against disability claims, I am unaware of that circumstance.

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
In what possible scenarios would a corporation provide disability to its employees?
[/quote]As far as I know, it’s a “benefit” that some give and some don’t, though I think that locations that are Unionized may have to offer it by the terms of their contract with a Union. I think in certain states it’s a law that they have to offer it.

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:2, topic:37175”]
I worked in corporate America in management for years before becoming a teacher and I don’t remember ever having any kind of disability insurance.
[/quote]I also worked for a large corporation, and when I worked at their corporate headquarters in Texas, I didn’t have it, but when I worked at one of their locations in California, I did.


#4

There was a lawyer once posted on either this site or some other site I was posting on at the time who defended that woman who spilled the hot coffee - based solely on how hot the coffee was.


#5

They 1st filed for bankruptcy in 2004, does that mean its Bush’s fault also?


#6

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:5, topic:37175”]
They 1st filed for bankruptcy in 2004, does that mean its Bush’s fault also?
[/quote]Bush had nothing to do with it. There were Unions in 2004. That was the culprit. And BHO emboldened them with a little shove.

Just because something “bad” started on somebodies watch does not necessarily mean they had anything to do with it. The root cause needs a little more scrutiny than just a cursory “cause and effect” analysis.


#7

that was my point, Hostess has been in trouble for a long time blaming in on Obama is silly


#8

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:7, topic:37175”]
that was my point, Hostess has been in trouble for a long time blaming in on Obama is silly
[/quote]How so when BHO has emboldened the Unions? As I said, he gave them a push. I also said “however remote, via unions or otherwise”. So while BHO may be once removed from the cause, he nevertheless was culpable.


#9

I must be missing something somewhere. Where has anyone blamed BO for the Twinkies bankruptcy? As BJ said, BO is indirectly culpable for this situation because he supports unions and their gestapo tactics.


#10

I actually remember that obituary! I’ve forgotten about it and I’m glad you remembered! I’m going to copy and paste it for myself. It IS an obituary isn’t it? Sad. And that was a long time ago. If I remember correctly, it spurred fast food restaurants putting “warnings” on their coffee cups. Geesh! Common sense is a forgotten quality nowadays. I think the obvious proof of that has been the results of this last election. Common sense is no longer common–it is a rare commodity. Thanks for the reminder!


#11

Explain how Obama is culpable for a company that started collapsing years before he took office. They did need a push they were already over the cliff it just took a while for them to finally hit the ground.


#12

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:11, topic:37175”]
They did need a push they were already over the cliff it just took a while for them to finally hit the ground.
[/quote]I think you meant to say “did NOT need a push . . .”.

We simply disagree, that’s all.


#13

Management ran Hostess into the ground. The millions that the employees gave up after the first bankruptcy was pocketed instead of reinvested back into the company as part of that deal. After the first filng Hostess’s board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll’s salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. Other executives’ salaries were increased by from 35% to 80%," Not to mention that the revolving door of CEO’s in recent years had zero experience running a food company. They had every intention of bleeding the company dry and they were quite successful at that.


#14

@CT,

Clean out your PM box.


#15

Yikes! Just did! :dramaqueen:


#16

Update:

Here’s another negative economic impact of Unions that I never realized existed.

Just talked to my daughter again, and asked her what the worst circumstance for Prudential was relative to disability insurance.

She said it was . . . drum roll . . . business that Pru did with companies that became unionized (I didn’t bias the question with any mention of Unions . . . she came up with that on her own) and then Pru had to provide disability insurance to meet the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Often, she said, the terms of disability coverage in collective bargaining agreements are very customized, and frequently require coverage that Pru, or anyone else in the biz, doesn’t normally provide,

Under normal circumstances, if a company wanted Pru to modify it’s coverage parameters so much, Pru would charge for those modifications, the risk and cost of claims, being higher.

However, in the case of Union agreements, the coverage is not only expanded, the price range is specified. IOW, a company is compelled to secure disability insurance, with specific coverage parameters (like “long term disability” will run for 20 years, instead of the standard length, which is much less), at a specific targeted price.

She said that Pru’s business with companies that become unionized is a loser and Pru eats it.

Again, Pru can raise prices across the board to compensate for SOME losers, but to remain price-competitive, that only goes so far. Pru has to eat the rest.

While my sympathy for insurance companies is not too great, my sympathy for Unions is even less.

Bottom line, when I asked her what Pru’s biggest headache was . . . she said it was . . . UNIONS!!!

If employer costs for disability insurance are rising, and they are, look to the Unions as culprits.

Oh . . . something else she said.

There are four states (and a territory) that REQUIRE an employer to provide disability insurance:

California, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

And I’m sure there are many other hidden costs of Unions that escape scrutiny. If there IS some sort of clearinghouse that publishes a list of ALL these costs, I would not only like to see it, I would like to see it broadcast in the media (THAT would probably not happen in the MSM anyway . . . but it might be useful politically if used in the right way . . . if not used in the right way, it could backfire.)


#17

Doesn’t surprise me at all. Just watched a 1992 movie “Hoffa” starring Jack Nicholson and Danny Devito. I thought the acting was superb, especially since I don’t care much for Nicholson. I’ve read a lot about Hoffa being that I was once a Teamster. Although I admire him for standing up to the Kennedy’s, he was a crook and in bed with the mob. He played with the devil and got his just reward. So, it seems that unions had a very shakey start from the get-go.


#18

I’m curious. Is there no option for the insurance company to drop the account instead of taking a predictable loss?


#19

A company I retired from provided me with health insurance after I retired. A couple of years ago, they dropped the basic insurance (it served as medicare supplement), and instead, provided us with a small “spending” account to help defray the cost of whatever insurance we bought. But this applied only to non-union workers. They couldn’t drop the union workers.


#20

[quote=“Susanna, post:4, topic:37175”]
There was a lawyer once posted on either this site or some other site I was posting on at the time who defended that woman who spilled the hot coffee - based solely on how hot the coffee was.
[/quote]Lawyers always looking for a buck. I had a law class once with a lawyer for a teacher and he said it was the defense’s duty to prove him wrong whether not his client was quility or not.