Introduction
Medical insurance and a package of benefits provided by employers to employees are the main things that candidates may be interested in when applying for a job. This is one of the leading criteria when choosing a workplace and an enterprise. Some companies use insurance to attract valuable employees to work in a particular company as motivation and stimulation of positive labor dynamics (Liu & Sydnor, 2022). Nevertheless, insurance payments are one of the most necessary expenses provided by the company to its employees. So, the issue of insurance costs arose between employees and owners of a grocery supermarket. Although employers needed to keep insurance payments, and it is necessary for them to find solutions on how to do it.
A Grocery Supermarket Employee Insurance
Several solutions might be suggested to grocers to keep insurance for employees but reduce the cost of it. Managers can pay for preventive visits to doctors, which will reduce treatment costs, play the role of preventive medicine, and demonstrate that the company cares about the health of its subordinates. In addition, another solution may be to choose the most advantageous offer among all insurance companies (Liu & Sydnor, 2022). The company’s managers can get price lists of all companies that provide insurance and choose the most favorable offer.
A robust solution may be to divide employees into different groups. These groups can be built based on age, degree, and areas of responsibility or based on the risk that employees bear at work. Another cost-cutting solution is how successful an employee is in the workplace. That is, the amount of insurance will be determined by the results of an employee’s work. Also, it is possible to conclude a contract with a particular medical organization that will provide the company with lower prices for treatment and examination of employees, reducing the insurance threshold.
Some companies resort to dividing employees into two groups, one of which has higher health insurance benefits than the other. This decision sometimes leads to an adverse reaction from a group that does not receive increased benefits. Conflicts may arise between employees, leading to a decrease in productivity and the quality of work of the entire enterprise. The company’s managers need to take specific steps to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between employees, for example, by assigning benefits, bonuses, and gifts to employees with a certain amount for the successful implementation of plans.
From the point of view of employees who have higher insurance benefits, the disadvantages are that they may be deprived of financial incentives from the company. In addition, another disadvantage is the negative attitude of other employees, which can lead to quarrels and conflicts at work, as well as the split of employees into two groups. It is in the interests of managers to resolve the issue regarding employee conflicts since quarrels will reduce the quality of work and may lead to a decrease in the efficiency of the enterprise (Dessler, 2016). On the part of co-workers who receive lower benefits, there are also negative aspects. First, the fact is that one group of employees receives higher insurance than others, and this can offend one of the groups. Undoubtedly, the company will find a solution to equalize payments to all employees, which will not necessarily concern insurance payments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the grocer needs to find solutions that will allow them to reduce insurance costs but will not enable co-workers also to pay more. Nevertheless, some groups of employees may receive a more considerable amount of preferential insurance than another, which may lead to quarrels between employees and a decrease in the company’s success. Management needs to consider how to equalize co-workers in providing benefits to maintain everyone’s efficiency and not incur additional costs.
References
Dessler, G. (2016). Human resource management. Pearson Education.
Liu, C. & Sydnor, J. (2022). Dominated options in health insurance plans. American Economic Journal, 14(1), 277-300. doi 10.3386/w24392