Flexibility versus Strict Adherence to rules explain in 8-10 sentences
Answers
Answer:
Understanding the Dilemma
The expectations of new generations of assignees and the rise of new types of mobility are increasing the pressure on companies to have more flexible approaches when managing international assignments.
Increased flexibility can take the form of more segmented policies with different terms and conditions for different types of assignments (for example by differentiating between self-requested moves and business essential ones). It can also lead companies to offer assignees more choice in terms of mobility benefits (the “cafeteria” model) or allow employees to take cash amounts instead of benefits in kind.
However, an excess of flexibility and a full laissez-faire approach could lead to situations where companies are not compliant with the duty of care principle.
Duty of Care: A Legal Requirement
In the strict sense, duty of care is about taking all possible steps to ensure the safety, health, and wellbeing of employees. This is a legal requirement that companies cannot ignore.
International assignments can lead to many situations where assignees could be at risk. The first examples that come to mind are related to security. Giving too much flexibility to assignees can lead them to take unnecessary risks and venture into dangerous zones.
Adding too much flexibility in policies and expatriates packages can indirectly put assignees at risk. For example, providing full flexibility in terms of housing, or just providing a lump sum without restrictions, could lead to cases where assignees try to save money by living in unsafe parts of the host city. The same can happen with transportation: assignees might be tempted to make their own arrangements and put themselves at risk.
Risk is, however, not restricted to security issues in hardship locations. Lack of proper healthcare coverage or, more generally, insufficient support could put assignees in trouble. Sometimes the risk is long term and more difficult to evaluate, as is the case with assignments to heavily polluted cities in China or India.
The scope of duty of care is wider than many think and applies, to a large extent, to the family of the assignees – it is applicable if the family is relocated to the host location with the employee but sometimes also when the family doesn’t live abroad and just visits the assignee for a short period of time.
When discussing duty of care for local employees, a distinction can be made between time at work (when the company is deemed responsible) and time off work (when the company is normally not responsible). This distinction becomes blurred when dealing with expatriates: companies might have a duty of care even if the assignee and the family are taking time off. If the assignee and the family are facing problems that they would not have had in their home country, the company could be held responsible.
Failure to comply with duty of care could expose companies to lawsuits from assignees. In some countries, managers can even face civil or criminal charges. Differences among countries in terms of employment law and scope of the duty of care can lead to unpleasant surprises for companies.
Providing more choice to employees doesn’t exonerate companies from their responsibilities and asking the employee to sign a waiver of liability doesn’t always guarantee that the company cannot be held responsible. Such waivers may not be interpreted the same in every jurisdiction.