With over a third of NZ'er living pay check to pay check I wonder how much employee wellbeing would be improve by just giving them the $500 extra to spend on unexpected costs or just the day-to-day expenses they face rather than dictating how they should spend their money.If you have $500 to spend on employees I'd recommend subsidizing health insurance. — Andrew
Has the possibility for some employees to be "missing out" on using their benefit because they can't afford to bridge the gap between the purchase and when they are reimbursed been considered?Employee claims the benefit via an expense claim (so they make the purchase, keep receipt and claim the expense back). — Ange White
...ask people what it is about their work that leaves them feeling unwell (physically or mentally) and then work with them to experiment on making changes to work to address their concerns? — Peter Bateman
I would have to assume they have asked for what they expected they could get, rather than what they really want/need to improve their wellbeing. $400 a year (which most workers likely won't actually take up due to the effort and hoops to jump through to get it) is minuscule when compare to the surplus value of their labour that is shared around to those whose only effective contribution is "having an excess of money" rather than those workers actually adding value to the company. However I would also assume that no self-preserving board / C-suite would support an initiative that would be really detrimental to the shareholders, and so the token gesture of wellbeing allowances will continue.Our people asked for the allowance, which our leadership team support. — Stuart Oakey
This could lead to some unintended consequences - while most workplaces could probably do with additional workers to improve safety (less stress, less fatigue, etc.), a good number of workers I talked to rely on the overtime pay just to get by (or at least live a little bit more comfortably). Take that overtime away and I would expect those in this situation's overall stress to actually go up and well-being to go down. Essentially we have a large amount of our workforce that basically have to run themselves into the ground just to (ironically) survive.It might mean hiring more people to spread the workload, for example. — Peter Bateman
Companies choice what package options are included — Jaylene Barwick
They can spend on things that improve their wellbeing e.g. gym memberships, sportswear/equipment, medical/health expenses etc. — Ange White
Are these examples of what Andrew was referring to asWellness extends to house insulation, sportswear, chiropractors etc. Equipment for hunting allows clothing and hiking/camping equipment but not firearms. — Alex
an employer moving into an employees private life. — Andrew
I was referring to this older 2020 article in Stuff referencing a survey done by Finder (first somewhat recent source that came up). A more recent Newshub article this year refers to a survey that found 39% of NZ'ers could not cover a $5000 unexpected cost within a week without going into debt, and of the 1/4 of NZ'ers that do not current save any of their income nearly half is because the are living paycheck to paycheck.Id be somewhat cautious about where you are getting your data from. — Andrew
Not every worker with kids, it is means tested. And what was the point of even bringing this up?And lets not forget the unseen Working For Families which tops up every workers pay if they have kids. — Andrew
Have you asked why so many are taking leave without pay? When I see stats like that I am curious as to why, instead of chalking it up to employees who just don't want to turn up for work.You may be surprised with just how much Leave without Pay our people take. — Andrew
Yes those employees got the benefit of the health insurance being in place, but would it be fair to say the main benefit of that insurance cover is to minimise the risk to the company of employees taking extended leave due to injuries/medical issues covered by the policy (i.e. save on costs of overtime/temp cover, retraining for other roles, recruitment costs, etc.).But we fully subsidize the insurance and there are quite a number of employees who get significant benefit form it. — Andrew
It is good to hear that you have had good uptake on the allowance, and that barriers to participating seem to be low. Have you had / ask for feedback from those that have not decided to participate? (just out of interest in why they wouldn't).Our staff asked for an allowance, several figures were mentioned, and after some research we agreed on $400. The uptake has been good, no red tape or hoops to jump through. — Stuart Oakey
It's hard to argue the point because there is an element of truth that "well at the bare minimum they are better of with this allowance in place than without it", however it goes back to the question - who has the right to dictate what an individual spend their money on? Unless you are more genuine with the reasoning behind it, as you said your company gets the benefit of healthier workers (e.g. more productive / less "waste" / etc.) - again not denying that the workers also get benefit, but that's not really the sole purpose if we really get down into it.agree but we already give discretionary leave, flexible working conditions where roles allow, wellness days and the organization is moving towards the living wage. Staff get lots of benefits and giving them tokens to contribute towards their health means they actually spend that money on their health which has benefits for them and us. It might be this week they can spend that money they would have spent on a GP visit to pay for extra living costs. — Jaylene Barwick
If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.