- Status
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]Dedicated and loyal employees who do the real work deserve to be rewarded and treasured. The greedy stockholders can have the crumbs for a change.[/citation]
Fair enough. I'll invest in Rambus then. They seem to make quite a bit from lawsuits...
Fair enough. I'll invest in Rambus then. They seem to make quite a bit from lawsuits...
davidelang
Honorable
- Aug 11, 2012
- 1
- 0
- 10,510
The thing to remember is that Insurance is legalized gambling.
When you get an insurance policy, you are betting that the thing that the policy covers is going to happen, and the Insurance company is betting that the thing the policy covers is not going to happen. The cost of the policy is set by the insurance company at a rate that they believe will earn them more money than paying out on the policy will cost them (taking into account the odds of the event happening)
When you look at it this way, a company taking out a life insurance policy on their employees, paying the premiums and keeping the results of the policy is only questionable in terms of if this is a good envestment of company money, no ethical questions at all
With this move, Google is probably not using an external Insurance company (who would have to earn profits), they are probably 'covering their bet' themselves (and they have the money to be able to do so).
Google is betting that the additional employee loyalty that this will earn, and the reduced amount of stress on employees (includeing the stress on management who care about their people and their families) is going to be worth it in making Google a better company.
They may not be thinking of it in these cold, ledger balance terms. But this is the logic that they are following, even if they aren't aware of their thinking.
When you get an insurance policy, you are betting that the thing that the policy covers is going to happen, and the Insurance company is betting that the thing the policy covers is not going to happen. The cost of the policy is set by the insurance company at a rate that they believe will earn them more money than paying out on the policy will cost them (taking into account the odds of the event happening)
When you look at it this way, a company taking out a life insurance policy on their employees, paying the premiums and keeping the results of the policy is only questionable in terms of if this is a good envestment of company money, no ethical questions at all
With this move, Google is probably not using an external Insurance company (who would have to earn profits), they are probably 'covering their bet' themselves (and they have the money to be able to do so).
Google is betting that the additional employee loyalty that this will earn, and the reduced amount of stress on employees (includeing the stress on management who care about their people and their families) is going to be worth it in making Google a better company.
They may not be thinking of it in these cold, ledger balance terms. But this is the logic that they are following, even if they aren't aware of their thinking.
darkavenger123
Distinguished
- Feb 22, 2010
- 107
- 0
- 18,630
alxianthelast
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2006
- 55
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Google Health Insurance. Well hey, I wonder if that is gonna happen.[/citation]
Give it time. I'd prefer it for car (if driverless and a product of googles efforts) and online security (against identity theft and manipulation) etc.
Give it time. I'd prefer it for car (if driverless and a product of googles efforts) and online security (against identity theft and manipulation) etc.
otacon72: Most companies don't start out as being public, including Google. Most go public because there are tax and legal incentives to doing so, but stockholders are generally financial institutions looking to "pump and dump" the stock to make quick money for doing absolutely nothing.
If you think that a trading bot buying 10,000 shares and then selling them 0.001 seconds later when the price jumps 1 cent does Google any good you are seriously mistaken.
If you think that a trading bot buying 10,000 shares and then selling them 0.001 seconds later when the price jumps 1 cent does Google any good you are seriously mistaken.
TeraMedia
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2006
- 185
- 0
- 18,630
I've met some Googlers. They do tend to be very young relative to a typical random population sample. And the thought of the Googlers I've met being dead is, well, quite morbid.
My current and prior employers purchased life insurance policies on and for me. Initially I wasn't even aware of it with one of them, but it is quite common. That said, none of those policies was this large. Google's are relatively generous terms, but the cost is probably only ~$50 per employee per month. I bet that a hungry employee there can easily eat that much in food in a single day, so not a big deal.
My current and prior employers purchased life insurance policies on and for me. Initially I wasn't even aware of it with one of them, but it is quite common. That said, none of those policies was this large. Google's are relatively generous terms, but the cost is probably only ~$50 per employee per month. I bet that a hungry employee there can easily eat that much in food in a single day, so not a big deal.
This is very common here in Norway. I have had two jobs, both in big, fortune 100, American companies, and both of them gave all their employees generous (~$1mill on death) life insurance policies.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
[citation][nom]darkavenger123[/nom]Thumbs up for Google. Don't see MS or Apple doing the same for their employees.[/citation]
They probably have something similar. They just don't publicize it for attention grab, that's all.
They probably have something similar. They just don't publicize it for attention grab, that's all.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter