OT - Employer benefits for families vs. Child-free employees

[rigs32]

Here's another way to look at the math. Let's say that all employees in job X earn $35k. You then need to compare the value of the benefits.

Let's say health insurance for the employee has a premium of $100/mo and family coverage is $250/mo. The employee with a family pays more, but the amount covered by the company is likely much more - let's say the company pays $150/mo for the single employee and $200/mo for the employee using family coverage. So, with that benefit alone, the person with a spouse/kids "makes" $50 more per month.

If a company offers subsidized day care, childfree folks can't benefit. I worked someplace where there was a tuition benefit for employees and their "dependants", but only kids could use it, not spouses. I went round and round with the union rep about how that's technically not a dependant benefit then. So, my DH couldn't use it, but someone with kids could.

I think the best way for companies to handle this situation is to use a menu approach. The place my mom works has that. Each employee gets the same dollar amount and they each choose which benefits they want. So, my mom got some extra life insurance rather than a child care spending account. Each person gets the same total compensation in that scenario.

 

[DawnM]

My teaching job in CA paid for ALL benefits of as many family members as you had included for NO additional charge.

Here in NC we can get covered for ourselves on a low budget plan or we can pay extra for a better plan and about $600/mo ($7,200/year) to add my family.

Dawn

 

[esk]

I've never worked outside the military, so I'm not really familiar with most of the benefits available, but here are some snippetts that Uncle Sam does for soldiers -- and in the military, everyone gets paid the same, based on time in the service:

-- people with spouses get more housing money than people who are single....and it doesn't matter if your wife is a model pulling down $200K a year, you still get more money

-- Every child gets the exact same government-subsidized day care, but people who make more money (higher in the ranks) pay twice that for the same care. So the low-ranking single soldier pays about $250 a month for 50 hours and the colonel pays over $550 a month, and their babies or children are in the same day care room

-- people who are married get extra money when deployed but single people don't (family separation pay)

-- new soldiers with a spouse can get a 2 bedroom house on the post, free, but if you are not married you have to live in the barracks. Still free, but one room with the shower down the hall as opposed to a 2 bedroom home.

I'm career military, with kids, and while there is some grumbling every now and then, most of the military folks sort of feel like that is the way it is. Nobody feels like if these beneifts were not there, that their paychecks would go up; they realize probably more tanks or planes or whatever would be bought instead. And I am one of the ones "subsidizing" the low ranking soldiers at the day care center but I'm still so happy with the care (and with the government paying into it too...full time care, with all food/formula, for $500 a month!) that I don't complain.

Because I try to imagine what it would cost for life insurance or health care or housing or day care if I didn't have an employer that was paying into it too....and if Uncle Sam gives the guy with 5 kids a bigger house than me, that's OK. He still gave me a house to live in. Not meant to be preachy, just saying I don't really get people being upset by this. It is like saying it isn't fair because movie stars get millions of dollars for a few weeks of work and doctors/policemen get paid very little for what they do. Oh boy. Now I'm on a whole other thread....

 

[jodifla]

Here's another way to look at the math. Let's say that all employees in job X earn $35k. You then need to compare the value of the benefits.

If a company offers subsidized day care, childfree folks can't benefit. I worked someplace where there was a tuition benefit for employees and their "dependants", but only kids could use it, not spouses. I went round and round with the union rep about how that's technically not a dependant benefit then. So, my DH couldn't use it, but someone with kids could.

I think the best way for companies to handle this situation is to use a menu approach. The place my mom works has that. Each employee gets the same dollar amount and they each choose which benefits they want. So, my mom got some extra life insurance rather than a child care spending account. Each person gets the same total compensation in that scenario.

Childless people DO get the benefit of an onsite daycare, however. Because those parents don't have to worry about sitters, they can show up at work more easily, and all their co-workers don't have to pick up their slack.

I was childless for 17 of the 20 years I worked at my company. I didn't begrudge any of the benefits those with kids got. It's short-sighted in my view. For even those who didn't have kids tended to have PARENTS, and they need help in their older years.

We gave the same consideration to all our workers for their unique needs: Whether it was leaving to pick up a sick kid, or rushing to the hospital to take care of a sick parent, or leaving early once a week to work on a graduated degree.

 

[Aristomommy]

I was thinking about the health care issue in this thread. The amount that employers pay for health insurance depends on how much their employees use the policy. Workers with children are not necessarily the ones spending the most dollars. Think about a worker with a chronic illness or one that goes through an open heart surgery, burn care, joint replacement or cancer treatments. Statistically, this person is likely to be older and will not have children on the policy. A family of 4 without chronic illnesses may only have their well visits and a few additional visits for minor illnesses during the year. Now which one raises the cost of insurance?

I also feel that supporting children's education will only benefit the community at large. Even the person who no longer has children in school or does not have children will benefit from the well educated children in their community. I would rather have a doctor who got a great start in public school than the ones who barely squeaked by in med school because of a poor foundation. Poorly funded schools have higher drop out rates which leads to many problems for the entire community. We should think outside ourselves and see the big picture on how education can make a difference in a child's life.

 

[LisaZoe]

I think complaining that you shouldn't pay for schools since you have no children in school is ridiculous. Everyone benefits from the education of these children - and if you don't think so, ask yourself if your doctor went to elementary school. But insurance and other benefits are different, and I can see why childless and childfree employees get annoyed when they feel like they're paying for someone else's lifestyle choice. But the bottom line is, it's a business decision. Good benefits attract good employees.

This is what I was thinking - equating taxes to fund schools to benefits an employer provided doesn't work. Schools benefit the society as a whole while employer offered benefits are for the individuals getting them. I definitely understand why people without children may complain that they are getting shorted on benefits. At my previous job, once people reached a certain level with the company, the company paid all insurance for the employee and his/her dependants. Since benefits are considered as part of the employee's compensation, basically people who were married and/or had kids were getting more compensation than those who had no dependants. The inequity of it definitely bothered me both before and after I adopted my DD.

At one point I became aware that there was also a more hidden disparity. Those with the authority to make decisions about pay and raises would sometimes make comments like X was getting well paid for a single guy while Y had a family so could use the extra money. Although I can understand and empathize with that kind of thinking, it galled me to think it might actually be a factor in deciding who got a raise and who didn't when their work should have been the only deciding factor. Eventually the decision about raises became more professionally handled but it didn't balance out the disparities that occured before then.

I'm all for offering daycare and such to employees because it definitely can benefit the company. However, there are ways to balance things so employees are not being compensated at different rates if their jobs don't warrant the difference. One previous post mentioned the menu plan which is a perfect way to go. An employee is given X dollars for benefits and then decides how those dollars are used. Some may want to get the daycare while others may want additional life/accident insurance, etc.

 

[DawnM]

The bad weather I understand because if the schools are closing, your child has nowhere to go until you pick them up (although sick time or personal leave could be used in this case or they could make up the time), but leave early on Fridays???? I have never heard of such a thing!

Fortunately, I work for the same school district that my kids are in, so we will have the same bad weather if it comes up and if their school gets out early, so will mine and I can go and get them.

Dawn

I do have kids but I can see how it could cause tension. This is one of the reasons Florida school system is detorating, because the large number of senior citizens don't want to fund education.

Expense is not a good reason to expect benefits, bottom line- you did make the choice to incur those expenses.
A few years ago my job would allow all those people who had kids to go home early on Friday and bad weather days. After a while it did get on my nerves.
Why just because some one had kids did they get to start their weekend before me? Wasn't it just as dangerous for me to drive in snow as a mother or was my life expendable because I didn't have offspring (could I count my dog hobbes). Unfortunately most people don't go around thinking about the world looks like in 40 years (or global warming wouldn't be a problem).