I was looking this morning at the booklet that came about the new Worker's Comp stuff we'll have at work (I was supposed to go to the meeting last night but didn't...yea well). I ran across this in there, and felt it was worth noting.
"No benefits will be payable under the plan if: ...the Injury arose out of an act of God, unless your employment exposes you to a greater risk of injury from an act of God than ordinarily applies to the general public..."
Now, aside from the fact that I find this outright humorous, I also feel there are some deeper ironies. First, I find it interesting that we are very hesitant these days to speak of God in general, yet in these legal type documents any natural disaster type stuff is often called an 'act of God'. That in itself bothers me a bit, because it then seems to imply that God often and maybe only acts in ways that injure and destroy, which I would quite disagree with. Second, it does not, at least not here, define an 'act of God', so I would say then that they most certainly will not cover you if you happen to incur God's wrath and receive a lightning strike. Although, I wonder if one could argue higher risk for injury from an act of God by working customer service and being more likely to incur the wrath of a customer who has the power to call down an act of God... Clearly appealing for compensation under the premise of being cursed won't work either.
I really just find it rather ridiculous that this terminology is used at all. It was obviously not written by anyone with half a theological inclination, because that would leave all sorts of openings for dispute. I could argue that my employment exposes me to greater risk of injury from an act of God because this is not where God would have me and I am not compliant with God's will. Basically, the whole things just makes me laugh and shake my head and wonder a little.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment