Your medical benefits contributions.
Medical contributions are based on your salary. Fiserv embraces the philosophy that associates who earn more will pay more than associates who earn less. This is Fiserv embracing the socialist idea of income redistribution. The more you're worth, the more you have to lose at Fiserv.
15 replies (most recent on top)
I used to own the means of production. But then I saw how the company was being ran so I sold my shares to the next bag holder.
“This is Fiserv embracing the socialist idea of income redistribution.“
It isn’t socialist and you do realize your taxes work the same way correct? For the fifteenth fcking time socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Last time I checked, none of us, not even the CEO of this shtty company own the entirety of this company, the shareholders do.
@17d I just want the top earners to stop trampling the rest of us so we can all climb up together. Alas, we're managed by snakes, and snakes don't give raises. Fiserv's version of snakes and ladders: the ladders are for the people who play golf with management, and the snakes are for everyone who actually does the work.
@a8 you mean you should be thankful that someone else mashes more than you to help pay for your coverage.
@zs Nothing wakes up a Fiserv loyalist like a week-old thread. Enjoy the ride, because capitalism is great until the day you're the one getting right-sized. Ayn Rand would be proud. Who is John Galt? Probably someone who just got a calendar invite titled Quick Sync.
Well my premiums are down 9% for next year so thank you Fiserv
@a8 you might want to re-evaluate. This isn’t government, so the company can do what it wants, but the concept is socialistic. “Your fair share” is really just your belief you are entitled to what someone else has earned. Envy is a cancer that destroys societies. Who is John Galt?
@gc you describe socialism well and justify inequality by the end justifylies the means. Marc would be proud of you
I find it disappointing to see the reaction to this year’s benefits materials, particularly the decision to characterize Fiserv’s approach as “socialism.” Were these same concerns raised last year or the year before? I suspect not. It’s worth stepping back from the political rhetoric from the Dumpster In Chief at 1600 Penn in DC and taking the time to understand the rationale behind the decisions being made.
Throughout my career, I have seen healthcare costs rise year after year. Every organization I have worked for has had to make deliberate decisions about how to manage those costs, and no two companies have approached it exactly the same way. Some have adopted contribution models similar to Fiserv’s, while others have maintained consistent contribution rates across employee levels. Fiserv’s approach is not unusual; it reflects a benefits strategy used by many organizations to balance affordability, equity, and financial sustainability.
There are several legitimate reasons companies structure healthcare contributions based on salary:
- Affordability: Helping ensure healthcare remains accessible to lower-paid employees, for whom premiums represent a larger percentage of income.
- Equity: Recognizing that equal contributions do not necessarily create equitable outcomes for employees with different financial circumstances.
- Cost management: Balancing rising healthcare expenses with the company’s responsibility to manage its overall benefits investment.
- Workforce retention: Supporting the attraction and retention of employees across the organization, particularly those in lower-paid roles who are essential to daily operations.
- Total rewards strategy: Aligning healthcare contributions with the company’s broader compensation and benefits philosophy.
You do not have to agree with every decision a company makes. It is entirely reasonable to question benefits policies, ask for greater transparency, and advocate for a different approach. However, there is a meaningful difference between challenging a business decision and dismissing it with political labels before understanding the rationale behind it.
We should be able to have an informed, constructive conversation about employee benefits without allowing political rhetoric to replace critical thinking. Understand the reasoning, evaluate the trade-offs, and then form an opinion based on facts rather than assumptions.
Ultimately, every individual must decide whether an employer’s policies and practices align with their personal values and expectations. That is a choice we all have. But regardless of where we stand, we owe it to ourselves and to one another to approach these conversations with perspective, professionalism, and a willingness to understand the bigger picture.
And no, I am not a benefits professional. I'm just tired of all of the complaining about the company I find decent. I'm tired of all of the political foolishness that can destroy a society and productivity of individuals.
@a9 fair share? I go to the doctor once every two years. Why should I pay more than someone that goes every time they want a free day from work?
Fk ScamServ. I'm tired of paying for other people's problems just because I paid attention in school.
Here something alot of companies and people having figured out yet. "AI will ki-l capitalism." Don't believe me, just ask it the question
I fell in the gap one year. My pay increased where it went just over the threshold of the higher cost tier. I ended up making less money after the salary increase.
That is how most companies do their health insurance. God forbid you pay your fair share. Health insurance is already extremely expensive and many people in the lower tier go without just so they can have food and shelter.
That's redistribution, not socialism. Higher earners cover part of the lower earners' premiums. Be thankful you have a high-paying job at all. Judging by this post, it's not clear how you got it, but that's Fiserv for you: the less deserving get promoted and collect the higher incentives while the more deserving get shown the door.