This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff.
Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu.


                        Emerging Benefit Areas

Broad Philosophical and Policy Trends

As we scanned the horizon for likely areas of change in the work and
family benefit arena, several discrete (and sometimes apparently
contradictory) lines of approach became apparent. For example, according
to one panel of work and family experts who were interviewed for a
special report on "The Future of Work & Family," it is unlikely that
"... any radically new work and family programs will be developed in the
21st century." Rather, in their view, "... changes will come in the way
programs are packaged to meet the needs of specific groups of workers."
One panelist was quoted as saying, "The need isn't for new programs, but
for more employers to adopt them." -84

Others have seen whole new areas where benefit programs could (and
perhaps should) expand:

     Although companies across the country are beginning to respond
     to the needs of working parents with new policies on child
     care, flexible scheduling and parental leave, other
     issues--sometimes called culture issues--are rarely addressed
     in labor negotiations or included in benefit packages. Thorny
     questions such as whether employees should, in a crunch, be
     able to take their children with them to work challenge the
     way Americans structure their work environment and family
     life. And they demonstrate the difficulty of reconciling the
     demands of the business world with the responsibilities of
     parenthood. -85

From our perspective, there appears to be no doubt that competition
between work and family life is a reality for many Federal employees.
However, given its mission, role in society, and managerial culture, to
say nothing of fiscal constraints, there are both philosophical and
practical limits on what the Government can do to ameliorate these
employee concerns.

One area where these limits become most noticeable concerns the question
of consistency and uniformity in treatment of employees. According to
merit system principle number 2 (5 U.S.C. 2301 (b)(2)), "All employees
and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable
treatment in all aspects of personnel management..."

Traditionally, Federal managers have translated this injunction into
policies which attempt to ensure that all employees are treated equally;
that is, treated the same. As pointed out in an article in the Harvard
Business Review, this approach may no longer be most appropriate:

     Perhaps the thorniest issue facing businesses and managers is
     that of equity. Most managers have been trained to treat
     employees identically and not to adjudicate the comparative
     merits of different requests for flexibility. But what equity
     often means in practice is treating everyone as though they
     had wives at home. On the other hand, it is difficult to set
     up guidelines for personalized responses, since equity is a
     touchstone of labor relations and human resource management.
     Judging requests individually, on the basis of business and
     personal need, is not likely to lead to identical outcomes. -
     86

As the range of work and family benefit programs expands, this dilemma
for Federal managers is likely to expand as well, since there are no
work and family programs which individually fit all employee needs. On
the other hand, if the Government were to adopt a cafeteria benefits
plan, it would certainly help this problem. Moreover, other changes that
are already occurring could also have a positive effect on this
question--locality pay, for example, sets an important precedent
demonstrating that "fair and equitable" doesn't have to mean
"identical."

Benefits for Dual-Income Couples

Among the work and family problems which the Government is having to
face more frequently, those involving dual-income couples can be some of
the more vexing ones. Consider what happens, for example, when a
dual-income family faces a geographic relocation because of a job change
for one of the couple members (who is a Federal employee).

Under existing civil service laws, there are nepotism restrictions on
the employment of relatives which must be considered in job placements
where both spouses are Federal employees. More generally, merit hiring
barriers prevent the Government from offering any preferential treatment
in hiring the employee's nonfederally employed trailing spouse. Thus,
the Government is generally at a disadvantage compared with other
employers when it wishes to have one person of a dual-income couple
move, since it is limited in what it can offer to help the other
employed spouse.

An interesting remedy for at least part of this problem has recently
been introduced at the Department of Defense:

     Military spouses who are currently employed as civilians by
     the Department of Defense are entitled to a special "spouse
     preference" if they have to move to a different base. A new
     provision in the Department of Defense Authorization Act
     entitles them to preference on vacancies recruited through
     open competition at grades GS-2 through GS- or GM-15 or
     equivalent wage system position. Military spouses are entitled
     to fill a vacancy at their new duty stations at an equivalent
     grade to their old position, if they are as highly qualified
     as the lowest rated ranking referred candidate. -87

Another emerging issue concerning dual-income couples concerns the
definition of what is a "couple." According to one research report:

     ...on average, 25 percent of companies' transferees are
     single. With the rising incidence of couples living together
     prior to getting married, more companies are encountering
     requests from transferees to provide these partners with the
     relocation assistance typically given to a spouse--temporary
     living, inclusion in house-hunting, travel to the new
     location, etc...A [further] problem in this area is the
     definition of a partner. How significant does the other have
     to be to be considered a partner? Is the length of time the
     relationship has existed a factor in defining partners? -88

Given the sensitivity of such issues, it is unlikely that any employer's
response would be universally accepted. For the Government, the task is
all the more difficult. Thus, even under the best of circumstances, the
Government can expect to have its assumptions and flexibility put to the
test as new benefit programs arise and societal values continue to
evolve.

Other Emerging Benefits

While it would be impossible to catalogue all the latest trends and
variations in work and family benefits (and it would instantly be out of
date), we have attempted to list at least some of the more interesting
ones below (some limited aspects of a few of these benefits have been
mentioned earlier):

     * Night care for children of parents with evening or shift work;

     * Help in securing new jobs for spouses of relocating employees;

     * Long-term care insurance for disabled or elderly people, covering
     custodial care in nursing homes and similar needs;

     * Adoption assistance, including paid time-off and reimbursement of
     adoption expenses;

     * Extra leave for employees to be able to attend activities
     relating to a child's schooling; and

     * Health and wellness programs.

One of these programs (health and wellness) is already operational, to
at least some degree, in all Federal agencies. Another (paid sick leave
for adoption-related business) is temporarily permitted under a
legislatively-directed mandate. Others, however, are unlikely to make it
on the Government benefits roster any time soon (e.g., night care). On
the other hand, at least three of the above concepts (reimbursement of
adoption expenses, paid time-off to attend school activities, and
long-term care insurance) have been the subject of recent bills
introduced into Congress. -89 Whether any of these bills will make it
into law, of course, remains to be seen.

As may be evident from the above, the "bottom line" as regards work and
family programs is that change is inevitable. New benefits emerge, while
others evolve. Some make it into law (or regulation), while others may
never make it past the proposal stage.

For Federal managers, personnel officials, and policymakers, the
challenge remains the same: monitor emerging trends; identify those
appropriate for Government settings; assess their cost-benefit and
operational aspects; evaluate the impact of responding to or ignoring
the idea, including the desirability of being a leader or follower in
relation to the private sector; where appropriate, initiate legislation,
regulation, or whatever is necessary to implement; evaluate the results
on an ongoing basis; and begin the process all over again!

In the absence of such a process, the Government could become
uncompetitive in recruiting, retaining, and motivating its most valuable
resource-- the Federal employee--and thus handicapped in carrying out
its mission.