Employee benefits include several types of non-wage compensation provided to workers on top of their regular salaries or wages. In cases where a worker transfers wages for some of another form of benefit is referred to as salary packaging or salary exchange arrangement (Shariatmadari, 2012). In most countries, most classes of employee benefits are taxable for at least some degree. Examples of such benefit comprise of housing (employer-paid or employer-provided), group insurance (health and dental, life), disability income assurance, daycare, tuition reimbursement, retirement benefits sick leave, vacation, social security, funding of education, profit sharing, and other specific benefits (Armstrong, 2007). The idea behind employee benefits is to raise the economic security of the staff, and by doing so, increase worker holding across the organization. As such, it is one part of reward management.
The discussion that people receiving benefits are ones that probably shouldn't and people that need them are having a hard time getting them is a dispute as old as the welfare state itself. Some people claim that benefits should be universal. Others claim that wealthy people shouldn't receive the same entitlements as an impoverished one. There's an influential feeling on parts of the governmental spectrum that these permits perform an important task, making everybody feel that they gain something from the state they contribute to. It is a social glue that helps bind us all into the same system.
However, people who receive the benefits, in fact, are not entitled to and the fact about the matter is that people who need to get the benefits have a very hard time to secure the benefits. Not everyone requires the same employee benefits (Armstrong, 2007). At varying times of life, and in different family situations, different things are important. When creating or reviewing a benefits package, employers must consider the demographic of their workforce. Employees also need to think about whether the benefits they have are the best ones for them.
The benefits may be received by the wrong people due to various reasons. In any organization, some leaders may choose to give the some motivational benefits to individuals who have not worked for them. These people are not liable to receive any benefit. These benefits are diverted from the right people who have worked for them (Armstrong, 2007). The leaders are tribal in this case or may show favor to some individuals who do not benefit from them. These benefits are introduced to encourage the employees work harder in the organizations. In this case, the employees who have worked less are the ones receiving these benefits. This means that the best people are not awarded for their hard work. `
The first benefits individuals are likely to get a pension. This is a channel for setting aside some of an employee's income for retirement. The cost of the pension when the employee retires depends on what they've put in (Shariatmadari, 2012). When they retire, the employee then has a pot of cash that they can use to obtain themselves an annual income (like an annuity). The main purpose for getting a pension for employment is that the business or company will usually contribute to. Not everybody may need to get a pension. Some people may have enough money to support themselves after they retire. This money should be used otherwise to support the country in handling its other economic functions such as feeding the poor or improving welfare for the unfortunate in the community.
Additionally, the process of benefit allocation may be flawed by tribalism and racism. Employers may choose to give these benefits to the employers of the tribe or race. At the same time, there might be needy employees who deserve to receive the benefits and as a result, he/ she ends up losing the opportunity (Rosenbloom, 2001). On the same note, benefits may be allocated depending upon inappropriate favors and personal interests of the people giving the benefits. This may have spearheaded by corruption or personal contact between employees and employers for instance.
Not everyone needs the same employee benefits. At distinctive times of one's life, and in different family situations, different things are important. When creating or reviewing a benefits package, employers should acknowledge the demographic of their workforce and employees need to reason whether the benefits they have are the best ones for them (Rosenbloom, 2001).
A great solution to handle this is to provide universal benefits. Universal benefits are a social glue, that is why we have them & abolishing them would just make our society even more divided. Universal benefits have two very good benefits; they are easy for the government to administer, which has the extra bonus that associated costs of administration are also usually low and, they are straight forward for ordinary people to understand and claim, with little or no stigma attached, which is thought by sensible people to be a good thing (Bonner, 2010). Universal benefits have two very good advantages over other ways of providing social security; they are easy for the government to administer, which has the extra bonus that associated costs of administration are also usually low and, they are straight forward for ordinary people to understand and claim, with little or no stigma attached, which is thought to be a good thing among sensible people (Rosenbloom, 2001).
Taking away universal benefits then the middle classes and 'above' have no reason to support the social security system. One opens the doors to full privatization and for basic benefit levels to drop yet further and as you say our society would just become more divided. Which of course would suit the Tories down to the ground. Divide and rule, as ever.
However, benefits ought to not just be restricted to a need basing capability just, and then the value of these benefits will be reduced, as in the business with pension people will wonder why they have to contribute to the benefits system which will never support them even after they retire.
There is an equally positively held argument that, in intense times, state money ought to be targeted at the most impoverished. Benefits should not be provided to those who don't need it. The government should come up with good strategies to identify groups that need the benefits (Bonner, 2010). At the same moment, employers should device strategies to allocate benefits effectively based on the fact of who or which party deserves the benefit.
Armstrong, M. (2007). A handbook of employee reward management and practice. Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Bonner, P. A. (2010). Benefits and compensation glossary. Brookfield, WI: International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans.
Rosenbloom, J. S. (2001). The handbook of employee benefits. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Shariatmadari, D. (2012). Should the wealthy get benefits? Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/should-wealthy-get-benefits