Companies do NOT care...
 

Spun off from Kaneman's thread...

Your thoughts?

This outta be fun

Should they care? They are there to make money, not cuddle you. We voted we didn't want caring companies a long time ago when we stopped paying for service and started purchasing everything at Walmart.

People in general are only reliable to do whats right and good if they are somehow made to be accountable for their actions.

However in the vaccum of todays world, and in corporate business world there lies an opportunity to act outside acceptable behavior without responsibilty or accountability for those actions.

People can hide in the committees, the board rooms, and avoid blame for incredibly selfish and greedy behavior without even coming into contact with those affected by their decisions and policy. They wont even be called into question by their superiors unless profitability or performance take a dive.

So it's gloves off every man for himself out there, any promise of virtue is only a facade.

We have regulated capitalism.

While I agree that people should not have to fight with their insurance companies to have legitimate bills paid, the company should also be expected (and allowed) to do their due diligence to make sure it was a covered loss. To be honest with you, I find it hard to believe that the insurance company is even involved at this point.

Regarding the companies do not care comments, I believe that those comments were made in regard to the ex's employer not her insurance carrier. I originally said she should get an attorney (I misread and assumed she had been fired). I no longer feel that that is necessary.

They are holding her job for her while she is away. What more should she expect? Should the company continue to pay her for not working?

While this tragic event is more assuredly going to cause a huge financial strain on the family, I'm not sure how that is the fault or responsibility of her employer? :idk:

Ugh. Where to begin?

Ok, here's my thing. If companies don't give a fuck about their employees then they shouldn't be able to pretend they do in order to better control their employees through bullshit propaganda.

For example, the company in question makes their employees wear cards that contain MB's Core Values: Honesty, Openness, Respect, etc. etc. etc....which is all complete bullshit.

Honesty is paramount.

Based on what I've read, I don't see where they have failed her or their values.

Shed some light, man...

Some of the most productive companies in the fortune 500 category are family-friendly and take care of their staff. Yahoo had an article on it awhile back. The summary? A happy employee is a productive employee. I wish I could find the story, but I'm too busy to search for it at the moment...

They're not paying her anymore. Both her kids were near death, in ICU, and despite getting assurances from a team leader, a group leader and an HR rep that she would get paid during her leave, they stopped paying her.

Now, when she calls HR they tell her to call the insurance company as they are no longer involved. I mean, these motherfuckers (Human Resources) have an entire area of the building off to themselves, they have 7 reps...yet they can't help you deal with THEIR insurance company.

Everytime she calls the insurance company they make her tell the story over again to a new rep, describe the children's injuries, tell them what she does all day, etc. etc. So the company that she has worked at for over 10 years is forcing her to deal with this all on her own instead of just fucking paying her. All they have to do is cut a check, its that simple, they can do it right out of the office...

Does she have the insurance that covers loss of work? As in the type that makes sure you still get paid at least a portion of your regular paycheck...often you have to not get paid for a certain amount of time before those benefits kick in tho...

Sounds like she does and that is what is causing the issues.

It is a benefits/insurance case at this point, regardless of what her team leader says.

Unless they have a benefits plan in place, no.



If she does have benefits, and the insurance is dicking her around, then the company should step in, and have HR deal with it. It is their job to ensure that the employees are taken care of.
An HR manager will have a lot more pull than a regular employee when dealing with an Inusrance company.

The way that I see it, it's a case of two companies not meeting their responsibilities. The 'employer' is failing to be an advocate for the person they employed, who is now in dire straights. This strikes me as a failure of corporate responsibility, the washing their hands of the entire issue. What else is an HR department for?

As to the insurer, they're doing what many companies have been slapped down for on numerous occasions; delaying, delaying, and then likely denying. I have no problem with a company working to be profitable but this strikes me as both abrogation of basic human responsibility, and breach of contract by failure to perform. Insurance companies in the US have a very poor track record for fulfilling their responsibilities, and allegations (founded) of paying performance incentives for finding ways to avoid those responsibilities.

*EDIT* Kaneman, next time your ex talks to the insurer, tell her to get a case number from the contact. Whenever she calls them back tell her to reference that case number, rather than letting them run her through the gears yet again.

That totally sucks and I can understand your frustration.

It really sucks that a few bosses gave her what seems to be inaccurate information.

She should be getting paid out of her STDI plan or whatever she has.

However, you know as well as I do that big companies have procedures to follow and HR can't just cut a check because someone is in a tight spot.

This.

If this doesn't work - hire an attorney to light the fire.

I whole heartedly agree that the employer should have some type of advocate on her behalf. She should have an HR person assigned specifically to her until the issue is resolved. The fact that she doesn't is shitty.

Neither of us knows anywhere close to enough about the situation to deal with the insurance issue. If the boy is denied any medical services because of the insurance company delaying or denying the claim, I'll be the first person to shout "SUE!"

It would have saved me a lot of typing if I had seen your post first.

I agree 100%.

In this case the insurance issue appears to be failure to pay for compassionate leave, under a STD or LTD agreement.

FMLA should also protect her too.

Exactly my point.

Its been over a year since I worked there now, I don't know the specifics of her benefit/insurance package and what they do and don't cover, etc. etc.

To me, its all irrelevant as the company she worked for all these years needs to step up and get it handled for her. She is at the hospital actively involved in her son's care from 7am to Midnight, every single night and doesn't have hours a day to spend on the phone.

5 years ago this wouldn't have happened with this company. They DID used to care about and take care of their employees. Back then you wouldn't have even had to think twice about whether you were going to get paid or not...it would've all been taken care of and the company would've organized fund raisers, golf tournaments, luncheons, etc. etc. all in your benefit.

That's the worst part about it....is to see how much the company has really changed and how its part of a trend to say fuck you to the "little guy."

Her husband, BTW, works for a large company too....and they took care of him immediately.

FMLA only ensures they can't fire her.

From what Josh has said, it doesn't appear that they are refusing to pay but that there is confusion about what benefits are due and when.

A decent HR rep should be able to clear the situation up.

I think we are in agreement that the company has dropped the ball in the "being there to help" category.

No, there's no confusion, the insurance company (Prudential I think) is playing a deliberate game where they fuck her around to see if they can avoid paying. They avoid her questions, interrogate her, transfer her around, pretend to be supervisors or managers when they're not....and then they say they'll call her back and hang up. She calls back and goes through it all over again.

No, there's no mistake, they're doing exactly what they intend to do. They know that at her salary she's probably not going to get a high-priced attorney so they can avoid payment as long as they want. Every day they avoid paying her is another day the money stays in their account, and when you multiply that by millions of customers...well it adds up.

If all of the above is true, that is a shitty deal and I hope it gets rectified sooner rather than later.

Hopefully MB will step up and offer some assistance dealing with her insurance issues.

In my experience, they're for protecting the company against employment-related liability, and that's about it.

Not when there are company provided benefits, they aren't.

Even when they get good wages, good benefits, there will be those running around frothing at the mouth yelling, "Company doesn't care."

I say that if you don't think that your company give a rat's ass about you and you don't like it, then get another job with a different company.

It's a little late to do that when you've been depending on them for something, and they screw you.

Sounds like Prudential is screwing her, not MBUSA.

Which thread is this referring to?

It's impossible for a company to care about anything.......It's a paper entity, not a person.

There may be a few people within the company who have the type of personality where they genuinely care about the life & times of their customers.......But most don't. Why should they? The #1 reason they are there is to earn a paycheck. Just like you.

If earning a paycheck requires them to be nice to their customers in order to earn a fat commission or get a good performance appraisal, they will do so.......... but beyond that, they don't actually give a shit. And that's the way it should be.

The company is screwing her for not acting as an advocate for the group insurance policy that they provide.

For purpose of full disclosure I will admit to being quite biased in this issue, because a friend went through similar treatment from her employer regarding her LTD benefits, after almost losing her leg in a motorcycle racing incident.

While I am sympathetic to this situation, a company's job is to protect the company... make money. Everything it does should be related to just that... making money and avoiding losses.

HR's function is no different. They are there to bring in people who will make and/or save the company, fire people who don't, and protect the company from employee related lawsuits. That's it.

It would be all great and fantastic if the company would step in and handle this, but frankly expecting them to do so is unrealistic and pretty selfish.

As far as having an HR rep contact the insurance... does anyone really think that would help? The insurance company and HR got together long ago to iron out a contract to get a certain rate on a certain package... that's it. Beyond that, they have no business together. If the insurance was mandatory for all employees, then HR would have some stake in it, but otherwise it's not their insurance... it's your insurance.

It's like if someone on here put together a group buy for a Chatterbox or something... Mine comes and it's all fucked up... I'm not gonna PM the guy who put together the buy, I'm going to call the place who sent it to me.

Sucks and it would be great if it were different, but that's the reality of the situation. Get a lawyer.

I contend that they can actually make more money by taking care of their employees and being known for it within their own walls.

Edit: I should elaborate on that. When word gets around that people can't depend on being able to keep their homes or vehicles if one of their kids gets hurt, that is going to have a direct effect on morale. When people are pissed off at the company they're working for, they're not going to work as hard, and they're going to intentionally screw things up. Anyone who's worked in a corporate office enviornment has probably seen that happen over and over again.

But if you're proud of the company you work for, and you feel like they have your back, then you're not going to intentionally fuck them or steal time. Very simple stuff.

Seems to work for Toyota where workers are given what they have to bargain for, at other manufacturers.

Maybe, but saying they don't care isn't necessarily true... and saying that the HR rep would have more pull or be able to do anything for you is a bit of a stretch.

The HR rep could have a check cut out of the office to cover her salary until other issues are resolved. They've done it for me before, of course that was years ago.

And that sounds WAY above and beyond.

To me it sounds like the right thing to do.

A company exists for it's own best interests-just like all the people that work at said company. What is a company responsible for? ENRON comes to mind. Did ENRON force all it's employees to invest 100% of their 401K in ENRON stock or did the employees do it because ENRON stock was making stupid money at the time?

Everyone can be a Monday Morning Quarterback-After the fact it's alway apparent of what you should have done.

It's definitely a cool thing to do, but I can't imagine a corporation that would do that these days.

Not a major one.

Joe & Bob's Trophies Inc may do it but not your typical fortune 500 firm.

Then again, Joe & Bob don't have to adhere to FMLA, don't provide medical, dental, life or disability insurance, and expect you to work overtime without extra pay during the T-ball season.

But they are the little guys, so they care about their employees.

This is really a circle jerk debate.. Everyone knows everything and has all the answers... My signature says all I need to say - go to the Zeitgeist site and educate yourself..

lol

Yea I'm sorry but unless you work for small companies, like I started doing after a corporation screwed me over, you can't expect a company to "care". It is comprised of a bunch of small wheels with rules they must follow to keep their employment. They don't have any "real power.

Two things, and forgive me Josh, but I'm still wondering who was at fault for this accident in the first place? Why aren't they being called to the carpet to pay for this? In my experience when an accident is another party's fault, they pay all of your lost work, expenses, etc not your insurance company. They may be part of the hold up from her company...:idk:

Second, again I'm sorry but this is still kinda "recent" for an insurance company paying out/lawsuit talk isn't it? Seriously, it does take some time for these things to pan out. Was an insurance adjuster supposed to be standing outside the room with a check in hand the day after the accident? :idk: Trust me I want the little guy to be taken care of and it sounds like he is being taken care of... Are we really fighting over a couple weeks pay while the boy's life is still hanging in the balance? Can't that stuff be worked out after the kid is okay? BTW perhaps the father has better coverage that he may pay a higher premium for that got his paid all of his lost wages... Josh said himself that he doesn't know what her coverages are...if any.:idk:

Anyway, I hope that everything works out in the end but a few weeks pay would be the last thing on my mind at this point...

Or you pay for the supplemental insurance that is/was offered by the company...I don't know how many times people turn down supplemental coverage and later get mad when they aren't covered... the blame almost always goes to the company... I'm sorry bro but I just can't see how the company is responsible for making her insurance claims for her.:idk:

100% agreement.

You know, you've said some pretty stupid things on this site.

You've been pretty douchebaggy and heartless before.

When I don't think you could get any worse, you go and post some shit like this...


































































and TOTALLY redeem yourself!

Seriously, well said. :shmike:

We aren't even talking about the auto insurance, at this point. What's under discussion is failure to pay STD or LTD, based on stress and supported by a doctor's report, which seems to be permitted under their group policy. HR has washed their hands of the situation, making the employee deal directly with the insurer. The insurer is shuckin' and jivin' to get out of their legal responsibility to the client.

So are we all on the same page now?

Yea, yea I say something that you agree with and I'm "redeemed"... I call it as I see, if that makes me a "douche bag" or "heartless", so be it. I meant every word, I like Josh and I hope that everything works out for his sake. I've been in similar circumstances in the past and it is soul wrenching and draining to a degree that cannot be fathomed by those that haven't experienced it.

As far as the insurance company goes, I'm not in love with insurance companies either but I have always had a problem with the idea of them being a bunch of "evil little men" just looking for ways to screw you out of your rightful claim. In most cases, if they owe you money, they'll pay you, if not, they won't. For all we know, she might not even have coverage for this type of eventuality... I don't.

Many DI policies have a waiting period.

If it were a company plan, it may take effect immediately, since it doesn't sound like that is the case, Prudential's (or whomever the insurer is) guidelines must be followed.

Not my words but a decent summary of STDI:

LTD will not be an issue for a few months still.

Take a break from being offended and read it again.

I was agreeing with you and joking at the same time.

The initial comments were a play on words from a scene in Dumb & Dumber.

Okay, do you KNOW that she has this type of coverage? Do you? I don't. It's not "universal" like it might be up there. Also, not all policies will pay you not to work while a family member is in the hospital. Here we go... but IF (I said if) the immediate danger is over, why can't she go back to work? Don't get me wrong, I understand that she may not want to, or "can't" emotionally but again, why does the insurance company or her employer owe her wages?

When my finance died, my employer was nice enough to pay me to stay home for 2 weeks. I had zero coverage that would have paid my lost wages for the stress of loss... I've actually never even heard of that. Do you mean to say that, God forbid, her son were to be in the hospital for 6 months, her insurance company should pay her wages? On top of that, do you believe that her company should file her insurance claims for her? I don't know but I have had our payroll/HR person help me with claims before and give me the numbers to call but I can't say that I expected it or felt it was her job.

Lastly, I brought up the auto insurance because this was an auto accident, I believe and they would be the primary in this case not the company insurance-trust me on this one. If the other party were at fault, she can file a claim against their insurance company for lost wages, expenses, etc. Typically on a monthly basis. I've actually had to do this very thing when I was hit on my beloved '01 GSXR 1000. AAA paid my wages and all of my expenses while I was off work. I still can't see why all of you aren't crying out for the blood of the person that caused this tragedy in the first place.:idk:

As stated, she is supposed to be covered....the ins is fucking her around intentionally to save money.

Yea, I'm not sure when these guys are getting their insurance from... I've never even heard of a policy that will pay you to take off work because a family member is injured or ill...:idk: This situation is not even close to LTD territory yet imho.

How do you know? They could be fucking her around because of incompetence.

I'm with AL. I sincerely hope everthing works out for the best.

While not a fan of or advocate for insurance companies, I'm not convinced that a few weeks delay in payment proves any intentional malice.

Offended? Have you ever read some of the things that are said to me on this board? Offended indeed!:lol: I was merely pointing out that NOW that I say something "right" in your opinion, I'm "redeemed". You may not believe this but I really don't care either way.:idk:

And I was merely pointing out that that phrase came from a movie.

fair enough but what about the auto insurance and why isn't there any talk of putting in a claim with them? Auto policies typically cover lost work, medical expenses, etc in case of an accident. If he fell out of a tree in the yard-company insurance but this was a car accident, right? What don't we know here that would make us understand this situation better?:idk:

The whole story I would imagine.

Well? Is it a secret? You told us the hard parts about the injuries to the kids, why not explain what happened to cause the situation?:idk: Obviously, if you can't or don't want to, I'll understand but it all is kinda feeling a little strange...

Your mother's back tit feels strange.

Try them from the other side.

:lol: Sorry, I was just fuckin' with you cause I was about to sit down to breakfast.

Anyway, I don't know the specifics, the names of the policies, or that stuff. She says she's supposed to be covered and she's not getting paid, I take her word for it.

To me, the specifics don't matter because I feel the company should take care of her. A few years ago the powers that be at the company would have agreed with me, but that's all changed and I think that sucks.

I'm not saying I think Fed Gov should come in and seize the company and force them to pay out, or that laws should be passed or anything like that. I'm just advocating for companies to stand by their employees when they say they will. This company is all about "core values" and family, being a great place to work, doing the right thing for the employees, etc. etc. Those aren't things I'm making up, its all part of the bullshit they push on everyone from the moment you sit down for your first interview. The CEO himself comes down from Germany now and then and echos the same things.

Then, when the shit hits the fan, and you need them to be there for you they're nowhere to be found. Oh, that's ok, I don't need to keep paying for my house or my car though...no biggie. This type of situation isn't something that happens very often, and we aren't talking about someone who just started. This is a 10 year employee who has always done the right thing in her role for the company and who has been assured they will be there for her with anything she needs during this difficult time in her life. A few months pay of her meager salary would cost them next to nothing and would show that they really are there for the employees, greatly improving everyone else's pride in the company....instead of making them ashamed to be there. Pretty big difference in productivity if you ask me...

I guess these motherfuckers don't realize April Fools is only for one day of the year.

That's cool, I just keep wondering if they were wearing their seat belts, what kinds of speeds we're talking here, what kind of vehicle and where was it hit? I guess I just have a morbid curiosity about these types of things.

I understand your pov but why should a company pay for you to sit at home because a family member is in the hospital? I honestly don't get that. That's why you buy insurance imho. It's not the company's fault that her kids were injured. In fact, didn't you say that they paid her for the first couple weeks? In stead of hating them for not wanting to keep paying, why not give them credit for what they have done for her? Oh and again, you buy insurance on your loans/credit cards to cover disability...:idk: I don't know but I honestly believe that whomever was the cause of the accident and the kids injuries should pay the bills. Let's say for the sake of argument, that she is completely at fault for the boy's injuries, now the company should pay her to take off work while they are in the hospital?

You can't even see it unless she shaved it... WOW she must have really liked you!

She's not sitting at home, she's at the hospital taking care of her son. If your kid was hurt would you want to leave him alone in the ICU with a bunch of strangers, in and out of consciousness, terrified, confused, in pain? No, of course not, that would be horrible for a kid. It was an accident, there were no drugs or alcohol involved. Both parents were uninjured, both kids in critical condition. The driver (her husband) is considered at fault as there were no other known factors to cause the collision.

As I explained, I'm not saying this should be law or mandatory, I'm saying its the right thing to do for a company who claims to be there for their employees to keep paying their salary during a leave of absence in a case like this. That's all. And it is certainly something they would have done, and have done, in the past.

The vehicle was airborne and perpendicular to the road, mid-flip, when it hit a telephone pole flush with the roof, directly over the rear passenger compartment, giving both kids head injuries and broken necks/backs. You can see in the picture here how there is a perfect imprint of a telephone pole in the rear of the vehicle. This was a mazda hatchback of some kind. Everyone had seatbelts on.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g8...s/dc565de1.jpg

Looks like a Mazda 3.

That picture is crazy. The kids are lucky to be alive.

I can't believe the caption says they escaped serious injuries. :wtfru:

I know right. :lol: Then in the article it talks about the boys being flown to the hospital.

Title Fail.

They don't consider the kids to have been seriously injured? Btw you know and I know that if some jerk had ran a red light or something and plowed into them, it wouldn't have been "just an accident"...

Hmmm, well that changes things for sure but still their auto policy should be responsible for any expenses associated with the accident. Oh and again, perhaps the company deserves praise for providing that level of personal service and support in the past...maybe they can't do it anymore or quite honestly, maybe they got tired of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employees.:idk:

Nah, Chrysler took them over and put an end to any and all things that would be considered human, it was the first step into their spectacular fail. Once they de-merged the Chrysler-era policies stayed in place. They don't deserve anything but a quick kick to the nuts.

The article talks about the injuries, it was just a poor title. If some jerk had run a red-light and caused it then that's something totally different. I don't even know why you referenced that.

Ah I see about the changing of the guard...still the "old" company was to be praised and the "new" company is the norm, unfortunate but not necessarily to be hated imho.

I made that comment because it seemed that you were "covering" for the driver a little when he was at fault for the accident. I drive a lot for my job and it never ceases to amaze me the reckless way people will drive with children in the vehicle.:idk: looking at the picture tells me that he must have been going pretty fast... I'd love to read the entire article if you have it.

No, they don't, fuck 'em. :lol: No the people that ran the company and were forced out by Chrysler certainly deserve a lot of praise for all the stuff they did for employees back in the day.

Yea, I probably was covering a little for him, in the sense that I feel bad for him. We all make mistakes while driving, but few of us ever have to pay so severe a penalty.

I'm not privy to the exact details of the crash, and I've never really quizzed him on what happened. I don't have the whole article. It says he drifted to the shoulder and then over-corrected and spun off the road, I believe there was gravel on the shoulder that made the situation worse. I had heard that he was saying something to one of the boys in the back seat when it happened.

I believe it was just an "honest" mistake, in the sense that he was not intoxicated, he was not speeding or driving recklessly. I think the speed limit on all the roads back there is 50mph...so yea, that's pretty fast to hit a telephone pole.

So the company that sold her insurance is not providing the coverage they said they would in a contract, and you agree with that?

What if you bought a bike cash, and the dealer decided not to let you have the bike?

You forgot "to fulfill contracts"

Really? That's it?

HR does alot more than just hire and fire.

Insurance companies are also in the business of not being defrauded, just because she says that they owe her money doesn't mean that they do. The insurance has adjusters in place to investigate the situation and make sure that there was coverage in place and that there is a payment due. I still don't think that the company's insurance is the primary. Their auto policy should be.

Ah but "Benefits Management" does not mean hold your hand and make insurance claims for you. They make adjustments to your policy for you, take the money out of your check and pay your premiums, etc. Let there be no mistake, they work for the company and it's interests, not for you.

Fair enough... Well, I hope that it all gets worked out Josh, I still think that she should check with her auto policy and perhaps have someone else talk to her company insurance adjuster on her behalf.:idk:

As I mentioned, I didn't (and still don't) know what thead or incident this topic is about.

But as to your question, yes I would expect any company to fulfill its business obligations.....But that's a totally different thing than "caring" about their customers, which is what I thought this topic was about. You guys are confusing me.

No you are actually correct... Some of these guys think that major corporations should "care" about the employees and their families...:idk:

It's like saying you "care" about the chick in a bar you want to take home, when all you care about is sticking it.

I'm sure she will or has dude, like I said, I'm not privy to all the details as this has been going on for a month now. Remember, her husband's company (A large chocolate maker) took care of everything right away, just like it should be. They have retained a lawyer now.

Yes, empathy for your fellow man is so overrated.

Companies should not care. All I stated was that the insurance should fulfill its end of the contract(payout benefits). If they find out later they were defrauded, then take the client to court. Do not treat every incident as fraud.

So just pay first and check the facts later? Hmmm, well if you ever get put in charge of an insurance company let me know. I could use some new stuff.

Are you serious? Its been over a month since the claims were initially put in. It shouldn't have taken more than a week, and her pay never should've lapsed. But yea, keep sticking up for the insurance companies...they're really hurting and need all the help they can get. Poor insurance companies.

No, this thread is not about you Josh... We intentionally moved this argument away from your specific situation out of respect for your family. Afaik we are now discussing general concepts and not specific situations. I once waited over three months for workman's comp... I'm not saying that the insurance companies are perfect but again, because you've brought it back to you, she has only missed two weeks pay...I believe you said that the company actually paid here for two weeks... even short term disability has a minimum limit before they pay. I don't know what coverage she has and I KNOW from experience how frustrating it can be to deal with insurance companies ...again maybe she should have someone less emotionally attached talk to them. Usually, there is information that is not being relayed the could be responsible for the hold up. Idk

Amber Lamps: The voice of reason.

Hardly.... I just don't believe that they aren't giving her any reason for not paying her if they owe it to her. Again, I don't think ins cos are perfect but I have a hard time with the "evil little men" trying to screw policy holders out of their deserved claims pov as well. They are telling her something, we just don't know what it is yet. I've had several claims in my life and I've never had an adjuster just tell me no without some reason...

Yet you keep referring to "her." Which "her" are you referring to in your posts if not my ex?

I have a simple belief that if a company contracts for something, like a group benefits/life policy, then they have some duty to act as an advocate for their employees. It's an implied contract. A company, as an entity, may have no need to possess any sort of compassion, but they do need to abide by such contracts. Washing their hands of the situation shouldn't be an option.

Forgive my ignorance on this, as I am a bit slow sometimes.

Is it a question of not being paid for STD or LTD?
As I understand it, the actual employee isn't hurt/sick, but is helping care for a sick/hurt child. Doesn't this fall under FMLA, and not disability?

Its under her medical insurance as a mental distress claim, I think. They had to go see a shrink and be evaluated to determine if this episode had a negative effect on their mental state. :lol: Obviously they both "passed" and the results were sent to the ins. company nearly a month ago. His insurance took care of him immediately, her's is playing games.

Remember, I don't know all the specifics and I don't ask her questions about it...she has more important things going on than this stuff right now. As I always said, the specifics are completely irrelevant to me because I think when you put that much time in with a company you deserve to be taken care of in a situation like this. You shouldn't have to lose your house, or have your car repo'd when you're a long term, full time employee with loads of medical insurance. As stated, a few measly years ago, with this company, this would not have been any type of issue as you would've been taken care of AND THEM SOME, immediately. It is a benefit to both the company, their bottom line, and the employees

Otherwise, what's the point? You know?

Yea you're right...when your situation is referenced I go back to it... I'm honestly sorry. I really want to discuss insurance companies in a generally sense but it comes back to your situation. I don't want to get into it because it's a bad situation in general. Btw I hope your friends don't Lowe their houses and car over two weeks of pay...