The manufacturing sector is really volatile now. If you are following the election or watching the debates you know many of those jobs have moved overseas; therefore making that a hot button issue.
It also makes those jobs more risky – and with risk comes insurance. An easy solution – wage insurance. There is a government policy as well as a policy from a well-known carrier – https://www.incomeassure.com/. This offers coverage for the gap between unemployment and what the insured previously made.
After looking over the policy I obtained; here are some ideas to make it better and more profitable. My ideas are based on the assumption that the insured has attained their dream job and have maintained themselves as a loyal employee.
According to many articles on the produce, there is no way to market this product. I disagree. I believe this could be marketed with the life and health folks. Most companies invite an agent into the premises during benefits selection time. A consumer can purchase additional policies like – life insurance, cancer insurance, and long and short term disability.
This is a perfect product to offer during that time. It would give potential insureds the opportunity to review and hear about the benefits. Additionally, they could pay for it through their paycheck – cafeteria style.
Age and Free Look
Currently wage insurance offers coverage to those 50 or over; I propose to lower the age to 40 and older. Most families have school age children during this time. Therefore, more of chance one partner will look for work once the job is lost – rather than just take the money and retire.
Like a life policy, this policy should also come with a free look period. Some may purchase under a hasty assumption they may lose their job. Even now within the policy there are exclusions and conditions that the insured should be given the time to review.
Exclusions and guidelines
Further, wage insurance only offers coverage if the employment moves overseas. It is my opinion that this policy should be primarily for insureds who lose their job due to technology with an option to add overseas coverage by endorsement.
The caveat to overseas coverage should limit payout to (a) where the job moved to and (b) if the insured is married or single. Is the new overseas location English speaking or third world. Is the company offering to take the staff? Will it be easy to acclimate, schools for children, support for families?
My suggestion, 75% payout if the company moved to an English speaking country and offered to move the family, but the insured declined. The 100% would only be for insureds who were not offered to move overseas or the company is moving to a third world country.
As I indicated, the policy should be for those who have their dream job and have maintained themselves as a loyal employee. Therefore, a condition of the policy should be to have maintained their current job for a minimum of eight years. If you think about it, some retirement programs require more to be vested. This type of policy should live by that example.
These are simple suggestions – superficial really. However, in this economic climate this type of policy is truly a necessity and should be an active part of the market. Let’s hope it can be offered more widely.