Why you should look again at your flexible benefits
The aim in the US was to move the burden of constant increases in benefit cost to the employee. Here it could be used to look at how we could reduce costs and gain some National insurance or tax advantages for employer and employee. A return on investment could be achieved.
The question was how to take it to market. It’s worth stating that flexible and cafeteria benefits existed in the UK before this point but no one had looked to do it online or in the way we proposed. In our view to be successful in creating a market for this, HR needed to get it, FDs needed to buy into it and employees had to be engaged.
The flexible pitch
The pitch therefore began to HR as a way to differentiate their company from competitors, in order to attract and retain employees. Although we talked about it, the reduction in absenteeism and increase in productivity were not provable until flexible benefits were more established. The pitch to an FD was around the Return on Investment and achieving at least a cost neutral basis.
The way we talked about engaging employees was around meeting the needs of each demographic and communicating in the correct tone and language dependent on the group. The use of multi and engaging media was to be used.
In summary flexible benefits (‘Flex’ as it became known) was about creating a unique, engaging and innovative package that met the needs of the employees at little or no cost to the employer.
How do you compare?
What’s my point I hear you say? Ok, my point is, if you consider your own benefits strategy what answer to each of the following questions would you give?
- Am I differentiating my company from others?
- Does it meet the needs of all of the employees?
- Is it cost neutral or better?
- Am I being innovative?
Answering no to any of these means it may be time to reconsider whether you are reaping the full benefit of the flex revolution.
This article was written by Tony Nevin, director of employee benefits at Mazars.
