Michael, I wish I could live up to the profundity and lucidity of which you have accused me.  I did not mean to suggest any cause and effect (but I'll take credit if you find some).

Ginny was right about my simpler point.  She referred to US employer-paid health care costs as being disadvantageous to US competitiveness, and transferring that to single payer (govt) would put US business on (I think her words were) "the same footing" with other comparable countries.

I wanted to add that the other OECD members offering public universal health care tax their corporations to help pay for same.  They also seriously limit employer prerogative to discharge employees.  Without judging the morality (although I would prefer to live in a society with both) of public universal health care and minimal employee security (cause, or notice/pay in lieu where there is no cause for discharge), I suspect employment-at-will is a huge economic advantage for US employers (perhaps offsetting health care costs).  There may have even been some studies on that.  I am aware that 'at will' has been whittled down by exceptions, contracts, and some employers don't practice it in its harshest form, but it remains the starting point.

Employment at will seems very efficient.  Our cause/notice system begets much uncertainty which, in turn, fosters litigation or palpable employer generosity to avoid litigation.  Few employers fire for cause (even in the most egregious cases where they might be able to prove it), preferring to buy out the employee.  In some countries, employers can scarcely buy out the weakest employees and have foisted upon them public costs of general income support.  That extra employer cost has to be absorbed somewhere.

Cheers, 
Peter Bowal


-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maurer,Virginia G
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 8:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Unemployment Insurance and Job Search in the Great Recession"

I thought Peter meant that the US employers' burden of providing private health insurance to employees was more than matched by our trading partners' burden of providing employment security. Maybe I misread, or read too quickly.

Peter?

________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Michael O'Hara [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Unemployment Insurance and Job Search in the Great Recession"

ALSBTALK:

Peter Bowal, our member who also is a member of the Canadian judiciary and who has had exposure at the highest levels to USA law, observed a connection that ought not be ignored when untethering USA health insurance from USA employment.  To wit:  at will employment.

Since reading that idea I have had that thought intrude on a couple of committee meetings, several TV shows, and walking the dog.  But I'm stumped.

Since I really dislike slavery, I strongly prefer at will employment.  And I'm generically opposed to voluntary servitude.  Peter, if I read correctly, then your caution was in warning that untethering health insurance could REDUCE the strength of at will employment.

Am I correct in reading your caution?

If not, then please correct my reading.

If so, then please provide more guidance on the tendrils of connection of at will employment to employer provided health care, and how those tendrils would be endangered by ending employer provided health care.  I'm stumped.

My initial reaction and expectation is that the freedom of the employer for unilateral action would INCREASE with a reduction in the consequence to the social contract.  That is, if employed, then cost of health care is covered elsewhere; and, if not employed, then the cost of health care is covered elsewhere.  If employment status does not shift the locus of cost, then it would seem to be situation where greater employer at will freedom would be tolerated.  Especially when contrasted with the current situation where terminating employment shifts the cost of health care from a private budget to a public budget.  My initial reaction is that if an action by any person noticeably shifts costs from that person to the government, then the government is more likely to deny that person the freedom of that cost shifting.  And the opposite.

Obviously, you must be looking at another pathway for private annoyance of the government if a non-cost-shifting action by a private party is going to prompt a governmental reduction in that private party's freedom.

I'm very slightly familiar with German employment law and its government paid health insurance along side its vast rejection of at will employment.  But, I'm not seeing those as cause and effect; but rather, as fraternal twin effects of an entirely different cause.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Mammel Hall 228
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6708 Pine Street
Omaha  NE  68182-0048
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680 http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm