3 ms·

All I want is the ability to get compensated for benefits I decline, particularly the company health plan. I've never been able to negotiate this successfully.

dudul 8y ago
Considering how benefits are usually financed by employers I doubt that you will ever be able to get this. It's not as simple as "oh we won't need to pay $10k for your BCBS? Well, sure, let's give it to you". Employers usually pay insurance ("stop loss") instead of health plans.
sokoloff 8y ago
Do you really care if you get paid $190K + $10K because you didn't take the medical plan vs just getting paid $200K whether or not you take the plan?
- zbentley 8y ago
  That's a false dichotomy; outlays per employee depend on the benefits each employee draws. That said, dudul's comment on this thread indicate why this often is not (financially speaking) an option.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    All the more reason to negotiate for the thing that you care about (that my W-2 box 5 says $200K at the end of a full year) and not whether you'd get more because you skip a given benefit or less because we notice that you really hit those Friday donuts pretty hard. IMO, it's more productive to negotiate for what than for why.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Often times $10k is the difference between me accepting job A vs job B. So it would be better for the potential employer to offer that flexibility. I also have an "icky" moral feeling about being tied to my employer via something like healthcare. So all other things being equal I would choose the company that offers this option over one that doesn't.
the_bear 8y ago
I believe that this is not possible in America. I'm a founder and we just started offering health benefits earlier this year. I tried really hard to figure out a way to let employees effectively pay 100% of their premium (either by paying them more if they opt out or just having the company share be 0%). I talked to a number of people, looked into different types of plans (HRAs, etc) and at the end of the day, I couldn't figure out legal way to do what you're suggesting. I think the closest possible thing to this is for the company to offer to pay 50% of the cheapest plan possible and then let employees opt-in to better plans, add dependents, etc. at their own expense. That way the majority of the expense is "optional" to the employee, but whatever the company pays still isn't. Note: this only applies to health benefits. We do compensate employees who decline other benefits e.g. a parking pass
- dcosson 8y ago
  Why did you want to not pay for health insurance? Even if you had found a legal loophole to do this, just about everybody is going to want health insurance and I’m pretty sure if the company pays then it’s not taxed, plus you can get better rates that way as you get bigger. So it’s more expensive overall for the same plans if you make employees pay.
  - the_bear 8y ago
    The tax benefits and better rates (which I think is a myth btw, but it shouldn't effect the argument either way) would be there regardless of who pays. It's still a group plan, the question is just about who is paying for it. So given that, the difference between "we offer free health insurance" and "we pay you extra and let you opt in to health insurance" is purely academic for someone who wants to be on the group plan. Both the company and the employee end up with the same amount of money in the end, and the insurance is the same. The reason I'd prefer letting people opt in is because it gives employees more choice. Maybe they want to use a different carrier. Or they get free insurance through their spouse's work. Or they're on Medicare. At the end of the day, it seems really paternalistic for a company to say to its employees "here are the things we want you to have, and instead of letting you choose, we're just going to buy it for you." All else being equal, I prefer a world where employees get money and spend it how they want. Having said that, since there's no way to do that while also getting the convenience and tax benefits of a group plan, we decided to compromise and go with the employer-subsidized group plan rather than giving employees total freedom.
icelancer 8y ago
I was not able to negotiate cash for this, but I was able to negotiate more PTO in lieu of health benefits. Maybe try softer comp methods.

dudul 8y ago

Considering how benefits are usually financed by employers I doubt that you will ever be able to get this. It's not as simple as "oh we won't need to pay $10k for your BCBS? Well, sure, let's give it to you". Employers usually pay insurance ("stop loss") instead of health plans.

sokoloff 8y ago

Do you really care if you get paid $190K + $10K because you didn't take the medical plan vs just getting paid $200K whether or not you take the plan?

zbentley 8y ago
That's a false dichotomy; outlays per employee depend on the benefits each employee draws. That said, dudul's comment on this thread indicate why this often is not (financially speaking) an option.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  All the more reason to negotiate for the thing that you care about (that my W-2 box 5 says $200K at the end of a full year) and not whether you'd get more because you skip a given benefit or less because we notice that you really hit those Friday donuts pretty hard. IMO, it's more productive to negotiate for what than for why.
Consultant32452 8y ago
Often times $10k is the difference between me accepting job A vs job B. So it would be better for the potential employer to offer that flexibility. I also have an "icky" moral feeling about being tied to my employer via something like healthcare. So all other things being equal I would choose the company that offers this option over one that doesn't.

the_bear 8y ago

I believe that this is not possible in America. I'm a founder and we just started offering health benefits earlier this year. I tried really hard to figure out a way to let employees effectively pay 100% of their premium (either by paying them more if they opt out or just having the company share be 0%). I talked to a number of people, looked into different types of plans (HRAs, etc) and at the end of the day, I couldn't figure out legal way to do what you're suggesting. I think the closest possible thing to this is for the company to offer to pay 50% of the cheapest plan possible and then let employees opt-in to better plans, add dependents, etc. at their own expense. That way the majority of the expense is "optional" to the employee, but whatever the company pays still isn't. Note: this only applies to health benefits. We do compensate employees who decline other benefits e.g. a parking pass

dcosson 8y ago
Why did you want to not pay for health insurance? Even if you had found a legal loophole to do this, just about everybody is going to want health insurance and I’m pretty sure if the company pays then it’s not taxed, plus you can get better rates that way as you get bigger. So it’s more expensive overall for the same plans if you make employees pay.
- the_bear 8y ago
  The tax benefits and better rates (which I think is a myth btw, but it shouldn't effect the argument either way) would be there regardless of who pays. It's still a group plan, the question is just about who is paying for it. So given that, the difference between "we offer free health insurance" and "we pay you extra and let you opt in to health insurance" is purely academic for someone who wants to be on the group plan. Both the company and the employee end up with the same amount of money in the end, and the insurance is the same. The reason I'd prefer letting people opt in is because it gives employees more choice. Maybe they want to use a different carrier. Or they get free insurance through their spouse's work. Or they're on Medicare. At the end of the day, it seems really paternalistic for a company to say to its employees "here are the things we want you to have, and instead of letting you choose, we're just going to buy it for you." All else being equal, I prefer a world where employees get money and spend it how they want. Having said that, since there's no way to do that while also getting the convenience and tax benefits of a group plan, we decided to compromise and go with the employer-subsidized group plan rather than giving employees total freedom.

icelancer 8y ago

I was not able to negotiate cash for this, but I was able to negotiate more PTO in lieu of health benefits. Maybe try softer comp methods.