RE: "atmospheric" benefits

Subject: RE: "atmospheric" benefits
From: Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:31:06 -0500

The same argument can be made against extending benefits to family members.

I don't use the gym here; I could argue against the upcoming expenditure for
the new sound system for the room. Non-drinkers could complain about the
beer fridge in our lunchroom. And so on.

I think the trick is to have enough benefits to be able to say, "Okay, you
don't use daycare, but you do use the company car and the single-mom
secretary doesn't. You don't use the gym, but you do have prescription
sunglasses." etc.

My ex's former employer used flex dollars to allow employees to "buy"
benefits. The usage was a little odd in that employees with dependents got
more flex dollars, but they were restricted to "purchasing" the more
expensive family options for coverage.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

Cheers ... Kim
kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Ross [mailto:beth -at- vcubed -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:18 PM
To: Kim Roper; TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: "atmospheric" benefits

This is where it gets tricky and political. Some would argue that on-site
daycare is an extra benefit that people with children receive, while
co-workers who remain childless don't get anything comparable. Considering
the cost of daycare, this is not an insignificant outlay. Is it fair? Why or
why not? Is it something we should be aware of as we moving up in the ranks
from writer to manager?

I am genuinely undecided on the issue, having heard some really good
arguments from both sides.
Elizabeth Ross
Senior Technical Writer, V3 Semiconductor Corp.
mailto: beth -at- vcubed -dot- com
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

> From: Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com>
> Reply-To: Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:10:54 -0500
> To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
> Subject: RE: "atmospheric" benefits
> This isn't very imaginative, but on-site daycare would be good for me,
> especially when we're close to deadline. Of course, this would require
> my seven-year-old be shuttled from school to my workplace, as well.

Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY. or 800-646-9989.

Sponsored by SOLUTIONS, Conferences and Seminars for Communicators
Publications Management Clinic, TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, and more or 800-448-4230

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: RE: "atmospheric" benefits
Next by Author: FW: "Chapter" vs "Appendix"
Previous by Thread: Re: "atmospheric" benefits
Next by Thread: Re: "atmospheric" benefits

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads