hr redux

From HR:

She just needs to understand that if we provide the carrier her spouse’s name and then something were to turn up later down the road and she falsified her application, then that is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

To HR:

With regards to Denise’s response: _Anyone_ who falsifies an insurance claim is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Whether my last name is the same as my spouse’s is entirely irrelevant to that fact.

I don’t think Denise is understanding the basis of my complaint. I understand that they are concerned with insurance fraud. I don’t object to having to provide proof of marriage. I understand that they are providing me with a service and that in good faith I should be willing to provide them with proof that I’m not trying to defraud them. That isn’t inherently an objectionable situation.

What I do object to is having to provide proof of marriage _because my last name is different from my spouse’s_. It is my understanding that married couples who share the same last name are not requested to provide proof of marriage.

This is a discriminatory policy, and that is what I object to. The implication is that a married couple with the same last name is inherently more trustworthy than a married couple with different last names.

I’m genuinely not trying to be difficult on this issue. It’s merely that I feel very strongly about it, and I believe that it’s a policy that should be reconsidered. I’m sure that APCS doesn’t intend discrimination, and there is a comparatively simple solution; all that needs to be done is require proof of marriage from anyone claiming to be married.

If this doesn’t work, next time I’ll use even *smaller* words. Grr.

3 thoughts on “hr redux

  1. GEEZ… They just don’t *GET* it do they?! They must enjoy being difficult. I went through lots o’HR/Carrier trouble myself regarding acne medicine. They wouldn’t approve it becasue I was over 18.

    *EH, Come again?!* Okaay… after 3 weeks, a doctors letter, and them placing a call directly to the pharmacy for proper online protocols, finally approved. SHEESH!

    GIVE EM HELL!! and it’ll be one for me too! (being the independently modern women that we are, can’t help it born & raised that way!)

  2. *She* (who is, after all, the cats’ aunt) just needs to understand?

    Why no, *they* just need to understand that they are *discriminating*.

    I see you tried the brother; maybe next, since you can’t threaten

    them with the european court of human rights, maybe you can make

    ‘un-american’ noises.

    Or you could send them Zilli, in a box, with the Wrong Food.

Comments are closed.