Just a brief post today — one, because I just want to pose a question for consideration; two, because I want to get in and out before anyone throws a virtual stone at my head for posing it; and three, because at nearly 30 weeks pregnant I’m quite tired.
Processing Content
Before I ask, I want to be clear: I’m not (NOT!) trying to be provocative or incendiary. Really. At all. Pinky swear.
I’m just curious to hear your thoughts and perspectives on a topic that’s been in the news quite a bit lately, and the implications — if there are any — for your business and the benefits profession at large.
After watching all the political jabs being thrown between President Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney regarding the “war on women,” it occurred to me that on many benefits and compensation issues — including pay, retirement savings, health insurance premiums and life insurance coverage — women come up on the short end of the financial stick as either underpaid, overcharged or having inadequate savings or coverage. (I’m not going to even touch contraception, but please do read EBN’s article on the topic in the May issue.)
Since these issues fit firmly in your wheelhouse as benefits professionals, I ask you: From a benefits perspective, is there a war on women?
Please (respectfully) share your thoughts in the comments.
Just a brief post today — one, because I just want to pose a question for consideration; two, because I want to get in and out before anyone throws a virtual stone at my head for posing it; and three, because at nearly 30 weeks pregnant I’m quite tired.
Before I ask, I want to be clear: I’m not (NOT!) trying to be provocative or incendiary. Really. At all. Pinky swear.
I’m just curious to hear your thoughts and perspectives on a topic that’s been in the news quite a bit lately, and the implications — if there are any — for your business and the benefits profession at large.
After watching all the political jabs being thrown between President Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney regarding the “war on women,” it occurred to me that on many benefits and compensation issues — including pay http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html, health insurance premiums http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/20-7, retirement savings http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/ing-retirement-savings-gap-women-2724301-1.html?ET=ebnbenefitnews:e3979:2441756a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBN_inBrief_050212, life insurance coverage http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/women-close-gap-life-insurance-2711279-1.html — women come up on the short end of the financial stick http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/women-retirement-ltd-flexible-acli-ebri-2722315-1.html as either underpaid, overcharged or having inadequate savings or coverage. (I’m not going to even touch contraception, but please do read EBN’s article on the topic in the May issue http://digital.benefitnews.com/benefitnews/201205_def#pg12.)
Since these issues fit firmly in your wheelhouse as benefits professionals, I ask you: From a benefits perspective, is there a war on women?
Please (respectfully) share your thoughts in the comment
