While I understand that your insights aren't publicly displayed to applicants and I do appreciate the perspective I am simply adding my own thoughts, I understand it's an entire compensation package and the packages I've enjoyed over the last say 10 years have been quite valuable, the reason is because my employers are attempting to be competitive in all aspects of the package.
State employee benefits here do specify per child cost. 1 kid is x amt, 2 is xx and so on. I think after 4 kids it doesn't cost more. Our insurance used to cover fertility treatments and such, but about 13 years ago, as costs have gone up and other things have been added, they have gotten rid of many things in what they say " is trying to keep employee premiums as low as possible". But in reality, it's gone up 2-4% every year, which coincidentally the same amt as any raise we might get. The last 2 years is the 1st time in as long as I can remember that the cost hasn't gone up, but they raised the deductibles instead.
I do have to say you take your job position seriously trying to maintain the financial well-being of a company but that act alone does not mean you don't engage in behaviors that straddle a line that you may not want to straddle as a norm.
Yes, it seems crazy to me that one of our biggest expenses is something that we have no control over and may not be the best fit for our family.
I think the point is that your company could afford to pay you $1200 more (that you could then use to buy your own insurance) if they were not providing it as a standard benefit.
When we were first married my husband (an RN) was covered as the employee 100%, but spouse/family was very high. So we got the family plan from my work instead and I think he received a $100 reimbursement each pay period for not using the insurance benefit.
Our company certainly doesn't use family size as a factor in employment, but I can't say that it goes completely unnoticed when the premiums are being paid. The way our insurance is priced is by the age of each person covered. So an employee with a large family or an employee plus spouse who are older cost significantly more. You may have one employee who carries no health insurance whose pay is $40,000. And another employee with a large family who is also paid $40,000 but the company pays an additional $20,000+ for that employee's health insurance. That's a huge difference in total compensation for the same person doing the same job.
I think you misunderstood the screening comment. I'm not saying you asked that question or it was on question on an interview. I'm saying once you found out just how many kids they had you screened their employment opportunity based on that. You said that a few times. Your poor fit is solely based on how many kids they have not based on their abilities as an employee. I don't say this next part rudely but you are trying to spin it like you're just looking out for the company. I'm trying to say you may be but that doesn't mean that's a good thing either..
), or just how many kids I have before getting hired because I may find myself not a good fit for a company's health insurance plan and thus cannot be considered for employment (of course maybe if I mentioned I smoked a lot, had cancer or something else I could be that way too). Do know I'm jesting here really but it sure means one has to be careful just what honest things they say during the application process.
I'm surprised you don't know there are certain requirements before a business can classify someone as "exempt" (ie: salaried). It has to do with job duties. I'm sure you can look it up and find a bunch of links.
The thing is, if the company is paying $1200 toward your health insurance, the same thing would probably cost the employee at least $1500 (if not more) because the employer is buying in bulk. So now sure, the employee gets more money in their check (great!) but has to spend more to get the same health coverage. Sure, you might be able to spend less for insurance, but you'll probably be giving up some kind of feature/benefit.
