What Perks Do You Offer?
I stumbled upon this intriguing piece on NY Times' Dealbook blogs today, entirely by accident (it is a little over 10 days old). Apparently, Goldman Sachs has added sex-change surgery to its list of employee perks. Yes, you read that right. Sex-change surgery. I know I will probably be offending someone out there when I say this (for which I apologize), but aren't there other more important things Goldman could be doing for its employees? Things that apply to a wider portion of its employee base? Seriously?
Even slightly more bizarre is the fact that I found the link to this under the NY Times' Business section. Talk about serious business news.
(For the cited Fortune article, click here.)
5 comments:
Have read both articles. It's the first time I've ever seen the phrase "diagnosed with transsexualism" and I wonder if it really is considered a diagnosable condition or if the phrase was created by the journalist who wrote the piece.
Anyway, it is a pretty narrowly targeted employee benefit. I wonder how common transsexualism is? Maybe there have been specific instances in these companies when a well liked/well performing employee was transsexual.
The cynic in me thinks that the condition is sufficiently rare that companies can show off how progressive they are without having to actually extend the benefit very often. Or maybe the added coverage just doesn't really cost very much?
If that's the case, I don't see much of a problem with this since it may help someone out. I have no idea what how much a transsexual suffers in life. Relieving suffering is good.
Still, as you've said, is there a sense of proportion in extending this benefit relative to the needs of the larger, non-transsexual population? I guess one needs to see the details involved in the decision making to know.
Interesting.
sonyphone
Yes, the "diagnosed with transsexualism" in the Fortune article also piqued my interest. How would you go about doing that? I guess I don't know enough to be 100% sure but wouldn't that be like saying you can diagnose someone's sexuality? And isn't that considered wrong?
Supposedly, according to the article, adding sex-change surgery to the company's negotiated health plan doesn't cost the employer as much as one would assume. However, I think that the company bears that cost on an ongoing basis (once the benefit is added to the plan) not on a singular (case-by-case) basis. That is, regardless of how many employees actually end up taking advantage of the option, the company bears the same cost. But that may not be the case. Would be interesting to find out. And if it were, and the cost were quite high, I would think there might be something else they could be putting that large amount of money towards.
In thinking about perks that could actually be appreciated by everyone, I was thinking of more extensive dental plans, for example, i.e. beyond those that only include two annual check-ups and cleanings. Now that would be quite revolutionary in the U.S., it seems to me.
"that be like saying you can diagnose someone's sexuality?"
Can of worms there, yes? Remind me not to seek a diagnosis of my sexuality next time I see my doctor, even out of curiosity :) And what if there ever is discovered a genetic predisposition to transsexualism! Oh, my, the possibilities for fun and anxiety.
I am confident you are correct that the cost would be an ongoing part of the insurance premium.
It's been ages since I've had health insurance (was an independent contract engineer for a long time before hanging it up) but I don't remember what the dental coverage was like. If it's as meager as you seem to think it is, then yes, I have to agree that would be a good alternative to funding transsexual medicine. Especially if better dental coverage extended to employees children.
sonyphone
Well, I knew about this... but was surprised that it is referred to as a "perk". To me, a perk is something like having access to a gym or nursery, and not a list of illnesses that are covered in my health insurance. After all, I may use the gym/nursery at some point but chances are I won't be needing the prostate cancer treatment any time soon :))
Good point. Guess it's all about marketing and promotion. Calling people's attention to it as a "perk" is definitely likely to attract more people than when it's simply obscured somewhere in the list of what your health plan covers. Guess it's all about sounding like you are ahead of the curve.
Post a Comment