photo credit: Trypode
This question is framed in terms of employer sponsored health care benefits, but it really applies to any employer/employee interaction. Are you working with your employer, or are you competing with your employer? To put it another way, is your employer working with you, or simply working you?
I ask this because in the health care debate there are two groups of people who have opposing views on this. One group argues that employer sponsored health care as the dominant source of health insurance coverage is destructive because it distorts the health insurance market by locking people into few if any options for insurance and locks them out of the economic decisions about what plans they want. They also argue that everything your employer spends sponsoring health care coverage is money out of the employees paycheck. The other group argues that employer sponsored health care is a good thing because that is the only way most people can afford coverage and if the employer were to drop coverage the money they save would not go back into paychecks, but would simply pad their bottom line.
The second group obviously views the employer and employee as competitors. These are the people who favor unions because the employee’s need to band together in order to stand up to their employers. This adversarial relationship dampens production and hampers progress. Before anyone gets too upset with this analysis let me just say that there have been situations where unions were necessary but they are no panacea.
Let me explain why I think the first perspective is more accurate based on my own experience.
I have worked for a number of employers ranging from large (tens of thousands of employees) to small (three employees). In almost every situation I have had the opportunity to know and work with whoever was making decisions regarding employee benefits (benefit administrators in large companies, owners of the small companies). Without exception, those making the decisions about pay and benefits have desired to pay as much as they could afford without risking the financial well-being of the business and to offer the best benefits they could afford as well.
In the worst case they desire this simply because they have to compete with other companies to hire and retain the best workforce they can get. (Obviously in a down economy the less altruistic employers can skimp on pay and/or benefits.) More importantly however, every employer I have worked with has had a desire to treat their employees well in pay and benefits simply because they are decent people and they value their employees. (This desire is unhampered in down economies even if the ability to make good on it is.)
Despite the beliefs of those who view employment as an adversarial relationship, a free market has natural impediments to real employee abuse so long as there is no illegal or unethical behavior on the part of employers generally. If you want to see an example of how the two relationships differ watch or read Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South and pay attention to the interaction between John Thornton and Nicholas Higgins.
There are employers who think they are at odds with employees just as there are employees who think they are at odds with employers. The truth is that most employers want to provide a good work situation.
Leave a Reply