There has been a lot of discussion lately about employee compensation and benefits in the U.S. Candidates running for President are spending a lot of time (in debates, interviews and during campaign stops) discussing topics such as income inequality, paid family leave and other bread-and-butter issues that are part and parcel of the business world. To a small extent, these issues are regulated by legislation, such as federal and state minimum wage laws which dictate the least an employee can be paid hourly. However, the vast majority of these HR issues are really under the purview of business leaders and owners. For the most part, individual companies the U.S. decide how they want to compensate their employees. Because of that, the usual array of wage and benefit packages – albeit a fairly wide range – has developed for employees at every level, from entry level to C-Suite positions.
However, from time to time, some companies step outside the usual selection of employee pay and perks. Those outlier companies dare to go beyond the typical assortment of compensation items to offer employees something that is unique or bold. For a time, the audacious actions of those companies capture the attention of the media and lawmakers. They garner a lot of attention and usually generate a lot of applause (and scrutiny). But are those actions altruistic? And do such creative perks have any impact on what the majority of companies pay and offer in the way of employee benefits? Do those high-profile HR initiatives move the needle of employee benefits nationwide?
Continue reading
