The short answer is the union balks at eliminating the incentive. The company responds they will have to lay off a dozen workers. The union caves because unions are first and foremost about jobs.
A flex plan is really the way to go. Particularly for salaried employees vacation doesn't technically cost the company anything, in most cases (an example of an exception being a line supervisor where you have to cover the vacation with OT). She purchases a week of vacation that doesn't really cost the company anything, they save on the medical and she's happy.
An alternate way to think of this is companies decide benefits mainly on market comp, for starters. The benefit plan they choose also takes into account an expected number of opt outs. People who don't opt out ultimatley only succeed in forcing the company to offer a less lucrative health plan for its workers and/or lay additional people off. That's why flex plans help to ensure the fairest comp levels at the cheapest rate for the company, but then administration of those costs more and may not be practical for smaller companies.
And as benefits go, your wife should count herself lucky to only lose something most companies don't offer in the first place. People at other companies have seen salaries and benefits cut and 401k matches were among the first to be cut or eliminated all together.
gut
Senior Member
G
15,058
posts
G
gut
Senior Member
15,058
posts
Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:13 AM
Dec 8, 2010 3:13 AM
Dec 8, 2010 3:13am