People are finally starting to realize that benefits are orthogonal to the mission of the company and should be replaced with increased base salaries instead. If the company spends $X on processing your $Y benefit for a year, your salary would increase by $X + $Y, and you would just (optionally) sign up into whatever programs are available to you, without much of a UX change.
I'm no expert, but I have a hard time believing the economics are this simple.
Take health insurance: I'd imagine employers are buying plans offering per-employee costs lower than if each employee were paying for their own insurance. Economies of scale, bargaining power (at least when it comes to larger firms), etc.
Perhaps at some firms the processing costs really do outweigh the savings, but I would expect this to be the exception rather than the rule.
I could be wrong -- maybe someone with experience could shed some light here.
None of the companies I've worked for offered a decent insurance plan. One had it, but it was more for the other 300 minimum wage workers and practically covered nothing other than car accidents.
There were companies that offered full, proper health insurance, but I had my own so the value was close to nil, and the salaries were 25% lower than the smaller companies offered.
Benefits tend to be mostly flat across employees to make use of economics of scale. I'd love something like a company car, and would happily take a salary cut because they're liabilities and it's a win-win where taxes are involved. But if a company won't offer a car to everyone, it's not going to happen. I got free parking as a benefit once but only used it a quarter of the month because it was cheaper to Uber to work. I know they were paying for the parking every month and I'd rather take the cash, but I wouldn't turn down an extra $30 of savings even though it cost them about $100.
This is another great point. When the employer controls benefits, they choose an average/bulk/bundled solution which may not cater to the needs of all employees. It is improbable to be completely inclusive. Better to give every employee a static dollar amount and let them choose exactly what works for them from a competitive marketplace.
In my opinion, we should do whatever maximizes product-market fit.
I'm not sure if the option is worth the increased cost either, but at a glance it seems convoluted. Why is the employer even involved? Is there a reason private companies could not utilize the economy of scale and provide solutions? Why did this become a threesome? Insurance should be between me and my insurer.
Not saying you're wrong but the costs to maintain health insurance for employees are significant. You at least need to have a person on staff who understands health insurance in order to negotiate with carriers. The subject is about as complex as a C compiler.
