Comments on: Should benefits packages be tailored to different generations?

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:59:02 +0000

I agree with KO – when you designate benefits per class or group, you can definitely open yourself up to discrimiation claims – AKA, disparate impact. Also, when you have a health plan that ends up being just for one generation, you will run into HUGE differences in premiums as well. For example, insurance companies consider older participants to be more likely to be or get ill. So, if the employer made a plan “suited” for the Baby Boomer generation, it is likely that mostly Baby Boomers will make up that subgroup for that particular plan. Premiums will skyrocket in anticipation of risk/usage for that plan. So, because of the demographic of the Baby Boomer group, they are going to see an enormous jump in premiums, that were otherwise balanced in a larger group – made up of the entire population of the employe’s eligible employees.

In short, THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA!

By: KO

KO — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:26:15 +0000

It seems to me that focusing on generational differences and trying to tailor benefits to each generation is just opening up a company to a discrimination claim. It’s better to just offer the best plans the company can afford and allow the employess to choose those that suit their needs.

By: Patti

Patti — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:02:04 +0000

We don’t either. In fact I think it would be incredibly time comsuming to even try to. Most HR departments are shorthanded, adding more plans and items for each age group would just make more of a work load.

By: R. B.

R. B. — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:54:15 +0000

We don’t. We just try to offer the best benefits we can over a broad spectrum, hoping people can pick those that most meet their needs. We do supply company-paid life insurance and long and short term disability insurance for all employees at no cost to them, but the other benefits are optional, even if the company contributes toward the premium if they opt in.