If the law says something unreasonable about what you should have to be provided as an employee, not providing it may be illegal, and may be impractical or difficult, but it wouldn't be treating you shabbily. Something doesn't become wrong just because it illegal.
I think that "we're not going to pay for contraception but we want to make sure you're not being shortchanged on total compensation so here's an extra to spend as you please" would be just fine.
At best its a purely optics thing, the organizations aren't going to pay over the market rate for the long hall, if they give this, it will (at least eventually and on the average) be in exchange for less before the "extra". If they don't (again at least in the long run and overall), and the employees see the benefit as valuable, then the employers will be paying extra to make up the value even if its not explicit.
Still pure optics can be beneficial, but I don't really think they get you far here. The opposition won't accept it, and those in the middle will likely not notice it, while those on your side will at best see it as neutral.
One reason the opposition wouldn't go for it - Actually providing the coverage subsidizes the employees who would use it at the expense of others who don't need or want it. Providing a cash bonus for it doesn't.
In the short run, before things sort themselves out in the market for these employees, it would cost extra beyond what providing the coverage would cost (since your providing the same amount as a subsidy to all employees, not only paying for coverage that effectively only goes to those who use it). In the long run, your not giving the people who want the subsidy a subsidy, but instead paying them more with the "here's an extra to spend", while paying them less before the extra. (In a perfect, immediately adjusting, no friction, perfect information market, this would happen immediately. In real world markets it would take time, and not apply evenly, but the basic idea would still hold.)
To the extent the opposition understand the economics of this, they would realize they are not getting anything. To the extent they don't any benefit would be very small at best.
But the biggest problem is that the idea isn't even on the table. If the requirement goes away, I think the need for such optics games (of minimal benefit even as optics) goes away. If it doesn't then the optics game isn't even an option. |
