 | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • UnitedHealth Group Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:UnitedHealth Group |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2015. The result of the discussion was merge into UnitedHealth Group. |
The only reason the article was created, I suspect, was because of the firm's connection to failed presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. Had he gotten somewhere, it would be of broader interest. The only argument I can see for retention is the possibility that he might be a Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008. -- Orange Mike 13:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, LHI is a fast-growing corporation that will be more relevant in the future, not less, regardless of who is its president. Thompson is simply the highest-profile face in the company. I created the article before Thompson was even eyeing the race, and have never even liked Thompson as a candidate, let alone worked for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdrochester ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asserting, then, that the company meets the requirements for notability of a corporation? -- Orange Mike 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
LHI will soon employ over 1000 people in La Crosse, WI; its soon-to-be twin corporate HQs will be two of the most visible elements of the city's skyline; further, the corporation not only provides healthcare services to entities for which many tens of thousands of people work, but it is an advocate for the arts, helping to finance a new community theater within its new office complex, as well as bringing new life to the 'arts' district of downtown La Crosse. In other words, YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.100.172 ( talk) 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
LHI has yet to have 1000 employees and is embroiled in a controversy over La Crosse paying approving a 3rd tax-payer subsidized building. It should also be known that LHI does not own the two building previously indicated. The building are owned by a second company that LHI owner, Don Weber, also owns and then leases back to his other business, LHI. The controversy surrounds questionable business practices related to the 1st and 2nd tax-payer subsidized buildings; primarilly related to questionable changes to building plans hidden from the local building authority, failure to produce timely employment reports mandated under the development deal, discrepancies in development agreements that new positions be paid at 110% of the living wage for the area, and promises of 500 new LHI jobs if the 2nd building was approved. In reality, the second building was filled with employees from other area businesses by moving those businesses from various locations to the 2nd building. This has become the primary reason the city of La Crosse has more the 1 million square feet of empty commercial space available. LHI has grown, to be sure, from about 200 employees in 2005 to a projected 650 as of the end of the 2nd quarter for 2009.
LHI also has not brought significant 'new life to the arts district' of downtown La Crosse. Though, Don Weber has made various donations to charitable organizations around La Crosse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.26.18 ( talk) 07:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have you got citations for any of that? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Image:New LHI logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The only thing truly notable about the company is the continued practice of using temporary contract employees for a large portion of their workforce, instead of actually hiring them. The typical practice is to get a new crop of temps in on a rotating 6 or 9 month basis with the promise they have the opportunity for full-time employment. Then, the temps work for their 6-9 month stint, go back to their temp agency and get a new temp assignment with the company for another 6-9 months.
Even with the temp workers, the company has no where close to 1,000 employees. If you include tenants for the shell corporation established to lease publicly funded office space, then (and only then) do they reach the 1,000 employee mark.
Numerous ethics complaints have been filed against this company, including serious concerns over how they managed to land federal contracts, even though they were nearly $1 Million over the low bidder and several other bids existed that were also lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.129.121 ( talk) 12:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have you got citations for any of that? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
|
| This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • UnitedHealth Group Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:UnitedHealth Group |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2015. The result of the discussion was merge into UnitedHealth Group. |
The only reason the article was created, I suspect, was because of the firm's connection to failed presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. Had he gotten somewhere, it would be of broader interest. The only argument I can see for retention is the possibility that he might be a Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008. -- Orange Mike 13:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, LHI is a fast-growing corporation that will be more relevant in the future, not less, regardless of who is its president. Thompson is simply the highest-profile face in the company. I created the article before Thompson was even eyeing the race, and have never even liked Thompson as a candidate, let alone worked for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdrochester ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asserting, then, that the company meets the requirements for notability of a corporation? -- Orange Mike 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
LHI will soon employ over 1000 people in La Crosse, WI; its soon-to-be twin corporate HQs will be two of the most visible elements of the city's skyline; further, the corporation not only provides healthcare services to entities for which many tens of thousands of people work, but it is an advocate for the arts, helping to finance a new community theater within its new office complex, as well as bringing new life to the 'arts' district of downtown La Crosse. In other words, YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.100.172 ( talk) 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
LHI has yet to have 1000 employees and is embroiled in a controversy over La Crosse paying approving a 3rd tax-payer subsidized building. It should also be known that LHI does not own the two building previously indicated. The building are owned by a second company that LHI owner, Don Weber, also owns and then leases back to his other business, LHI. The controversy surrounds questionable business practices related to the 1st and 2nd tax-payer subsidized buildings; primarilly related to questionable changes to building plans hidden from the local building authority, failure to produce timely employment reports mandated under the development deal, discrepancies in development agreements that new positions be paid at 110% of the living wage for the area, and promises of 500 new LHI jobs if the 2nd building was approved. In reality, the second building was filled with employees from other area businesses by moving those businesses from various locations to the 2nd building. This has become the primary reason the city of La Crosse has more the 1 million square feet of empty commercial space available. LHI has grown, to be sure, from about 200 employees in 2005 to a projected 650 as of the end of the 2nd quarter for 2009.
LHI also has not brought significant 'new life to the arts district' of downtown La Crosse. Though, Don Weber has made various donations to charitable organizations around La Crosse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.26.18 ( talk) 07:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have you got citations for any of that? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Image:New LHI logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The only thing truly notable about the company is the continued practice of using temporary contract employees for a large portion of their workforce, instead of actually hiring them. The typical practice is to get a new crop of temps in on a rotating 6 or 9 month basis with the promise they have the opportunity for full-time employment. Then, the temps work for their 6-9 month stint, go back to their temp agency and get a new temp assignment with the company for another 6-9 months.
Even with the temp workers, the company has no where close to 1,000 employees. If you include tenants for the shell corporation established to lease publicly funded office space, then (and only then) do they reach the 1,000 employee mark.
Numerous ethics complaints have been filed against this company, including serious concerns over how they managed to land federal contracts, even though they were nearly $1 Million over the low bidder and several other bids existed that were also lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.129.121 ( talk) 12:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have you got citations for any of that? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)