Introduction
The reparation management of benefit policies might incorporate innumerable components. In fact, the compensation management schemes range from the insurance of health statues to the redeemable accounts of retirement. A good rapport between the company and the employees augment from such plans.
The employees feel a sense of belonging since the compensation policies positively entice and encourage the personnel to leave or stay at a specific organization. However, the compensation benefits plans may be either traditional or flexible.
The flexible subsidy policies are believed to lay spell on the customary benefit strategies. Interestingly, the flexible benefit plans may not be as moral as they sound. In essence, flexible policies may be referred to as the plans of smorgasbord, superstore, or restaurant.
Despite the fact that flexible benefit procedures emanate from different scopes and characters, the customary subsidy plans convey exclusive benefits and characteristics.
However, not all business dealers or dealings are entitled to these benefit schemes. The traditionally distinct benefit plans suit business proprietors yearning to donate approximately fifty one to fifty six thousand dollars.
Similarly, organizations having appropriate and reliable revenue patterns and subsidized compensation to the employees at any rate not less than five percent (5%) are liable (Martocchio, 2011). The associates who are eager to escalate delays of tax and have more than 40 years of age are entitled to the traditionally defined benefit plans.
On the contrary, flexible benefits policy originates where an employee is capable of developing his/her overall benefits and wages (compensation mix) within the company.
Nevertheless, both the flexible and traditional benefits plans possess a number of pros and corns under commerce. This paper thus highlights the pros and corns of the comprehensive traditional benefits and the flexible benefits plans.
The pros and cons of traditional benefits and flexible benefit plans
In any organization, a significant contributing factor to the employee satisfaction is reimbursement. Unluckily, the contemporary benefits policies when compared to the customary plans prove to be adverse with respect to worker’s sovereignty. As an alternative, concern has been put to the employees’ uniqueness in regard to their compensation.
A number of guidelines are also instituted to guarantee the effectiveness and efficiency in managing payroll (Galinsky, Bond & Friedman, 1993). Certainly, the assemblage of payrolls requires homogeneous methods under the traditional compensation techniques.
In the present day, programmed schemes are used to compile payrolls in nearly all corporations. Therefore, traditional compensations plans have stiff limitations and are dysfunctional to a certain extent as compared to the flexible compensation plans (Meisenheimer & Wiatrowski, 1999).
The traditional benefit plans of compensation might prove dysfunctional when compared to the flexible plans owing to the fact that they render indirect, direct, or inefficient benefits to the firm. However, the dysfunctional characteristic does not apply when compiling payrolls in the minor financial prudence.
The reserves arising from the traditional compensation management are comparatively inconsequential. Conversely, the systems in a flexible compensation plan bid a feasible substitute to the inadequacies of the traditional benefits plans.
Besides, a flexible plan authorizes employees to effectively regulate a comparative combination of their outlying remuneration and benefits bundle. In this regard, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) requires the company to lay boundary for the employee’s preference.
While reducing shortages in the current systems of compensation, the company ought to moderate the upsurge in compensation suppleness (Martocchio, 2011). Thus, the organization can properly uphold a better control of the outlying advantageous overheads than in the traditional management
The advantages of traditional benefits plan
The characteristics depicted in the traditional reimbursement techniques stipulate that there are benefits of escalation in regard to the outlying remunerations. Unlike in flexible benefit plans, the traditional benefits plan allows for a greater extent of generating various contributions from the deductible levy.
Besides, the traditional benefit plan entitles the targeted workforce to fast-tracked compensation savings. In the main, the design plan in the traditional compensation strategy favors both the personnel and the company. These benefits plans bound the sum of wage earners that are covered for compensation.
Actually, the plan covers not less than forty percent of workers provided they can contract an expressive compensation. The partaker under the traditional compensation scheme is not likely to stand any peril of investment as in the case of the flexible plan.
Therefore, in order to evade the shred of Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an archetype plan manuscript could be employed in setting up the traditional plan (Martocchio, 2013).
Disadvantages of the traditional benefits plan
In spite of all the advantages coming with the traditional benefits plan, it has a number of shortcomings. Comparatively, the expenses of administering the traditional compensation plans might be greater than the costs incurred in the flexible contribution policies.
In this context, the least possible yearly contributions are obligatory. Indeed, under this scheme the company is likely to stand the jeopardy associated with the investment. With the aid of actuarial organization as well as funding the courses of action, the traditional benefits plan obligates the company to coordinate the doctrine of investment.
Similarly, the expenses on yearly funding are built on the progressing and composite guidelines of funding (Galinsky, Bond & Friedman, 1993). However, different from the flexible benefits plan, these costs must be determined and certified by the registered Actuary under traditional schemes.
Advantages of flexible benefits plan
The flexible benefits plan has beneficial propositions just like the traditional plans. The employers’ brag of a number of benefits associated with the flexible compensation plan. Initially, many corporations enjoy cost saving in flexible schemes than in the traditional benefits plan.
Nevertheless, such companies source for fresh consumers and revenues to cater for the costs of primed management in the flexible system and work plan. The flexible compensation plans are advertised aggressively by the employers through indemnity companies, stockbroking, and conference.
In addition, the employees usually get consent from the idea of flexible compensation. This is palpable since the proprietors vend such supple strategies for a chance to let the workers select the remunerations that gratify their personal desires (Martocchio, 2013).
Finally, the plan is advantageous as the company may aspire to divide and get better organizational relationship from the employees. As a result, modular benefits plan enables the above through direct promotion of flexible plans to the employee factions as opposed to the traditional method.
Disadvantages of flexible benefits plans
Like any other business compensation plan, the flexible benefits plan has its disadvantages. One of the cons touching the flexible compensation plan is that it lacks proof that it saves any cash. As compared to the traditional plan, flexible benefits plan is difficult to administer.
The workforces’ investments in terms of dollars are disputed yet the company seeks to cut the expenses by endorsing flexible benefits. Thus, it is costly as much technology and time are needed in order to administer several employee plans (Meisenheimer & Wiatrowski, 1999).
Equally, the cover costs are amplified by the flexible plans due to limited workers who raise the outlays of their optional plans unlike in the traditional benefits plan.
The plan similarly generates the responsibility of determining personal benefit to the employees. Thus, the changing conditions require cover re-examination and render employees lives complicated and busy (Diaz, French & Rios, 2011).
Conversely, there is unleveled protection in the flexible benefits plan. The plan pressurizes workers to select a solitary insurance cover and does not share any peril that amounts to any personnel like in the traditional benefits plan.
Moreover, flexible plans inspire inequity and do not defend equity enquirers, the incapacitated and ladies like in the traditional benefits plan. The flexible plan is opposed to the traditional benefits plan as it attempts to save money at the expense of the employees.
The involuntary conveyance of the increased expenditures to the distinct member of staffs is another disadvantage of the flexible plan. Through little insurance coverage and advanced premiums, employee are forced to cater for the annual increases in the company expenses.
Different from the traditional plan, the flexible plan cannot allow for the intervention of the full sum of dollars in the flexible credits by the unions (Diaz, French & Rios, 2011). The plan otherwise snips the upturns covering for a certain percentage in the yearly insurance of the employees.
Conclusion
The traditional benefits plan makes the management of compensation advantageous and avails workforce economies in an organizational context. However, both the flexible and traditional compensation plans have comparable pros and cons that would provide good preference for the choice.
The relationship and understanding between the company and its employees’ increases from such plans. It is however important to clarify the willpower on the application of a positive receipt of flexible benefits plan. In fact, the applicability of an elastic reimbursement plan is dependent.
After the evaluation of the comparative disadvantages and advantages of both benefits plans, an organization must deduce that the costs incurred are of special importance. The traditional and flexible benefits plans are thus symbiotic but not jointly limited based on the accruing advantages and disadvantages.
References
Diaz, C., French, M., & Rios, E. (2011). Flexible benefits: Can you afford not to introduce them? Mercer Global Employee Choice Survey, 4(2), 1-46.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. & Friedman, D. (1993). The changing workforce: Highlights of the national study. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing.
Martocchio, J. (2011). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Martocchio, J. (2013). Employee benefits: A primer for human resource professionals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meisenheimer, J. & Wiatrowski, W. (1999). Flexible benefits plans: Employees who have a choice. Monthly Labour Review, 2(3), 17-22.