Benefits means more than insurance, etc. Vacation is a benefit. Flex time is a benefit. A subsidized subway pass is a benefit. But whether something is or is not a benefit has nothing whatsoever to do with how it is applied. You can call it a benefit; you can call it a toaster; you can call it Gary. What matters is not what it is called, but whether or not there are any legal ramifications to its application. There are legal ramifications to the application of health insurance (most but not all of the time). There are no legal ramifications to the applications of vacation, flex time, or tuition reimbursement.
NO benefit has to be offered strictly across the board. Even health insurance can be offered differently to differing classes of employees. And even health insurance can be discontinued with whatever notice your state or a legally binding contract may require. There is NOTHING in the law that says that if a benefit is offered to one it must be offered to all, and NOTHING in the law that says if a benefit is offered at any time it must continue to be offered in perpetuity.
An employer MAY - repeat, MAY - change their benefits at any time they may find it necessary. Handbooks are not contracts. Right from the beginning you were told this and right from the beginning you jumped up and down on the responders because you didn't like the response. But you were offended if anyone replied in kind. I guess only you are entitled to be offended, is that it?
Thank you for that answer, it was very nice. I had some misunderstanding before this started and I have learned a lot. I have learned that in someplaces the handbook is legally binding to the employee, some place to both, and some places to none. I did not jump up and down on responders because I was unhappy with the fact that my assumptions were wrong. I was unhappy because I would ask questions about responses and responders would jump all over me for doubting them. It was not like I was not looking into the issue myself. I was and I was finding conflicting information between what I was finding no the internet and what was being told in here. Some of the responders were able to reconcile those conflicts and some the them simply were asses. I only returned what I received in kind. When did I have get offended? I did not take any of this personally so, how could I get offended? As I have said time and again, I did not understand the complexities of it, so I asked questions to clarify. Some people cannot stand to be questioned and that is just something that both parties have to deal with.
In the end was the first post the right answer. Sure. I cannot deny that. However, and this is the important part, answer with out and explanation is worthless. I only once said to someone during this "you are wrong", because I was in no place to say that. I simply wanted to understand how that answer I received contradicted with the other information I was gathering. It that has been explained now and I do appreciate that.
Am I to blame for how this discussion spiraled out of control, partly, but so are most of the people that responded. I can accept responsibility, and I apologize to anybody that I have offended, I should not have sunk to that level. I was simply trying to understand an issue that I was having and, I cannot stand an answer with no explanation. I will not apologize for asking follow up questions and I never will. If someone is offended by follow up questions that is something they will have to deal with.
In the end, thank you all for your help. It has been a blast, sorry it had to end. Maybe we can do this again sometime but I doubt you would want that to happen.
Good luck to all of you and enjoy the freedom of speech, and all the problems that it can bring.
Thank you,
Noname101