A Good Benefit?

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item A Good Benefit?

  • In the UK we tend to get 22 days + public holidays.  I get 25 days and can buy or sell up to 5.  If I don't use my allowance then it can roll forward into next year but I have to use it in the 1st 2 months.
    I work flexible hours with the core hours being 10:00 to 16:00 though realistically I tend to work 08:00 to 17:00 most days and sometimes longer.
    I also have the option to work from home which is useful for medical appointments, the wretched car etc.
    Each employee is given a £300 pot of money to spend on some form of item to help your mental well being.  It doesn't have to be work related though in my case I bought a subscription to Pluralsight, a decent set of headphones (to listen to Pluralsight in the office) and Dr Catherine O'Keefe's book on data ethics.

    Free breakfast and lunch is provided and the food is (too) good.
    As long as I keep delivering no-one watchest the clock or micromanages.

    I know which side of my bread is buttered.

  • Under current UK rules I wonder what proportion would end up simply subsidising the student loan company (that is never paying off the loan anyway and still having it written off, just having paid more)

  • This is a neat idea. I like the idea of it being flexible, though, as I am in the camp of plenty of PTO but no student debt.

  • I think that Unum's idea is a great idea. It would benefit those who need it.

    Rod

  • Flexibility is good, and it would help. But, for the most folks, especially in the 20-something recent graduate age range, the cash value for one work week would hardly make a dent in their student loan debt. We're talking about something less than $1000. It would help a lot more, if the university offered to match it, and also if the principal payment amount were tax deductible. Without matching and tax deductions, the student would be better off using the $1000 to pay down credit cards.

    "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

  • The idea is a good one, but I agree that it falls short in offering a specific benefit to a specific - and limited - class of individuals. This could (I hope it does not) backfire on them as other employees may feel like they are missing out on something. I agree with the idea of offering the buy-back option instead.

    I appreciate companies that look for ways to incent their employees. I also work for an excellent organization that takes care of its people. I have great incentive to stay when I look at the intangibles I may have to give up by going somewhere else - there is a decided focus on work-life balance here which is my personal top priority. Our CEO recently released a book on this very subject ("Take Care of Your People", Paul Sarvadi - CEO, Insperity). I haven't yet finished it, but I can say he 'practices what he preaches'.

    As for Unum, it sounds like a clever hiring move. This may be the deciding factor to attract fresh, new talent to their organization over another, and would be particularly appealing to recent graduates.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:08 PM

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item A Good Benefit?

    Where I work, an exempt employee starts earning 28 days per year. However, this includes holidays, sick time and vacation, so essentially not that different that a lot of companies.  Significantly less than government employees by the way!  So while 28 sounds like a lot, it really isn't if they do it the same way. If they get holidays, sick time, and 28 vacation days - well that would be pretty good.

    Trade? No way. To me that is stupid, because you essentially are just  having the employer pay the bill. Why not just pay the bill yourself?  Why not maintain control over your own money?

    Our retirement savings are charged a fee each month, our Health Spending Account is charged a fee, I am pretty sure that the company will charge a fee for this "service", now or in the future. Another example is a consulting company I worked at that offered dry cleaning, hair cuts and other services due to how many hours we had to work. First they did not pay overtime, second they offered a "service" to make you think you were getting something, but then they charged you considerably more than you paying for it on your own.

    Milton Friedman said there is no such thing as a free lunch. It sounds to me like they are trying to sell this as a benefit you get for free when you really are paying for it.

    Dave

  • malcolm.gray - Friday, February 22, 2019 2:31 AM

    Under current UK rules I wonder what proportion would end up simply subsidising the student loan company (that is never paying off the loan anyway and still having it written off, just having paid more)

    In the US, each $1.00 added to federal funding results in colleges increasing costs by $0.67 - so yes, what you suggest might happen.

    Bernie is back to his socialist BS again, wanting free college, health care, and a bunch of other things, all for the low, low cost of more than $33 TRILLION over 10 years.  That doubles our spending,  and would require us to double taxes, all for nothing because it will just drive costs up faster.

    Dave

  • Sounds like a nice idea for some.  For me I don't have any trouble using all of my PTO, OK I carried over a day this year.  I've stated this before but for me I would rather have more PTO.  I'm at at point in life where I don't have a lot of debt.  So I would much rather trade a portion of a raise to get more PTO.  I guess I've worked for good companies/managers where it was never an issue to get time off.

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    we travel not to escape life but for life not to escape us
    Don't fear failure, fear regret.

  • Where I work, we're allowed to sell back vacation (we get separate vacation and sick leave) at the end of the year as long as we still have 40 hours still in our vacation bank going into the next year--the latter part wasn't enforced until a few years ago because we now have a horrid HR person who does everything she can to randomly find stupid rules, misinterpret policies, etc.  I sold vacation back 2 years in a row before the horrid HR person took over because we had so many blackout dates that I couldn't take vacation.  Now I'm saving it all up because I have to get both knees replaced and I don't want to deplete my bank of sick leave so I plan on using vacation leave while I'm out for the surgeries (we can carry sick leave for years without losing it--the same isn't true for vacation leave).

    I do think that if companies are going to allow such a thing--like selling back vacation, they should allow all employees to do it without restrictions as to how they use the money.  There's a fine balance between treating all employees equally and fairly and a company can go too far in that in not factoring in differences in roles, etc.  That is an issue at my company and again, the horrid HR person who wants to treat IT exempt employees like call center non-exempt employees--ignoring the fact that we're on call 24/7, often get called when we're on vacation and/or out sick, often work longer hours or after hours to get projects deployed without interrupting other staff, etc.  It should be no surprise that company morale is the lowest it's been during my 12+ year tenure.

    If you ever find out that the HR person at a company is a former marketing person--run away.

  • djackson 22568 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:01 AM

    malcolm.gray - Friday, February 22, 2019 2:31 AM

    Under current UK rules I wonder what proportion would end up simply subsidising the student loan company (that is never paying off the loan anyway and still having it written off, just having paid more)

    In the US, each $1.00 added to federal funding results in colleges increasing costs by $0.67 - so yes, what you suggest might happen.

    Bernie is back to his socialist BS again, wanting free college, health care, and a bunch of other things, all for the low, low cost of more than $33 TRILLION over 10 years.  That doubles our spending,  and would require us to double taxes, all for nothing because it will just drive costs up faster.

    Does this mean political discussion in this thread is now open?

  • patrickmcginnis59 10839 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:33 AM

    djackson 22568 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:01 AM

    malcolm.gray - Friday, February 22, 2019 2:31 AM

    Under current UK rules I wonder what proportion would end up simply subsidising the student loan company (that is never paying off the loan anyway and still having it written off, just having paid more)

    In the US, each $1.00 added to federal funding results in colleges increasing costs by $0.67 - so yes, what you suggest might happen.

    Bernie is back to his socialist BS again, wanting free college, health care, and a bunch of other things, all for the low, low cost of more than $33 TRILLION over 10 years.  That doubles our spending,  and would require us to double taxes, all for nothing because it will just drive costs up faster.

    Does this mean political discussion in this thread is now open?

    The subject is about student loans, guaranteed by the government. When someone pointed out that this concept just results in subsidizing the student loan company, which is controlled by the government, that is simply a fact and important to the question of whether we support this concept. Passive aggressive responses don't make politics go away, it is embedded in everything we do, paying taxes, subsidizing people who don't work, paying bonuses to executives at Wells Fargo... My pointing out that it is getting worse is just one more fact, which points to why we should consider not enabling it getting even more horrific.

    Dave

  • djackson 22568 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:44 AM

    patrickmcginnis59 10839 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:33 AM

    djackson 22568 - Friday, February 22, 2019 8:01 AM

    malcolm.gray - Friday, February 22, 2019 2:31 AM

    Under current UK rules I wonder what proportion would end up simply subsidising the student loan company (that is never paying off the loan anyway and still having it written off, just having paid more)

    In the US, each $1.00 added to federal funding results in colleges increasing costs by $0.67 - so yes, what you suggest might happen.

    Bernie is back to his socialist BS again, wanting free college, health care, and a bunch of other things, all for the low, low cost of more than $33 TRILLION over 10 years.  That doubles our spending,  and would require us to double taxes, all for nothing because it will just drive costs up faster.

    Does this mean political discussion in this thread is now open?

    The subject is about student loans, guaranteed by the government. When someone pointed out that this concept just results in subsidizing the student loan company, which is controlled by the government, that is simply a fact and important to the question of whether we support this concept. Passive aggressive responses don't make politics go away, it is embedded in everything we do, paying taxes, subsidizing people who don't work, paying bonuses to executives at Wells Fargo... My pointing out that it is getting worse is just one more fact, which points to why we should consider not enabling it getting even more horrific.

    I like discussing politics, but typically it isn't appreciated here, that's why I asked. I certainly don't think I PERSONALLY posted any passive aggressive responses.

  • 29 days here and 3 days buy or sellable - not for loans, just money to use at will. It's decent even in the UK. That certainly doesn't include sick days (we can take up to 6 months if needed at full pay, though I've rarely had more than 2 days in any year), and I would never consider not taking any portion thereof. I don't get that at all I have to say.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply