dull1.qxd:MOBILITY
12/22/09
3:56 PM
Page 8
• Monetary caps. Employers may cap a benefit in a specific category to contain costs and be able to budget projected mobility expenses. Explore Table 1 to identify what gaps or excesses might exist in your current mobility program or consider it as a basis for assembling what policy components might make sense to be featured, for each of the employer’s move profile types.
Integrating Policy Components It is important to note that Table 1 illustrates a sample range of days or allotments or frequencies of a mobility benefit within each category. The employer’s actual policy should include reference to a specific day or cap or frequency versus a range of parameters to ensure effective interpretation and clear delineation of actual support available. Further, policy components should “work” with each other. For instance, generally the duplicate carrying costs provision would not be in effect during the temporary housing benefit. Or, for instance, generally the storage-intransit allotment usually mirrors the temporary housing period permitted. Often, auto shipment provisions are “offset” against the total number of vehicles that can be driven to a location. Return trips home usually are granted in a frequency of one to two times a month; as such, trip frequency should coincide with the temporary housing occupancy period. These are just some examples to ensure that the policy is well integrated in order to prevent employee exception requests and minimize the administrative burden of managing the program.
Cost Containment—Is It for Real? The pressure to quantify and contain costs is a priority in most organizations. Evaluate cost containment opportunities carefully so that direct 56 MOBILITY/JANUARY 2010
cost savings do not undermine the employer’s overall investment—as measured in employee productivity, satisfaction, and loyalty. For instance, while it is may be attractive to assign a cost cap to the entire move, many employers discover that this creates a significant administrative burden in reimbursing partial benefits. It also often results in the forfeiture of tax planning opportunities and frequently severs continuity in support for the employee. Inconsistencies in support and “choppy” delivery arise as responsibility for costs are shared between employee, supplier, and the employer. Further, some employers have experienced that it fosters inequity as the monetary value cap may “stretch farther” in certain economies than others and, therefore, compromises the overall mobility strategy. Within each mobility provision, however, there is a home for caps and cost containment. For example, capping certain financial allowances, or limiting services or travel to a capped number of days is strongly recommended to contain costs in a uniform way. Other cost containment initiatives include use of qualified mobility-experienced brokers, linking list price caps to eligibility for homesale benefits, examining gross-up rates and applicable provisions (e.g., no gross-up on the miscellaneous allowance), leveraging mobility volume for supplier discounts, excluding specific bulky and high-value items from a household goods shipment, and ensuring employer travel guidelines apply for all mobili-
ty-related travel. Managing the mobility timeline is another critical element in cost containment—for instance, coordinate the shipment with the vacate date from temporary housing to avoid storage-in-transit times. Carefully managing the tempo of the transfer and all the concurrent activities is an excellent opportunity for cost containment. Managing costs is feasible. Employers just have to ensure that the costcontainment strategies employed are the “real deal.” It is essential to evaluate each option within the context of the individual company’s culture, move demographics, and mobility policy purpose.
International Moves and Cross-border Transfers When it comes to international permanent transfers, many employers refer to the “domestic” plan in effect at the departure or destination location as the governing plan. To simplify administration, it is recommended that an international permanent transfer plan, as well as a cross-border plan, if applicable, be assembled with a set of core benefits for equitable support. To recognize regional differences, most notably in homesale or home purchase benefits, adopt a general approach in which latitude can be granted to honor local deviations yet preserve policy intent. This can be accomplished through the use of a supplemental provisions appendix to illustrate regional support differences. Certain provisions for international permanent transfers/cross-border moves that often appear in addition to the domestic offerings cited in Table 1 include: • Immigration support • Medical exam reimbursement, if not covered by existing plan • Additional familiarization/ homefinding trip days or permission for child accompaniment for