Equal Employment Benefits?

Gatica

Don't know if this is a question for the Legal forum...

Just wondering if a company should by law be giving all its employees the same benefits? e.g. if they cover health insurance for all the family for some, should they do it for all employees?

Same goes for other schemes, such as employee share programs, etc...

tatli_lokma

AFAIK its not illegal - it all depends on the conditions and contract in place when each employee started. As long as an employee is not excluded based upon one of the 9 grounds of discrimination, then outside of this some employees can have different conditions than others. For example, you will find in some companies that longer serving staff are on different pension plans or have access to more favourable loans or allowances. As long as the longer serving staff refuse to sign a new agreement, the company have to continue offering the benefits (or else terminate their contract which might be more trouble than its worth). New staff coming in are often on an entirely different pension plan or allowance scheme.

It's not very fair and not conducive to an equitable working environment, but I don't think its illegal.

Gatica

Thank you. That answers my question. I didn't want to ask why a company was offering me a different scheme that other employee unless I knew for sure they had to. So I guess a new contract is a new/different benefits package.

Mrs OBumble

tatli_lokma wrote: »

It's not very fair and not conducive to an equitable working environment, but I don't think its illegal.

It's not necessarily unfair either - the contribution that the managing director makes should be a lot higher than the guy who cleans the office two nighs a week, and I would expect them to be getting different pay and benefits.

Now it is unfair if it's staff who are contributing the same work. But even then, it's only illegal if it could be said to be discriminating on the baiss of one of The Big Nine. Note that these include family status - eg if people with kids or partners got a higher benefits just because of that, then it could be a breach of the equity lawas.

Gatica

I don't disagree with that. I don't think it's a matter of people with family getting more benefit. It's really whether the benefit is available to everyone. I wouldn't expect family benefit if I don't have a family, but if I had one, then that would be something I'd like to have access to.

Having a new employment contract though means that I'd get a contract that's probably different from someone else who has been there for years. That's fine by me, as long as it's not illegal and I'm not being deprived of something that otherwise I would have a right to expect.

tatli_lokma

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not necessarily unfair either - the contribution that the managing director makes should be a lot higher than the guy who cleans the office two nighs a week, and I would expect them to be getting different pay and benefits.

Now it is unfair if it's staff who are contributing the same work. But even then, it's only illegal if it could be said to be discriminating on the baiss of one of The Big Nine. Note that these include family status - eg if people with kids or partners got a higher benefits just because of that, then it could be a breach of the equity lawas.

I don't disagree with you - I was more referring to like for like employees. So Mary has been there 8 years and is on x pension plan, John starts tomorrow in the same role as Mary and that pension plan is no longer open to new members so he has to join a different one.

The_Conductor

tatli_lokma wrote: »

I don't disagree with you - I was more referring to like for like employees. So Mary has been there 8 years and is on x pension plan, John starts tomorrow in the same role as Mary and that pension plan is no longer open to new members so he has to join a different one.

Its like this everywhere. In the Public sector- there have been 4 major revisions to pension schemes since 2002- so depending on when you joined your entitlements- down to when you retire, depends purely on which scheme terms were in place when you joined- nothing more, nothing less. E.g. someone may be able to retire at 60 on a 7/8ths pension- someone else may not get any pension at all until 68- and then based purely on the 40 40ths principle. Any pre-1995 staff don't have COPC pension deductions- nor do they make PRSI Class specific contributions- but they're on a lower salary scale to reflect that these deductions aren't made......

Two employees- identical in every way but with different join dates- could have completely different terms and conditions of employment- including wholly different salaries (or scales, if there is a scale present).

Just life.

diana123

See by law all of has rights for equal benefit in our job field but in practical that does not always happen but you can challenge your employer in case of private sector but the legal proceeding is very complex and critical.