Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like what I mentioned about cars above, when WFH first came out, that's how our management was about it. Not only did they want to control your internet, they were even pushing for safety inspections of the home before they would approve WFH. Basically, making the process so onerous and so costly to the employee, that no one would ask for it. All those management reasons it couldn't be done went "poof" when COVID came along.
When covid happened millions of companies were suddenly thrust into WFH, most of who had not studied or prepared or researched for it. It's inevitable that different companies were going to be trying different things. Over time, more and more will coalesce into best practices that are proven to be most effective.
And btw, employers do pay for vacation and sick time for their employees. It's called PTO, where they literally pay for their employees not to be at work so they can recharge or get healthy.
And yes, some companies even do pay for snacks and subsidize meals for their employees.
I can't imagine what closed off world someone has to live in to not have heard of any of this.
Next you're going to tell us how ludicrous it would be if employers subsidized employee health costs, which they do...through health insurance plans. In fact, on average, they are paying 70-80% of insurance premiums while the employee foots 20-30% of the premium bill. Some employers even pay 100%.
Not a closed off world. You know I wasn't talking about PTO but actually covering the airfare, hotel, and attractions for vacation. And I wasn't talking about snacks and coffee in the break room but covering the grocery bill. What is absurd here is you're either blatantly distorting what I was talking about or being so obtuse to not know what I was talking about.
And the employee doesn't care enough about themself to keep healthy without a reimbursement? Maybe that's not an ideal employee in the first place. If we're going to use indirect benefits then where does it end? Maybe the company should pay for the employee's vacation since a refreshed and happy employee is more productive?. Maybe the company should pay the employee's grocery bills since an employee has to eat to stay alive and a live employee performs better than a dead one.
These benefits are for several reasons:
1) A healthy employee has their butt in the seat working and isn't calling out sick.
2) A healthy employee isn't sending in health insurance claims costing the firm money.
3) These sorts of subsidies are a way to lure in employees, the more perks you offer, the easier it is to hire and retain good employees.
There are other perks but these are just a few off the top of my head as to why companies offer such benefits.
When I was still working, when traveling we had our choice of turning in our receipts for expenses or taking a specific amount per diem of between $40-80. The amount depended on the city we were in. High COL cities we got paid more per diem. I always took the per diem, because the hotels usually give free breakfast, and the conference folks would serve a nice free lunch, and I usually had just appetizers and drinks for dinner. So my actual expenses were around $20, but the rest of the per diem went in my pocket. Saving receipts and filling out expense reports was just annoying.
1) A healthy employee has their butt in the seat working and isn't calling out sick.
2) A healthy employee isn't sending in health insurance claims costing the firm money.
3) These sorts of subsidies are a way to lure in employees, the more perks you offer, the easier it is to hire and retain good employees.
There are other perks but these are just a few off the top of my head as to why companies offer such benefits.
I agree with #3 but doubt that #2 or #3 pay off versus the cost. I just can't imagine a person choosing to be healthier because there is a reimbursement, that a person decides they will get healthy because there is a perk but accepts being unhealthy because there isn't. I think the person that is interested in their health is going to take care of the health, benefit or no benefit. And the person that neglects their health is going to neglect it, benefit or no benefit.
I agree with #3 but doubt that #2 or #3 pay off versus the cost. I just can't imagine a person choosing to be healthier because there is a reimbursement, that a person decides they will get healthy because there is a perk but accepts being unhealthy because there isn't. I think the person that is interested in their health is going to take care of the health, benefit or no benefit. And the person that neglects their health is going to neglect it, benefit or no benefit.
My (former) school system had a Get Healthy initiative for a couple years. There was no money or reimbursements involved for participants. All it was was another plaque a Principal would get for 100% staff participation, which they could then brag about at Principal meetings.
And yes, going along with the "Giving money for stuff" thread, there were enforcers who would go around to check your name off as participating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
