Does Nissan support LGBT LEAF owners?
- Thread starter healy100
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Stoaty
Well-known member
Yes, but I am not like most pollenticians--they are also very good "pollenators" :lol:AndyH said:Nicely done, Sloaty! You're quite the pollentician.
TRONZ
Well-known member
Signed. Hope Nissan gets it's ducks in a row on this one.
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
I suspect these "petitions" aren't for real anyway, they just stir up a tempest in a teapot and sell the email addresses they collect.
Packet
Well-known member
From the message a few above, it sounds like they actively were opposing this bill, not supporting it. So I gather they had their ducks in a row.TRONZ said:
Stoaty
Well-known member
Looks like the are for real to me:LTLFTcomposite said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/tennessee-anti-gay-bill-chamber-commerce-business_n_865581.html
Signed the petition but too late.
The Gov signed the bill.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/...s-Metro-s-anti-discrimination-law?odyssey=mod
The Gov signed the bill.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/...s-Metro-s-anti-discrimination-law?odyssey=mod
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
The bill is correct; civil rights and employment regulations are a matter of state and federal law. One problem with local government legislating this is how do you define what is more or less strict. Creating an inhospitable environment of patchwork regulations for business is certainly something else Tennessee wants to avoid. The last thing they need is to follow in Michigan's footsteps.
No doubt the same folks who object to this Tennessee bill also objected to Arizona exerting their right to enforce immigration law, saying that was under federal authority. Funny how people like to pick and choose as it suits them.
No doubt the same folks who object to this Tennessee bill also objected to Arizona exerting their right to enforce immigration law, saying that was under federal authority. Funny how people like to pick and choose as it suits them.
Stoaty
Well-known member
Well I'm sure no one would be complaining if the bill also made discrimination based on sexual preference illegal state wide. The fact that the bill didn't do that shows its true underlying motivation.LTLFTcomposite said:
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Stoaty said:
That will served separately at some point with side of pork.
occ
Well-known member
Came to the party a bit late, but I signed anyways. I'm glad to see Nissan and sone of those companies made their statements, and publicly opposed the bigoted legislation. Good to see that some of these companies saw how even big business powers can be hijacked and used for discrimination, under the guide of business ideals. Gotta handed to the religious right on this one.They pulled a fast one on the business community this time. Is it to much to hope the big businesses hit back a bit?
A bit of behind the scenes scoop on this bill. Without this bill being passed one large employer would have left TN and another said they would have to consider it. This also raised concerns about any new companies choosing to move to TN. The issue is the extent to which local legislation would require companies to offer highly customized health and benefit plans for employees in different geographic or business areas. The company who said that would have to consider leaving already offers one of the best 'partner benefit' plans in the nation but that plan would not have met a local ordinance being considered where their plant is located. The cost of idling the plant and laying off workers was less than the cost of providing a customized health and benefit plan. And, less than 1% of this companies employees in TN take advantage of the current partner benefit plan and none would have benefited from the customized plan. This company is a major supplier to Nissan.
thankyouOB
Well-known member
SkiTundra said:
Citations please.
Links.
Proof?
davewill
Well-known member
Idle threats...and not even credible ones. How can it cost them more than idling the plant to provide the benefit if "...less than 1% of this companies employees in TN take advantage of the current partner benefit plan and none would have benefited from the customized plan." Do people even think anymore?SkiTundra said:
I'm a journalist, not an HR person so maybe someone who knows the HR world can chime in with more. The issues for the companies as I understand them:
- Any benefit or policy plan that veers from company standards requires custom programming for systems to be able to handle them as well as employee time (HR & Legal) to design the plans and oversee them.
- If they offer a benefit to anyone's 'partner' they may be legally required to offer that same benefit or all benefits to any 'partner' anywhere. This creates a problem with what defines a 'partner'. Some companies that provide very comprehensive and expensive health plans have apparently also had problems with people naming a friend who does not have such a good plan as a 'partner' in order to provide their friend with benefits.
- Companies have experienced problems of 'partners' double-dipping by making claims with their own insurance and with their partners. Not sure why this is different from married people doing the same.
- On average, costs (I believe just medical) for partners have been over five times as high as costs for 'spouses'. For whatever reason partners require more medical aid than married spouses, how much of this is intentional gaming of the system and how much is something else I have no idea.
- Companies have experienced significant problems when conflicts arise over death benefits and 'partners' who may or may not be legally entitled to them. Apparently some similar problems when partners separate and one files suit against the other.
- US and State codes do not yet have adequate protections in them to protect companies, investment companies, insurance companies and partners for issues around non-marital benefits. EG, there are codes that say how stuff is done within a marriage and on the dissolution of a marriage, not so for partners.
- When asked if they believed their company should provide partner benefits, over 60% of employees at one company agreed. When asked if they would still support that if the costs of their benefits increased by $37/mo (the cost of full partner benefits spread across all employees), support dropped to 6%.
It would seem the solution is to either expand the definition of marriage to include gays or get some kind of legal union laws implemented.
- Any benefit or policy plan that veers from company standards requires custom programming for systems to be able to handle them as well as employee time (HR & Legal) to design the plans and oversee them.
- If they offer a benefit to anyone's 'partner' they may be legally required to offer that same benefit or all benefits to any 'partner' anywhere. This creates a problem with what defines a 'partner'. Some companies that provide very comprehensive and expensive health plans have apparently also had problems with people naming a friend who does not have such a good plan as a 'partner' in order to provide their friend with benefits.
- Companies have experienced problems of 'partners' double-dipping by making claims with their own insurance and with their partners. Not sure why this is different from married people doing the same.
- On average, costs (I believe just medical) for partners have been over five times as high as costs for 'spouses'. For whatever reason partners require more medical aid than married spouses, how much of this is intentional gaming of the system and how much is something else I have no idea.
- Companies have experienced significant problems when conflicts arise over death benefits and 'partners' who may or may not be legally entitled to them. Apparently some similar problems when partners separate and one files suit against the other.
- US and State codes do not yet have adequate protections in them to protect companies, investment companies, insurance companies and partners for issues around non-marital benefits. EG, there are codes that say how stuff is done within a marriage and on the dissolution of a marriage, not so for partners.
- When asked if they believed their company should provide partner benefits, over 60% of employees at one company agreed. When asked if they would still support that if the costs of their benefits increased by $37/mo (the cost of full partner benefits spread across all employees), support dropped to 6%.
It would seem the solution is to either expand the definition of marriage to include gays or get some kind of legal union laws implemented.
thankyouOB
Well-known member
citations please.
links.
links.
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
I have no doubt SkiTundra speaks the truth. People see big companies as a bottomless well of gimmie-gimmie-gimmie, without any regard to the notion that they have to produce a product that has value in the market and make a profit to succeed. Compliance costs are through the roof.
Remember General Motors went bankrupt because they became a health care charity that was building cars on the side.
Remember General Motors went bankrupt because they became a health care charity that was building cars on the side.
Jimmydreams
Well-known member
SkiTundra said:
Mostly BS and opinion. Any plan that covers a 'spouse' can be modified to cover a 'partner' by a simple HR memo. Do married people have to produce a marriage license before being covered under company X's benefit or policy? Neither should someone with a partner.
SkiTundra said:
That's called fraud and there are already laws against it. Are you telling me because some people are killed with a car, that all cars are a 'problem'?
SkiTundra said:
It's not, and it's already covered under fraud statutes. But nice try trying to smear gays with something that 'seems' specific to one group that really isn't.
SkiTundra said:
Until you show me a study on this, I'm going to SCREAM bullshit on this one. As a 'journalist', do you just regurgitate what you hear, or do you actually do any research? This doesn't pass the smell test, and you oughta know better.
SkiTundra said:
How about another link? This one smells like the "5 time medial cost" BS above. If 'partners' are covered exactly like married people, where is the problem???
SkiTundra said:
Hiding behind US and state codes isn't reason enough for a company to discriminate. But it was a nice try.
SkiTundra said:
Since when do companies provide benefits based on employee surveys and the associated costs? Of COURSE support would drop if people were told it would cost them more. But what would happen to support for "married benefits" if those costs were dropped and people saw actual raises based on that?? EVERY divorced or single person would say "HELL YES!". Should that be a reason to deny benefits to married people?? No, it's not a valid argument. If a company provides benefits for married people, they should provide benefits for domestic partners. Period.
SkiTundra said:
That is about the only part of your entire post that is factual and true.
Just like truly knowledgeable EVers bristle when they see FUD being spread about EV's, I do the same when it comes to domestic partner laws/policies/commentary. FUD is FUD, and in the case of myself and my partner, real legal and financial harm is foisted upon us that isn't levied against the married couple next door. It's not right, it's not fair, and when I see people spread complete FUD, I call them on it.
thankyouOB
Well-known member
LTLFTcomposite said:
I call BS on this last sentence. And the first graf is nasty, refutable, right-wing propaganda, as well.
Providing your workers with health care as a negotiated benefit to ensure their well-being, provide a stable work force and share some of the company success is NOT CHARITY. These were negotiated benefits with one of the largest corporations in the world and when they became less profitable the work force renegotiated down its wages and benefits.
Please be so kind as to take these gooper TPs to some other place.
thankyouOB
Well-known member
nice slice and dice, jimmydreams. Well done.
this guy apparently cant support a word of that with links or citations. just I heard and I believe and it may be all the way out the door and down the hall.
journalists use facts; more like a blogger or paid pr commenter.
this guy apparently cant support a word of that with links or citations. just I heard and I believe and it may be all the way out the door and down the hall.
journalists use facts; more like a blogger or paid pr commenter.
Similar threads
