I think the standard benefits are obviously important: healthcare/vision/dental, retirement/pension, paid time off, etc.

Something I read about is a hospital system in Virginia that provides onsite child care (a huge win in my opinion) and onsite auto servicing. These two would attract me and a lot of other working parents I know.

What else have others seen?

Standard:
1) Medical/Dental/Vision 2) 403b 3) Disability 4) Life Insurance 5) PTO 6) Tuition Reimbursement

Innovative:
1) Daycare 2) Concierge services 3) Spa services
4) Mentor Programs 5) Management Programs 6) In House Gym 7) Weight Watchers/Diet Programs 8) Award for Having Additional Children 9) Local vendor/company discounts

We are getting recommendations to have two options - wage plus benefits or a higher wage with no benefits. On the front end it would seem like a no brainer - cheaper for the organization and a higher wage which attracts staff. Our organization has elected not to go down this road as many would elect no benefits, then when there are medical needs later, they would need public assistance which is just a further drain on our public systems. I am curious if any of you have tried this and if you think and organization has the responsibility to be paternalistic or is it not our place to make "best" decisions for staff.

Important - Health, dental and life insurance; retirement; and vacation/paid time off.

Inovative - Health care, dependant care and commuter spending accounts for tax benefits, employee wellness programs, Parent medical insurance; employee assistance program; and flexible benefit progams.

The higher-wage-no-benefits option intrigues me. If there was a way (is it legal?) to require all employees to have health care coverage -- through the employer or spouse or other option (ie Medicare) -- it would dovetail right into the Obama -Biden plan for health care reform. Reform could being with employer-mandated health care coverage, within the health care industry.

Not only does health insurance need to be portable, I believe it needs to be flexible. Employees traditionally have only once a year (at enrollment time or when coming on board with the employer) to sign up for insurance. But many of the uninsured are not unsinured for an entire year, but only months when life's circumstances change. So if we can shape contracts with payors so that an employee can enroll when they become uninsured (such as when a spouse looses a job, which is becoming more prevelant in this economic environment), then we could make great strides in lowering the number of uninsured.

Going back to the higher-wage-no-benefits option, those with proof of coverage could select the higher wage options -- creating a win for the employee, the employer, the health care provider, the economy.....

Veronnica -- do you know of any employer who currently offers the two options to their employees? I would really like to gather more information on this. Thanks.