Do you have $500 you could access for an emergency? If you do, you’re in the minority of Americans. According to a 2017 Bankrate survey, 59 percent of us don’t have $500 to cover an emergency.
The problem is, savings or not, emergencies happen. Car accidents, broken furnaces, or an emergency room visit for a sick child. Not having the money to cover these things causes your employees stress.
A simple solution is to give everyone a raise, but considering that 59 percent of the US lacks a $500 savings account, increasing any one person’s paycheck isn’t likely to result in an increase in savings alone. (I once had to explain to a man who earned enough to be in the 1 percent, that his next check was going to be late. He asked how on earth I expected him to pay his mortgage when the check would be late. I sincerely hope he was just crabby and had enough set aside to cover one month’s mortgage payment.)
People of all income levels live paycheck to paycheck and rely on credit cards to cover unexpected bills, which then increases their monthly obligations.The trick is to get people to save, regardless of income, so that they can handle emergencies when they arise.
To keep reading, click here: Companies are Reducing Employee Stress by Doing this One Simple Thing
7 thoughts on “Companies are Reducing Employee Stress by Doing this One Simple Thing”
On the HWE podcast you said there was an employee that didn’t sign their severance agreement and that you followed up about why. Do you always follow up with employees that wouldn’t sign separation agreements?
Yes! I did. And I think I’ll write a whole post about it for tomorrow, so keep your eyes peeled.
The only reason I have a 401K is that one of my former employers offered it in a way that didn’t drastically affect my take-home pay by taking the money out automatically prior to net pay. I think it is called pre-tax income so my gross taxable income was lowered to a lower tax rate and the money put away wasn’t drastically affected my budget. I feel all savings programs should be done this way by all companies to encourage long-term savings without needing to count the available money to decide whether to put money aside after taxes that are taken out of the paycheck. Considering that at certain incomes, there aren’t many ways to lower tax liability, this at least gives the worker a saving plan of their own which remains with them if the work position is terminated
That’s a traditional 401k. A Roth 401k is post tax income. I would be very unhappy with a company that only offered the former.
Although, this isn’t the main obstacle to savings, one way to help folks save money is to have a place to save that money.
I’m old enough to remember the days of passbook savings accounts. These accounts earned some interest; but, most importantly, the banks didn’t charge a “service” fee if it didn’t have a minimum amount. It was sort of nice to have a passbook which the bank updated whenever you deposited or withdrew money – you could look at your savings amount at any time.
Today, such accounts are almost unheard of. Forget the passbook, just the no service fee account would be nice. Too many folks don’t start to save because it is much harder to start a small amount in an account without the small savings being wiped out because of fees!
Many banks already offer free checking through one’s employer (direct deposit of pay often required). But, maybe companies could team up with the banks they do business with and offer no fee savings accounts?
I think it’s considerate, least of all that Joe goes to work forty hours a week. That being said, personal finance is not down to the companies consideration but it’s a gesture of goodwill which will be noted.
I completely agree. While it is a nice sentiment, it seems very micromanaging of the company. I believe better alternatives exists such as creating training or job aids to help employees understand the importance of saving.
Comments are closed.