Same Job, Same company, Perks different. | ExpatWoman.com
 

Same Job, Same company, Perks different.

280
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 11:44

Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important?

2298
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 19:18
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? Honey, If all other things being equal except that you have no children and your coworker has children and gets school fees, you are much better off, financially. Children cost a fortune. Having children is like having a hoover attached to my purse. I took out a thousand AED from the ATM the other day and I'm already down to under 100. Why? Because of the kids. My god, if I didn't have kids I'd be all over the Fashion Avenue shops at Dubai Mall! When we first came here expat children were not allowed to attend local schools, so they had to go to international schools. The law has since been changed so they can, in theory, attend local schools, but it's an impractical option for those from the US or the UK or elsewhere, as local schools are strictly in Arabic. School fees are meant to ensure that your child is being educated in a decent school somewhat comparable to a decent school in your home country. It's not really a "benefit" as you term it, but an essential aspect of any family's decision to come to the UAE. The school fees goes straight from DH's company to the school. It never comes through our bank accounts. If we didn't get school fees or a corresponding bump in our package, we would seriously re-evaluate staying in the UAE. If DH left, it would cost his company a great deal to replace him. I would like to thank you all for your responses. However I am laughing away here as it has gone from me asking a question to me not having children. I never once said I didn't have children. I have 2 in university. For our first 2 years here we had to pay for all our accommodation as well as all our youngest ones school fees before going to university with no help from the employer whatsoever, we were just happy for the work. So I am quite aware of the expenses of having children and paying for all the school fees as well as university costs too,which believe me can hit like a ton of bricks. I am not complaining either, we love being here. I am certainly not jealous as previously also mentioned by someone else. I was merely asking a question as this could happen to many of you too. Thank you everyone for your comments though. I think maybe the "can someone please enlighten me" kind of set the tone.... lol
2298
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 19:11
It won't be the same for everyone but in our case our company sent my husband here, we didn't ask, so they put a clause in his contract that said we were not to be disadvantaged in any way by our move here. The package included school fees and medical because in the UK we get those things for "free". We also get one paid flight home a year because we need to see family, check on our house etc. This is the same argument I've heard against maternity leave - why should one employee get it just because they "choose" to get pregnant when equivalent employees don't.. If your mind is at a place where you are even asking these questions I think it's time to move on, or your resentment may cause problems for you..
4062
Posts
EW MASTER
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 18:05
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? Honey, If all other things being equal except that you have no children and your coworker has children and gets school fees, you are much better off, financially. Children cost a fortune. Having children is like having a hoover attached to my purse. I took out a thousand AED from the ATM the other day and I'm already down to under 100. Why? Because of the kids. My god, if I didn't have kids I'd be all over the Fashion Avenue shops at Dubai Mall! When we first came here expat children were not allowed to attend local schools, so they had to go to international schools. The law has since been changed so they can, in theory, attend local schools, but it's an impractical option for those from the US or the UK or elsewhere, as local schools are strictly in Arabic. School fees are meant to ensure that your child is being educated in a decent school somewhat comparable to a decent school in your home country. It's not really a "benefit" as you term it, but an essential aspect of any family's decision to come to the UAE. The school fees goes straight from DH's company to the school. It never comes through our bank accounts. If we didn't get school fees or a corresponding bump in our package, we would seriously re-evaluate staying in the UAE. If DH left, it would cost his company a great deal to replace him. I just added up the cost of my children's activities for this term. Feeling a bit faint.
280
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 17:14
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? Honey, If all other things being equal except that you have no children and your coworker has children and gets school fees, you are much better off, financially. Children cost a fortune. Having children is like having a hoover attached to my purse. I took out a thousand AED from the ATM the other day and I'm already down to under 100. Why? Because of the kids. My god, if I didn't have kids I'd be all over the Fashion Avenue shops at Dubai Mall! When we first came here expat children were not allowed to attend local schools, so they had to go to international schools. The law has since been changed so they can, in theory, attend local schools, but it's an impractical option for those from the US or the UK or elsewhere, as local schools are strictly in Arabic. School fees are meant to ensure that your child is being educated in a decent school somewhat comparable to a decent school in your home country. It's not really a "benefit" as you term it, but an essential aspect of any family's decision to come to the UAE. The school fees goes straight from DH's company to the school. It never comes through our bank accounts. If we didn't get school fees or a corresponding bump in our package, we would seriously re-evaluate staying in the UAE. If DH left, it would cost his company a great deal to replace him. I would like to thank you all for your responses. However I am laughing away here as it has gone from me asking a question to me not having children. I never once said I didn't have children. I have 2 in university. For our first 2 years here we had to pay for all our accommodation as well as all our youngest ones school fees before going to university with no help from the employer whatsoever, we were just happy for the work. So I am quite aware of the expenses of having children and paying for all the school fees as well as university costs too,which believe me can hit like a ton of bricks. I am not complaining either, we love being here. I am certainly not jealous as previously also mentioned by someone else. I was merely asking a question as this could happen to many of you too. Thank you everyone for your comments though.
654
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 16:45
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? Honey, If all other things being equal except that you have no children and your coworker has children and gets school fees, you are much better off, financially. Children cost a fortune. Having children is like having a hoover attached to my purse. I took out a thousand AED from the ATM the other day and I'm already down to under 100. Why? Because of the kids. My god, if I didn't have kids I'd be all over the Fashion Avenue shops at Dubai Mall! When we first came here expat children were not allowed to attend local schools, so they had to go to international schools. The law has since been changed so they can, in theory, attend local schools, but it's an impractical option for those from the US or the UK or elsewhere, as local schools are strictly in Arabic. School fees are meant to ensure that your child is being educated in a decent school somewhat comparable to a decent school in your home country. It's not really a "benefit" as you term it, but an essential aspect of any family's decision to come to the UAE. The school fees goes straight from DH's company to the school. It never comes through our bank accounts. If we didn't get school fees or a corresponding bump in our package, we would seriously re-evaluate staying in the UAE. If DH left, it would cost his company a great deal to replace him.
984
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 16:41
Why shouldn't parents with kids get a benefit such as fees? People in companies get benefits all the time, like the previous point about health insurance - if your coworker breaks a leg and insurance pays AED10,000 for it, should you also get AED 10,000? Paying fees is an incentive to join the company, and also to support working parents. As a working mom, getting school fees paid is such a bonus. Nothing for other coworkers to get so annoyed about!
767
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 16:08
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those. University is not mandatory BUT neither is having children. It's a choice that is made so why should a person who made the decision to have children (and who knew the costs associated with that decision) have a bigger benefits package than someone who chose not to have children? I'm now going to run and hide... Dogntow, I get where you are coming from. The way it used to work in my husband's company was that the company sourced staff from Europe that they thought had that little extra. To be able to get those staff to move to Dubai they wanted to offer them a package that was at least equal to how they lived back home, so they offered school fees, as you get schooling in Europe for free. And I guess that's the case with many companies that contribute towards school fees, they will think once or twice before employing someone with kids and /or have a deal, like we pay 30k towards school fees or for maximum 2 children. Companies are certainly not charities out here, but for the right staff they probably do that little bit extra. Today there is mostly all inclusive packages though, as Dubai doesn't really need convincing for people to move here. And people with children also loose out on child benefits that most western countries have, so if they want to get those talents with children they mostly have to offer that little bit extra.
409
Posts
EW EXPLORER
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 15:54
Having Children is a choice and some parents are lucky enough to get a benefits package that includes school fees. I don't feel I am missing out on any benefits because I don't have children. I have the freedom to do what i want, when i want. I don't have to pay extra for childrens meals when I go out or extra food when I go to the supermarket, I don't have to pay for children's clothes, shoes and toiletries, I don't have to buy toys and books, i don't have to pay for after school activities or any of the extras that people with children have to pay. If you compare your overall income and expenditure even if your colleagues have school fees paid i think you will find you are much better off.
116
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 14:49
If someone transfers over from the UK (for example) at our request then we pay flights and schooling for the whole family because otherwise, there is no reason for that person to come over, they will just be in a far worse position financially than if they just stayed in the UK If we fly a single person over, then of course, they don't need the schooling and extra flights as they will be in the same financial position as they left the UK
161
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 14:33
I am a single working adult and one of the very few with my company without children - I personally have never felt i am missing out because I don’t get family tickets/school allowance etc. Almost all of my colleagues in the same position have a family and receive schooling etc., I am grateful I don’t have all those extra bills for the time being! I don't think anyone has made nasty/hateful comments, its rather common sense.
90
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 14:27
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those. University is not mandatory BUT neither is having children. It's a choice that is made so why should a person who made the decision to have children (and who knew the costs associated with that decision) have a bigger benefits package than someone who chose not to have children? I'm now going to run and hide...
4393
Posts
EW MASTER
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 14:26
Here's our set up. DH's company don't pay flights home, only certain grades get school fees and that's only up to a certain amount and they all get the same housing and car allowance. So yes we lose out on the school fees and the housing allowance as we need to live in a villa because of the pets. I get money for a flight home for myself, other members of staff get flight cash for all their dependents, and a school fee allowance. I also was asked when I joined what my rent was and I get exactly half of that as an allowance. I will no doubt find out whether they will still honour that in the new year when my next raise is due as out rent has gone up since we moved. It is also paid up front in an annual sum.
14
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 13:53
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those. This was just something that I asked peoples views or opinions on I didn't expect to get such hateful comments back. But that's what people are doing, giving you their opinion. I haven't read anything "hateful"!
101
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 13:37
I tend to side with the OP. All things being equal in status at work, as a single person I feel I am being shortchanged if my married with children colleague is getting larger (villa vs flat) accommodation paid for by the employer and annual tickets for family members. Rationale, if you wanted to take a vacation with your family in your home country, you would have to pay for all the fares and you would decide how to spend your money on your home yourself. Here, my married with children colleagues get better accommodation and their flights paid for the family. So they are better off financially than I am. I agree that the itemized package based on marital status and number of children is disappearing, probably because of the perceived inequity. If the company does not provide certain packages to the families, like return flights home and schools fees, most qualified people will just not come here. What's the incentive to work in this part of the world then if you end up spending more than earning? The companies will lose lots of qualified staff over singles's envy.
1759
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 13:20
I tend to side with the OP. All things being equal in status at work, as a single person I feel I am being shortchanged if my married with children colleague is getting larger (villa vs flat) accommodation paid for by the employer and annual tickets for family members. Rationale, if you wanted to take a vacation with your family in your home country, you would have to pay for all the fares and you would decide how to spend your money on your home yourself. Here, my married with children colleagues get better accommodation and their flights paid for the family. So they are better off financially than I am. I agree that the itemized package based on marital status and number of children is disappearing, probably because of the perceived inequity.
767
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 13:16
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those. This was just something that I asked peoples views or opinions on I didn't expect to get such hateful comments back. I just don't get why someone that doesn't have children get annoyed about people with children getting school fees paid for. It's not like they get the money in their pocket. And by the way we are not here on a package, as my husband's company has changed them to an all inclusive salary and one reason apparently was because of people comparing what other people got, everything from housing to school fees and even how some people had higher Dewa bills! It was getting ridiculous. And of course it saves them money from having a person dealing with it. And was your husband not aware of the package when he signed the contract?
280
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 13:07
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those. This was just something that I asked peoples views or opinions on I didn't expect to get such hateful comments back.
767
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 12:59
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ? University is not mandatory though. This is one reason most companies have started to pay an all inclusive salary and left the expat package in the past. Too much debate among employers what is fair and not. There are plenty of companies that don't do packages, maybe your husband would be happier in one of those.
280
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 12:43
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. I understand exactly what you are saying but just because you don't have school going children doesn't mean you don't have other commitments. The other employee could have children that are attending universities as they are over 18. You have flights to pay for, accommodation for them etc etc. How is that classing someone in the same position ?
14
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 12:07
The payment of school fees allows both employees to be in the same position, financially. If the non-child employee starts getting extra money, the two employees are no longer in the same financial position. The one without children will be in a far more fiscally happy position than the other family. At this time, yourself and the other employee are equal. He/she is not getting MORE than you, the company is simply providing the security you'd get in another country for free in a public school. By giving one money for school and the other money simply because, the staff are no longer equal. A great explanation AdventurerB
767
Posts
EW GURU
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 12:00
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? I have worked in companies where I was on my husband's visa and my colleague got the visa from the company. Should I have asked them to pay the visa cost cash to me, as my colleague doing the same job as me actually cost the company more? You will spend your time in Dubai being jealous and miserable if you are looking at what others have.
14
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 31 August 2015 - 11:59
Could someone please enlighten me ? Some people are lucky enough to have their hubby's companies here pay for their employees children to attend school here which is a great thing given the cost of them. But why when someone who has the same job, same job title, same salary and working for the same company and who doesn't have any small children attending school do they not have perks to make up this difference? Surely that brings the other employees salary/perks way above the other employees? Does this mean their work is less important? Sorry seasand. I do not agree with you. If you are luckily enough that a company provides you with school fees then great. If you do not have kids, you are not really getting less as that money is not free to spend on what you want. Its so you do not have to pay out for it. Its like a company providing medical insurance. You hope you do not have to use it. Yet if one of your colleagues breaks a leg and the company provides the funds for medical care, doesn't mean they should give the same amount of medical care cost to all other employees who did not break there leg. I wish my company paid my kids schools fees! Sounds like a good company your working for!
 
 

ON EXPATWOMAN TODAY