When did gas prices become the employer's problem?
Filed under: Transportation
While surfing the internet today I came across a blog post: High Gas Prices Continue to Cause Employee Pain; Employers are not Offering Help. I thought surely the writer is not going to suggest that it's the employer's responsibility to do something about gas prices. But yes, that's what she was suggesting.The blogger referenced a survey by the Workforce Institute that basically states the obvious: Higher gas prices mean it's costing workers more to get to work. Consumers have cut spending in other areas of their life to make up the difference.
But where this gets silly, in my opinion, is in reporting that 80% of employees say their employer doesn't provide them any help with higher gas prices. When did the gas prices become the responsibility of the employer? When did it become the company's responsibility to help manage an employee's budget?
Sure, it's nice if a company offers benefits to employees, but we've gone so over the top with this entitlement mentality. Don't you think that high gas prices are already costing most companies more in terms of making and delivering products and services? Yet the companies are supposed to take even more of a hit and offer employees money or compensation to help them?
Changing schedules might be one way to help employees manage their fuel costs, but that's only reasonable if it doesn't negatively impact the company. Beyond that, I don't think companies have a responsibility to subsidize gas costs for employees.
I'm all for rewarding employees who earn it. And added incentives from time-to-time are nice things for the employees. But let's quit demanding more from companies that are just trying to stay in business and turn a profit. There are plenty of costs businesses already pay on behalf of their employees, and adding subsidizing gas prices is one more expense that companies don't need.
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.
Recent Posts
- Changing careers: Tips from someone who's been there (11/22/2008)
- What's out: Bar hopping. What's in: Pre-gaming. (11/22/2008)
- More Black Friday news: Kohl's is the lastest to promise steep discounts (11/21/2008)
- On Sunday, Dr Pepper gives America a free soda...thanks to Axl Rose (11/21/2008)
- Now's another good time to sell your gold (11/21/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-21-2008 @ 11:37PM
Russ Greene said...
In essence it's viewed as cost of doing business. If it costs me more to get to work, then I may start looking for employment closer to home, so it would be in the employer's interests to find solutions to keep good employees. If that means a modest cost of living adjustment or a specific incentive plan, it's probably a whole lot cheaper than hiring and training new personnel, no?
Reply
8-22-2008 @ 5:32AM
Adamantane said...
I agree with your analysis, Russ. Often there is a sound business case to be made for employee benefits that may superficially seem like frills. For businesses located in remote places and having a large number of workers in the affected age-group, employer-facilitated daycare centers are one example, and even -- for firms where extraordinary and irregular hours may be needed for certain roles -- employee fitness centers. Even a subsidized cafeteria is compelling from a business tandpoint where the alternative is the disruption and loss of a mid-day extra hour of productivity while workers drive miles off campus to find lunch instead of taking 30 minutes a short walk from their desks.
That stipulated, there does seem to be an entitlement attitude on the part of many younger (
8-22-2008 @ 1:57PM
Bill said...
Grow up folks, you don't own the company, so they aren't your "partners" having to cater to your whims. Don't like your job's offerings? Go get another. If a business decides that having a benefit for their employee is a good thing, then that is certainly their authority, as is also not offeing such and such a benefit. Unless YOU own the business or a part of it, then you have nothing but an agreement to supply labor for a fee, which is always negotiable. Offer an employer more than they could reasonably expect and be a better negotiator, and gas prices won't affect your lifestyle.
Reply
8-22-2008 @ 11:59PM
jer said...
Your analysis does not address employees who have to drive to appointments/appearances outside the office. The federal mileage reimbursement does not come anywhere near to compensating employees for the gas cost - let alone the wear and tear on the vehicle. I often travel over 100 miles per week in addition to my commute. This has resulted in what amounts to a significant pay cut. My employer gets the benefit of having me provide and insure a vehicle for company business and having me subsidize the company by absorbing the increased gas cost.
The increase in gas prices should be a cost of doing business issue to be borne by the employer, not the employee.
Reply