[Vision2020] UI & Discrimination Against Stepchildren

[lfalen]

Saundra
Sorry to hear about your troubles, but it does not surprise me. My wife is 64 and has worked for the UI for 42 years. She is the oldest employee in terms of years worked. She has had her hours for pay reduced to 7 hours per day. She puts in about 12. With the help our daughter she was able to get grant to do a nitrate study on the Camas Prairie. She is out in the field working on it today.I have helped her some, but I can not go when a UI vehicle is used, as it is ilegal for a non UI employee to ride it in a UI vehicle.  She still has to keep up with all of her other work. This grant will only help pay her salary for a short time. Times are hard and I realize every one should feel a little of the pain. That pain should start with Administrators.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:57:20 -0700
To: "'Vision 2020'" Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] UI & Discrimination Against Stepchildren

> Visionaries:
> 
> Just when I thought the UI was finished sinking to slimy depths with respect
> to employee & retiree health coverage and had started to rebound in a good
> way, I've found I was wrong.  Instead, the UI has now descended to new
> unimaginable & unfathomable discriminatory anti-family lows.  We received
> our Open Enrollment package in the mail today, and I'm incredibly offended .
>  . and hurt.
> 
> You see, a stepchild isn't considered to be a part of the employee's family
> anymore unless he/she lives at home.  This is in direct contrast to
> "biological" and "adopted" children who are eligible to be covered by UI
> health insurance until they turn 26 regardless of where they live.  Shoot, a
> "biological" child under age 26 could even get married, have children, move
> to another country . . . and *still* be eligible to be covered on his/her
> parent's health care insurance through the UI.
> 
> But the stepchildren of UI employees?  Nope, sorry -- too bad, so sad.  We
> apparently took the wrong approach in encouraging OUR daughter to work
> towards self-sufficiency.  Maybe we should just force her to move back in
> with us so we can get her health insurance coverage through the UI again
> (she got booted off when she turned 19; she's 21 now).
> 
> And, never mind the fact that my dh has been the ONLY father OUR daughter
> has ever known -- he's been her father since she was not quite two, through
> elementary school, through junior high school, and through high school
> graduation -- which is a lot longer than many marriages last these days, and
> through the wee hours of today.  We're still going strong as a family, the
> ONLY family our daughter has EVER known.
> 
> According to the UI, my husband is apparently not OUR daughter's "real"
> father in spite of the fact that we are legally married and in spite of the
> fact that my husband lived with OUR daughter full-time from diapers through
> the years when --  were we were a civilized society, all girls between 13 &
> 16 would be sent to a desert island to torment only each other -- and high
> school graduation.  And, we're still going strong as a family, the ONLY
> family our daughter has EVER known.
> 
> We had her last name legally changed before she started kindergarten so
> there would NEVER be any doubts about who her family was, but none of that
> is good enough for the UI.
> 
> Nope -- she's a "just" a stepchild, according to the UI . . . not worthy of
> being considered a part of our family for health insurance purposes.
> 
> We found nothing in the UI Open Enrollment materials indicating the
> rationale for this decidedly anti-family definition of children, a
> definition that is at odds with the health insurance definitions of the
> State of Idaho, LCSC, NIC, BSU, ISU, etc.  Given the fact that the UI is
> self-insured, it is the UI that is calling the shots -- that definition
> *wasn't* dictated by some big, bad health insurance carrier.
> 
> Once again, the UI has taken a position that penalizes its loyal employees
> and their families, and I'm frankly beyond.
> 
> It's been difficult enough that virtually each year my dh has been employed
> by the UI, we've gotten poorer & poorer due to no wage increases & wages
> falling further & further behind peer institutions -- let alone inflation --
> but this discriminatory definition of children really is a bridge too far,
> and it seems to me the mental giants behind this crappola are vastly
> overpaid.  Waste at the UI?  You betcha!
> 
> There is, no doubt, a special place in Hades reserved for those at the UI
> responsible for what is essentially an institutionalization of the
> Cinderella effect, but that's unlikely to offer any meaningful solace -- or
> help -- to UI families that happen to encompass young adult stepchildren.
> 
> 
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> 
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================