Not for weak of heart.........

Down_the_Middle

Anybody have any experience with this kind of twist to your retention programs?? I know of a couple of large employers who currently do not offer a certain type of coverage via their health insurance plans.....e.g. gastric stapling, transplants, etc... The employer plans to begin offering the coverage for "employee-only" with the caveat that if the employee uses that particular health service, they would agree to continued employment with the employer for a pre-dertermined period of time...3, 4, or 5 yrs.....

My list of "risks" is longer than my list of "advantages", but wondering if anyone is seeing, or has seen this in place????

Gillian

Thank goodness, no. It wouldn't pass muster in California.

Whatever

Never heard of it. Just thinking of it, is giving me heartburn. What if the employee cannot return to work. What if the employee returns to work ands goofs off because their job is guaranteed. What if the employer wants to have a RIF. What if the employer moves. Who pays for the increased premium. What if..What if... etc. Other than good will, I am having a very hard time seeing any benefit for the employer.

Down_the_Middle

The benefit, I'm told, is the retention issue that is expected following the surgical procedure. Rather than the employee terminate after incurring an expensive procedure, the employer believes the work agreement will be a quid pro quo for offering the "benefit" and hoping to get a return-on-the-investment. The concept is creative, but the devil's in the details......

jimlegal

After reading your post, my antenna when up!!! Sounds like you are about to enter a "contract" which may provide more for the employee than is obvious and which the employer may not want to be a part of. For what its worth I believe the "risks" far out weigh any advantage. Do your self a favor, don't act hastily. You may wish to consult your attorney about the unseen advantages for the employee.

System

Sounds like an old employment contract from one of the old movie studios in the thirties or forties. Unless you're in the entertainment industry I don't know why you'd want to incur the expense.

MS HR

If you are in an "at will" state, you will be violating the provisions of an employee being able to leave employment "at will".