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
|
