The original article on Corporate owned life insurance appeared last spring in the wall street journal. They refered to the policies as "janitor policies". The Houston chronicle got down to the nitty gritty terminology. (dead janitor dead peasant)
Currently the IRS has won three cases in federal court disallowing the tax deductions involved with these policies. Federal judge nancy Atlas has claimed the policies to be sham policies. Wallmart did not stop buying the policies until 2000.
However the polices are only illegal in texas and several other states. Texas will not allow the wagering on the deaths of employees. There is also no incentive to provide a safe workplace. As an example Winn Dixie, a convenience store chain, took out $250,000 policies on the lives of their clerks. In contrast, Diamond Shamrock a similiar size company put two clerks in their stores on the night shift, and in high crime areas put up bullet proof glass to protect the clerks. Over a five year period Winn Dixie collected on 9 policies. Diamond Shamrock had only one clerk killed on the job.
The original purpose of the policies was to provide funds for retirement health benifits. But most of the corporations involved simply put the earning from the policies into their general fund. Most corporations have also made elaborate attempts to hide the existance of the policies from their empolyees.
The above info comes from The Houston chronicle, The Austin Chronicle, The IRS , The Department of Justice and various other web sites

A previous thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=6934) on this topic.

:m: Peace.

Actually little has actually been published or discussed about these Corporate owned life insurance policies because most people are not aware of their existance. Most of what has been said is in reference to the state of Texas. Primarily because the policies are illegal in Texas and that is where the corporations involved got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. However this is a nationwide practice, over 25% of the fortune 500 companies hold this type of policy on their rank and file workers. This is not merely a type of insurance held on key executives.
Walmart is mentioned specifically because it has the most policies, over 350,000 nationwide, with poilicy amounts up to $750,000. But hundreds of corporations are involed in this practice, including companies like ATT,and Proctor and Gamble.
The list goes on and on. The fact is that hundreds of people on this forum most likley have a life insurance policy on themselves that they are not even aware of. This is a national disgrace and if no one cares then so be it.
But be aware that the banking, mortgage and credit card industries are looking closely at this type of policy. OK so now you are thinking that if the bank takes out a policy on you at least your debts will be paid. Wrong! It only means that the bank will profit from your death and your estate will still be resposisble for paying the debt.
And as I type this statement the life insurance lobbiests are trying to push through a nationwide insurance format that is similiar to that of the state of Georgia. What about georgia??
In Georgia a company may take out a life insurance policy on you, on your spouse, and on your children. And when that drunk runs the red light and wipes out your entire family guess who gets the money? Do we want that nationwide? Are we just going to sit here in our complacency and let it happen??
http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/complaint_form_walmart.html

Among the list of companies who may possibly have a life insurance policy on "your" life without you being aware of it are: W.R Grace, Hershey Foods, Dow Chemical, Bassett Furniture, American Express, National Convenience Stores, and Bank of America.
There are several hundred companies involved in this practice.

I urge anyone who reads this to send an e-mail to their congressman requesting that they support house bill 4551.
Presented by Texas congressman Gene Green this bill would require corporations to notify employees that there is a life insurance policy on that employee, and that the proceeds of that policy will go to the corporation.
I feel this bill is not really strong enough, but it is a beginning.:)

http://www.benefitnews.com/detail.cfm?id=3715

I have come to the the conclusion that few people who subscribe to this forum trully understand the "dead peasant policies" . They are goulish violations of workers lives.

Originally posted by justiceusa
I have come to the the conclusion that few people who subscribe to this forum trully understand the That's a bold conclusion based on limited facts, isn't it?

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by justiceusa
"dead peasant policies" ... are goulish violations of workers lives.

While I think you’ve made a good case for these policies being in bad taste, I don’t see much unethical about them otherwise. Regarding the convenience stores, the insurance companies charge more for policies where the odds of death are higher. Lawyers jump on companies that even give the appearance of intentionally making death more possible. Given that it seems it would be tough for a company to profit from these policies with the exception of the tax benefits. Therefore I see it as a tax shelter only. The workers seem unaffected.

Besides, these policies are already on the way out. As your last link notes, “The implication for the estimated 900 large corporations that bought COLI policies was that [the tax benefits] looked too good to be true. And, as a 1996 piece of federal legislation and a recent spate of court decisions and lawsuits are showing, that was exactly the case.”

There is plenty of evidence, but far to much to be expressed here. I just tried to summarize everything I had found. Just go to any search engine and enter the term "dead peasant" I in fact found this forum while doing research on this subject. "hotbot is a great search engine with its new format.
By the way in the previous thread on this this subject you stated that you did not know of any Wallmart, stores outside of this country. There are 520 in Mexico, plus stores in Canada.;)

This is about far more than ethics or bad taste. The Corporations are still buying these policies because life insurance proceeds, are non taxablable.
Can we build a strong economy based on this type of financial situation, ie "dead workers"? The companies are posting the face value of the policys on their balance sheet as an asset, which makes them look good on paper to the financial analysts. That is a bit too Enronish for me. The true asset will not be realized until some unknown point in the future when all of the emloyees are dead. By the way Enron held two billion dollars worth of COLI policies when they collapsed. However the Enron execs had borrowed all but 125 million from the policies and divided the proceeds among themselves. Do a little research.:)

I don’t have a problem with them betting on the lifespan of their workers for tax purposes. Companies have an obligation to their shareholders to do any legal thing to maximize their profit. If the majority dislikes these policies they can ban them, and it looks like they will. If workers are not at greater risk due to the policies then only bad taste remains to complain about. If the Enron execs skimmed the policy benefits then that is a separate issue, as is how the policies are accounted for on the balance sheet.

You sound like an Enron ecex. Anthing goes huh? So when that massive biological terrorist attack wipes out enough people to bankrupt the insurance companies, and takes down the corporations with them, we just write it off. again do some research to back up your opinions;)

I am not like an Enron exec because I believe profit should be made legally. What does a massive biological terrorist attack have to do with our discussion? Please elaborate. I am backing up my opinions. You haven’t shown otherwise.

Many deaths would mean many policies to pay off. The insurance companies could not do it. this is an exteme example ,but when we forget history it tends to repeat itself. Smallpox killed nearly half of the population of Europe in the 16th century. It is still around, and there is no cure. There are a billion angry Islamic's who would love to send it to us. We are in a peculiar time in history when we can take nothing for granted. Our economy must be built on a stronger foundation than a bottom line that only looks good.

Thanks for elaborating. That’s a separate issue that goes to insurance company viability. They must follow regulations to ensure they can pay off events that are within the realm of reasonable possibility. It is only recently that scenarios involving such extreme death or destruction were put into that realm. Consequently, insurance premiums have sharply risen. This puts our economy back onto a solid foundation.

Regarding smallpox, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has a plan for inoculation and isolation in the event of an outbreak. Life insurance companies take that into account.

I hope the CDC has more luck with smallpox than it did with aids. At one time the CDC predicted that aids would be limited to fewer than 50,000 people and then fade away. Smallpox is still an unknown entity. There are strains that the vaccine will not prevent.
We currently have many strains of bacteria that are becoming resitant to antibiotics. The point is, we have too much of corporated assets tied up in a venture that could collapse . COLI are not based on sound economic investment in reguards to the current world situation. Why aren't the businesses investing in themselves? That is a deductible investment.

How are COLI any less sound than life insurance policies as a whole? That’s all they are, after all. Likely they are a sound economic investment as the insurance industry has not yet imploded and still posts profits. Despite the AIDS epidemic too.

The CDC cannot predict the future perfectly of course but it does pretty good. The resistant bacteria issue is debatable. Articles I’ve read say that new antibiotics to kill the resistant bacteria are easily done technically but won’t be done until they are a better investment. Not enough people are dying from resistant bacteria to make the investment in new antibiotics profitable.

As to smallpox strains that the vaccine will not prevent, I’m sure the CDC is tasked to fix that. There will always be risks that are not yet managed. Life must go on regardless.

What do you mean by businesses investing in themselves? I thought they all did that.

"Not enough people dying to justify investment in new antibiotics. "
What number do you think would be enough??
Again I state that cultures who do not value human life have historically ceased to exist. It takes many years to develop a new vaccine. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the interesting dialog.

http://cobacourses.creighton.edu/fintopics/Student%20Work/MilemJanitorInsurance.htm
;)

Originally posted by justiceusa
What number do you think would be enough??

The number that rewards investors behind the new antibiotics beyond what they could expect to make on alternative investments. If they did otherwise then more people would die overall. (Investment A saves 100 lives. Investment B saves 10 lives. Choose one.) Our society values both human life and the profit to be made by extending it. That is why we have a significantly longer lifespan than non-capitalistic societies.

You are right that it takes many years to develop a new vaccine. No doubt the manufacturers have considered that. If they thought millions of people would otherwise likely die from variant smallpox strains five years from now, they’d be hell-bent on making the new vaccines as you read this. Imagine the profits!

I read the link. It makes an ethical argument only. No wrongdoing on the part of the companies is demonstrated. Ethics will always be debatable. If the majority cares to end the debate they can make a law barring the practice. I think when the public wants companies to be ethical (the public’s words) but does little to stop it (the public’s actions), then actions speak louder than words.

But you didn't answer how many have to die you only gave a business school example which appears to put lust for money high above ethics, morality and common human decency.

The link was primarily to inform others who might read it. As far as ethics being debatable one must first have them and "corporate America has not in recent years displayed that they do." from rutgers law school web site.

The problem with your public action theory is that until recentlly the public was totally unaware of the existance of the policies. But in your perfect world, and even though the policies had been hidden from them, I am sure that you will still blame the working class for not taking action against the largest corporations in America.

Do some research and see how many companies are being or have recently been investigated by the securities and Exchange commission. Companies are only now rushing to report the existance of "peasant" policies" to the commission. Perhaps because they are at last being forced to be honest. Were Worldcom and Global crossing your idea of honesty? It appears that even honesty is debateable as it seems to change with the financial times.

"By being deceptive and just plain dishonest corporate America has dug itself into a hole. The best thing to do now is to quit digging." This statement was made by a Wallmart executive when he was asked to respond to the Houston Chronicle article regarding "peasant policies" Ironically the statement does not seem to address the policies. perhaps the statement was taken out of context, however I strongly agree with it.

What else can I say but that we shall continue to agree to disagree.
The following reply denies justice to all American workers.

What you call the “business school example” saves the most number of lives. It’s profitable to save lives. Companies in the business of saving or extending life want to do that as much of that as possible so they can make lots of money. How is that unethical?

How many people will die due to bacteria resistant to antibiotics? I don’t know. Should the public or the drug companies spend $10 billion to save 100 people susceptible to the bacteria? Only if that choice makes them the most money. Why? Because otherwise more people will die. Saving 1,000 people for the same $10 billion investment is more profitable. How is that putting a lust for money above common human decency?

Please think about and answer those questions rather than “agree to disagree” which is a cop-out. It’s easy to blame Corporate America. It’s harder to realize that Corporate America is a public invention for the public good. We are fortunate to live in a country that is ruled by the majority. The majority of the people set up what you are complaining about. Ask yourself: Why did they do it? Why do they continue with it and foster it and work for it?

It makes sense that Rutgers thinks Corporate America has no ethics. Because that sentiment is chic in academia and being chic draws students. Lots of students mean lots of revenue for Rutgers. It’s profitable to blame Corporate America if you’re a university! You can bet though that Rutgers tells its corporate donors a different story. Of course that will be Rutgers little secret. The students don’t need to know the administration kisses Corporate America’s White Ass. There’s no good reason to tell them. If told, prospective students will shun Rutgers and they’ll have to dismiss some fine professors they can no longer afford. Much better for everyone involved to shroud the ass kissing in secrecy.

Sure lots of companies are being investigated by the SEC. Lots of investigations mean lots of settlements and fines paid to the SEC. Then they can grow and raise salaries to attract better talent and find even more problems in Corporate America and everyone will be better off. It’s profitable to investigate Corporate America if you’re the SEC! Sure companies are only now rushing to report the existence of COLI policies to the commission. And when the SEC is done with that they’ll demand yet more things in their never-ending quest to improve Corporate America. And the companies will comply as they have done ever since the SEC was founded.

Why was the public not told about COLI? Because it makes Corporate America look bad. Why? For no good reason. The public doesn’t like the “ghoulish” policies. Yet they don’t have enough sense to understand they’re just a tax shelter. The public sure appreciates those gains in their retirement plans though and they sure get mad as hell and sue for big money when a company reports a loss. No wonder Corporate America shrouded those policies in secrecy.

Even though the policies had been hidden from the public, do I blame the working class for not taking action against Corporate America? If the working class = the public, then by all means. After all, they have the Constitutional power to prevent Corporate America from keeping such secrets. They set up Corporate America. Why shouldn’t we hold the inventor responsible? The public is the same inventor who encourages Corporate America to hold all kinds of secrets like trade secrets and cost of goods sold and products under development. There is a list of items Corporate America must keep secret by law, and a slew of them they must not keep secret. COLI was in neither category and now it looks to have been moved into the latter category.

Worldcom and Global Crossing were committing crimes. Investing in COLI is legal. Why do you insist on lumping the two together? Please answer. Honesty is not debatable. The public can end the ethical debate about COLI at any time by making it illegal.

The Wal-Mart exec makes that statement because it’s profitable to make your competition look bad while making your own company look good. It’s a self-serving statement that’s good for business. It’s also true.

For the record I am not “for” Corporate America. I’m a bleeding heart liberal. To resolve any seeming contradiction in that please read again my first sentence in this post.

You have a problem and I feel sorry for you. God will be your judge. But of course you have no God. You have an inner agenda that has no relevance here. You compulsively strike out verbally in any way you can against anyone and everyone in a futile attempt to display your own perceived intellectual superiority. you have made it apparent that your hidden agenda is your only reason for being here. Farewell

Ah, yes. The "discussion" ends with an ad hominem attack. Point, zanket.

:m: Peace.

Is that what this forum is all about ?"scoring points"? If so you are as sick as your pompus friend. I was trying to express a deep and relevant concern regarding the value of the lives of American workers. And my attack was most appropriate. But of course I get no points.

I will continue to add information to this post as it becomes available. So that those of us who have a respect for the lives of others will be able to continue to learn about the "dead peasant"
life insurance policies that are being taken out on unknowing workers by their employers.
The policies are made payable to the employer and do not in any way benifit the employees. Disney can be added to the list. Even if you only worked for Disney or any of more than 600 companies, part time during the summer1-2-3 4-5-6-7-8 or 9 years ago, there is a life insurance policy on your life. Full time employees are of course in the same situation.
The policies are kept in force until the day you die, even if you have long since left the company.
In some states married people have a policy on themselves their spouse and their children. All benifits are paid to the Employer/Corporation.
For example Winn Dixe, a convenience store chain, carries a $250,000 policy on all of their employees.
In the future I will make my posts in the form of links. If any one wants to debate the links they can contact that link.

http://www.ufcw.net/weekly/archive/Weekly-archive-26-5-2002.html

Can you say yellow journalism (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/48/y0014800.html)? Some quotes within the link immediately above:

It's bad enough that during their working lives, they are subject to all manner of indignity in the name of the almighty dollar, but now it seems that they can contribute to the bottom line even after they're dead and gone.

As loathsome as [dead peasant insurance is] however, it should surprise no one. This is the true essence of capitalism: Maximizing profit. ... Maximizing profit is not just an objective or a goal - it's a duty, the only duty, of corporate officers and directors.

It's clear that dead peasant insurance is within the rules of the game.

So here we have a site headlined “Members for Democracy” that complains about—of all things—democracy! Earth to author: The majority of the people chose the rules of the game.

Later it becomes apparent that the author misunderstands what democracy is, saying:

Corporations have a special status in our society: That of a super person - one that lives on forever - with no responsibility or accountability to anyone or anything except the almighty dollar.

No, I’m quite sure that corporations answer to the public in a democracy. The author mentions Enron execs as an example of corporate irresponsibility. Geez, who does the author think is prosecuting those execs? The almighty dollar?

Please contact the link, perhaps they have a discussion forum there that you can try to dominate. The wealthy minority write the rules in this, and did so in most of the previous century. Have you ever worked in a steel mill as my father did? Have you ever had a friend die in your arms as I have? A friend not killed in combat, but a friend who was killed while operating a machine which had no safety guards to prevent it from ripping his head open. Have you ever been orderd by a corporate/plant manager to scoop up a pool of clotted blood and brain tissue as I have?
You have no idea of the personall degredation and indignities that American workers are subjected to. Can you base any of your comments on a real life experience? Very few Enron executives are being prosecuted, considering that they stole the retirement funds of 20,000 workers. Before they turned out the lights and closed the door a group of Enron Executives borrowed
nearly 2 billion dollars from their "dead peasant policies", and then divided it among themselves. None of them are being investigated.

Have a nice day.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/business/3420474.htm

The last paragraph of the following link offers some hope. I urge you to e-mail your congressman.
http://www.theeagle.com/businesstechnology/051902walmartpolicy.htm

Originally posted by justiceusa
Please contact the link, perhaps they have a discussion forum there that you can try to dominate.

I’m happy here at sciforums, thank you.

The wealthy minority write the rules in this, and did so in most of the previous century.

They dictate the rule-making only so far as the majority lets them. Nothing stops the public from revising the rules.

You have no idea of the personall degredation and indignities that American workers are subjected to. Can you base any of your comments on a real life experience?

Yes. I’m an American worker for 25 years running. I don’t suffer degradation, which happens only if you allow it. I’m sorry to hear about your friend, but if you didn’t want to scoop up a pool of his clotted blood and brain tissue, why did you?

Before they turned out the lights and closed the door a group of Enron Executives borrowed nearly 2 billion dollars from their "dead peasant policies", and then divided it among themselves. None of them are being investigated.

What does that have to do with dead peasant policies per se? Had the Enron execs stolen the petty cash too, would you denounce petty cash?

I scooped up that pool of clotted blood and brain tissue because I had a family to feed and there were no other jobs available. I can only hope that you will have the opportinity to live through a similiar situation, as it is a great educational experience that you will not find in any class room or text book. Please point out specifically who the "majority"of the public really is?? Are they Democrats?, are they republicans?, or maybe independents?? Workers are only the majority based on numbers. Most workers are so stressed just trying to make ends meet from payday to payday that they have neither the time nor the energy to try to make changes. (except in your perfect little world) With the dumbing down of America a great number of young people would not even know were to begin to make changes. I can only try to make it easier for them by giving them information and something to work with such as the link below. As a "bleeding heart liberal" why are you so opposed to that?? In the following link there is a direct link to The US Congress web site. From there you can find and e-mail your representative.
http://www.paceunion.org/julyaugust2002.htm

I have decided to move on to another forum. I have been posting to several forums simultaniously and believe me "it aint" easy. All I can do is to keep trying to bring information, on a topic I believe in, to as many people as possible. The next forum I am going to take "peasant to is a conservative one OHH Gawd. I am an old geezer, I get tired easily and my vision sucks. My wife probably thinks I am in here looking at porno. I appologise to anyone whom my posts may have offended, especially Zanket. Ironically without his supurb linguistic replys I feel there woud have been far fewer readers. To the readers I give my sincere thanks. OK OK that raps it up. this aint the Golden Globe awards.:)

Move on if you must but let me answer your questions that I already started on.

I scooped up that pool of clotted blood and brain tissue because I had a family to feed and there were no other jobs available.

Sounds like you made the best choice you could, which makes me wonder: Why did you find it degrading? I don’t mean to be crass. What I’m getting at is that if you make the best choice from the available options, then you have every reason to not feel degraded.

Please point out specifically who the "majority"of the public really is??

The dictionary says the majority (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/85/m0048500.html) is “the political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.” The majority rule (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/87/m0048700.html) applies to any particular candidate or issue. Sometimes a supermajority (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/99/s0899900.html) applies.

Most workers are so stressed just trying to make ends meet from payday to payday that they have neither the time nor the energy to try to make changes.

Making governmental changes doesn’t require a lot of energy. To initiate change, people first need to inform themselves, and then only a majority of a small percentage of the population need vote or otherwise strongly express their opinion about a particular issue.

Example: Some years ago in my state (Washington) the newspaper reported that milk trucks were doing double duty as gasoline trucks. After dropping off a load of premium unleaded they’d clean the inside and fill it with 2% for the kids. Within a day of the report it became apparent (through phone polls and screaming parents etc.) that the vast majority disapproved of this heretofore “secret” practice. With a week as I recall the state legislature passed a law prohibiting it. Now these trucks may not do double duty.

When the majority wants something done, it can happen fast and with little effort on their part. Often a public vote isn’t required. Representatives seeking re-election are eager to please. It’s an elegant system.

I can only try to make it easier for them by giving them something to work with such as the link below.

Good idea. I think people should petition their representatives to remove the tax break on COLI. Then the companies will pressure the government to lower the corporate tax rates to make them whole again. The less corporations feel compelled to jump through loopholes, especially controversial ones, the better for the public.

I appologise to anyone whom my posts may have offended, especially Zanket.

No apology needed for me but thanks. I respect your opinions and enjoyed the exchange.

One final thanks, I have learned a lot from you about posting to forums. I am/was a newbie at this. Take Care and try to keep dry up the in the great Northwest.

Life insurance policies held on former slaves have been declared illegal in several states. The companies issuing those policies and the companies who bought the policies are now having to pay the decendants if they can be found. The life insurance policy that your company has on your life (which you are not likely to know about) is still legal in most states.
http://www.voternewsnetwork.com/VNN/newsletters/june102.html