Benefits Through an Employer of Record

TL;DR

• The core decision: what to say when somebody asks why their benefits differ from a colleague's.
• When doing nothing is right: when the difference has been explained and nobody is unhappy.
• What has to be true: you know who assembled the package and on what basis.
• How the options split: by what shaped the package, which is mostly not you.
• Decision rule: explain the mechanism before anybody has to ask about it.
• Outcome to expect: the same package, understood rather than resented.

They Compared Notes

Two people on the same team, roughly the same role, one in your head office and one engaged through a provider somewhere else. They got talking about something unrelated and it came up.

One of them has something the other doesn't. Or has more of it, or it works differently, or it started at a different point. And the one on the outside is now asking you why, in a message that's polite and clearly has something behind it.

You don't have a good answer ready, because you never assembled the package. A third party did, in a market you don't know, from whatever is available there, and you approved something at a point when it was one line in a proposal. So you say something about local markets, and it sounds like a deflection even though it's true.

Recommended Tools

Best tools for Employer of Record (EOR) Tools

B BambooHR HR management system L Lattice Performance management D Deel Global payroll & EOR

View all recommended tools

Here's the reframe. The comparison your colleague is making is not with the local market, which is what any explanation about local norms addresses. It's with their teammates. They see people doing the same work with different arrangements, and the only information they have about why is whatever you tell them.

That means the explanation isn't really about benefits. It's about whether your organisation treats people in different places consistently, and the honest answer to that has a mechanism behind it that most people find perfectly acceptable once they hear it. What they can't accept is silence, because silence invites the least generous interpretation.

One boundary throughout. What any country requires as a minimum, what must be provided, and what obligations attach to any arrangement differ by jurisdiction and change. Nothing here tells you what applies anywhere. Our Global HR material covers the statutory side, and the specifics need establishing with local advice. This piece is about how a package gets assembled through a third party, and what to say about it.

When You Genuinely Do Not Need to Act Yet

The difference has been explained and accepted. Somebody told the person how their package was assembled and why it differs, and it landed. That's the destination.

Nobody has asked yet. Common, and it isn't the same as nobody having noticed. People frequently sit on this for a while before raising it, and the sitting is not neutral.

Somebody has asked and got a vague answer. Worse than not being asked. They now know the question is awkward and don't know why, which is a specific kind of unease.

The edge case that forces it. Somebody has declined something, or left, and benefits were part of it. That's when the cost of never having explained becomes visible.

Five Questions This Reader Asks at 11pm

Who chose this package? Frequently not you, which surprises people. A provider assembles something from what it has arranged in that country, you approve a description of it, and the actual composition is shaped far more by local availability than by anything you decided.

Can I match what my other people get? Sometimes partly, rarely exactly, and the reason is structural rather than obstructive. Benefits are sourced in local markets through local arrangements, and what exists in one country may have no equivalent in another. Matching the value is a more achievable goal than matching the contents.

Can I add something? Usually there's a route, and it's worth establishing what it involves before you need it. The answer differs by provider and by country, and discovering it while somebody is waiting turns a request into a disappointment.

Why does it cost what it costs? Because the package is assembled from local arrangements and includes things you may not have specified. Understanding the composition matters more than the figure, and it's the part worth asking about.

What do I say to the person? The mechanism, plainly. Benefits are arranged in each country from what's available there, which is why packages differ between colleagues in different places. Most people accept that readily. What they don't accept is being told it's complicated.

Why It Differs From Your Other People

The first two rows are the honest structural answer and they're usually enough. People generally understand that different countries work differently, and saying so plainly is neither evasive nor difficult.

They are also the two you can state without knowing anything specific about the country, which is what makes them usable in the conversation you will actually be having.

The fifth and eighth rows are the ones that need care, because the honest answer reflects on you rather than on the market. Something available that nobody took, or a package nobody ever examined, is a real finding and the person asking is entitled to a straight response rather than a structural explanation that isn't the actual reason.

The sixth row is the one to keep in view. The person isn't comparing against a local benchmark, they're comparing against a colleague, and any explanation that only addresses local norms is answering a question they didn't ask.

Five Diagnostic Questions You Can Self-Assess Against

Do you know what's in the package? Actually in it, item by item. Most people approved a summary and have never seen the detail.

The summary is usually two lines in a proposal, which is enough to sign and not enough to answer a single question about.

Who chose it? You, the provider, or nobody in particular. The third answer is more common than the first and it's worth knowing.

Nobody in particular is not a failure of anybody's, it is what happens when a decision is available to be made and nothing forces it.

Have you compared it with what your own people get? Not to match it, but so you know what difference exists before somebody else does.

Is there a route to add something? Established in advance rather than discovered during a request.

Has anybody explained it to the person? As distinct from it being explicable. Nobody's job includes this, so it generally doesn't happen.

Run these five with whoever manages the person rather than whoever signed the arrangement. The manager is the one who will be asked, and their blanks are the ones that will show.

Six Things That Shape What Somebody Actually Gets

What the country requires as a baseline

Every country has a starting point, and it differs enormously. It shapes the package more than any decision you make.

Where it causes difficulty is that it's invisible to everybody involved except the provider. Your colleague doesn't know what their local baseline is, you certainly don't, and the difference from another country's baseline is the single largest reason two packages look different.

Which means neither party to the conversation has the information that would explain it, and both are reasoning from what they can see.

What any jurisdiction requires is not something to state or infer, and it's covered in our Global HR material. Establish it with local advice, and what you need for this conversation is simply that baselines differ.

That is genuinely all the explanation requires. You do not need to know what the baseline is in order to say truthfully that baselines differ between countries and that this is part of why two packages look different.

It is also the part the person is least likely to dispute. Almost everybody accepts that countries work differently; what they want to know is whether that is the actual reason or a convenient one.

What is customary there regardless of requirement

Beyond any baseline, markets have norms. Things that are usual in one country are unheard of in another, and providers assemble packages against local expectation.

Where it causes difficulty is that this is genuinely good practice and looks like inconsistency from inside your organisation. A package matched to local norms will look wrong next to any other country's, and matching it to your head office would make it wrong locally.

That tension does not resolve, and recognising it is more useful than trying to. An organisation can be locally appropriate or internally uniform in this area, and it cannot generally be both.

Worth understanding for your own countries. A provider can usually tell you what's customary there, and it explains most of what looks anomalous.

It is worth asking the question in that direction specifically: not whether the package is good, but whether it is normal there. A package that is unremarkable locally and looks thin from your office is a completely different situation from one that is thin locally too.

The person will usually know the answer themselves. Somebody living and working in that country has a better sense of local norms than anybody at your end, and asking them is faster than asking a provider.

What the provider has arranged locally

Providers have relationships with insurers, schemes and administrators in each country, and what they can offer is bounded by those.

Where it causes difficulty is that it's a constraint nobody mentions. The package isn't drawn from everything available in that country, it's drawn from what this provider has arranged, and a different provider might offer something different.

It is also a constraint that can change without you. Providers add and drop local arrangements over time, and a package available at the start is not guaranteed to remain so.

Ask what the constraint is and whether alternatives exist. It's a reasonable question and the answer tells you whether a gap is about the market or about the provider.

That distinction matters because only one of them is fixable. A gap that reflects the country is something to explain; a gap that reflects this provider's particular arrangements is something to negotiate, or eventually to change provider over.

Most providers will answer it honestly if asked directly. Describing the limits of what they have arranged locally is not a difficult admission, and one that will not describe them is telling you something else.

What you asked for and are paying towards

Somewhere in the arrangement you specified a level, or approved one, and that shapes the package directly.

Where it causes difficulty is that this decision was frequently made quickly, by somebody who didn't have the detail, at a point when the urgent thing was getting somebody started. It then persists as though it had been considered.

Nobody involved did anything wrong. A decision taken under a deadline is a reasonable decision at the time and an odd basis for a permanent arrangement, and the only failure is that nothing ever prompted a second look.

Worth revisiting once the arrangement is running. A specification made under time pressure at the outset is not a considered position and doesn't have to remain one.

The first renewal is the natural moment. By then the arrangement is settled, nobody is waiting on a start date, and the question can be looked at properly rather than answered around whatever was urgent at the time.

It is also worth asking the person what they would value, which almost nobody does. A package specified for somebody without consulting them is a slightly odd artefact once you notice it.

What the person expected from seeing colleagues elsewhere

Expectation is shaped by whatever they can see, which is their teammates rather than their local market.

Where it causes difficulty is that this is the actual source of the question and it's the one nobody addresses. Explanations about local norms answer a question about markets, and the person asked a question about fairness.

It is also the only one of the six that has nothing to do with the country at all. Somebody in a market with excellent provision can still feel poorly treated if a colleague has something they do not.

Address the comparison directly. Acknowledging that they're comparing with colleagues, and explaining why colleagues differ, is a better answer than any amount of context about the local market.

Naming the comparison also tells them you have understood the question. An answer that addresses local markets when somebody asked about their teammate reads as a deflection even when every word of it is true.

It is worth saying plainly that the comparison is reasonable. People raising this frequently expect to be told they are being unreasonable, and simply agreeing that it is a fair thing to ask defuses most of the difficulty before any explanation starts.

What can be added on request

Most arrangements have some route to adding or upgrading something, at a cost, with some lead time.

Where it causes difficulty is that nobody establishes this until somebody asks for something. Then the answer takes a fortnight to obtain, and by the time it arrives the person has concluded that the answer is no.

The delay is doing all the damage here rather than the outcome. A prompt no is survivable; a fortnight of silence followed by a yes has already cost most of what a yes was worth.

Establish the route while nothing is pending. Knowing what's possible, what it involves and how long it takes converts a difficult conversation into a straightforward one.

The lead time matters as much as the possibility. An addition that takes months to arrange is effectively unavailable to somebody with a situation now, and knowing that in advance means you can say so rather than leaving them waiting.

Worth finding out what it costs as well, in enough detail to decide without a further round of questions. A request that requires three exchanges before anybody can answer tends to expire on its own.

The Decision Table

The fourth row is the precondition for everything else. You can't explain a package you've never seen itemised, and a surprising number of organisations have approved a summary and nothing more.

The fifth row is the version that is harder to admit. A package nobody chose is not a decision anybody can defend, and the honest response is to say so and then look at it properly.

The eighth row is the one that tests whether this is a communication exercise or a real one. If something was available and nobody took it, the structural explanation about local markets isn't the reason, and offering it anyway is the kind of answer people can tell is an answer.

The ninth row is where the cost stops being hypothetical. Somebody leaving with this as a contributing factor is expensive on its own, and the more useful response is to assume everybody else has noticed the same thing and has not said so.

The Comparison They Are Actually Making

They are comparing with colleagues, not with the market. Every explanation about local norms addresses a question about countries. The question they asked was about people doing the same job.

Which is why local benchmarking data rarely helps the conversation. It is answering a question about a market to somebody asking about a person.

Which makes it a fairness question wearing a benefits costume. What they want to know is whether the organisation values them the same, and the benefits difference is the evidence in front of them.

Answer the question underneath as well as the one on the surface. Saying plainly that the difference is structural rather than a judgement about them is the part that actually lands.

The mechanism is usually an acceptable answer. Packages assembled locally from what's available there, differing between countries as a result. Most people find that reasonable, and it has the advantage of being true.

It also does not require you to defend the difference. Explaining how something came about is a different act from arguing that it is correct, and the first is usually all anybody wanted.

Silence is the worst option. A difference that's noticed and never explained gets explained by the person, to themselves, and the explanation they arrive at is rarely generous.

Nobody fills a gap with the most charitable available reason. That is not cynicism about people, it is how anybody reasons about a difference that affects them and has no stated cause.

Say it first, not when asked. Volunteered at the start, it's an orientation. Produced when somebody raises it, it reads as a justification assembled in response.

The same sentence, six weeks apart, is two different messages. One is information and the other is a defence.

Where the honest reason reflects on you, say that. If something was available and nobody took it, or nobody ever looked at the package, the structural answer isn't the real one. People can tell, and a straight answer with a commitment to review it costs far less than a plausible answer that isn't the reason.

And the commitment has to be real. A review promised and never done converts an honest answer into a second disappointment, which is worse than the first.

The practical version of this is short. Find out what's actually in the package, know how it compares with what your own people get, establish what adding something involves, and tell the person the mechanism before they have to ask you about it.

All four are things you can do without anybody's agreement, and three of them are requests to a provider who has no reason to refuse. The fourth is a conversation.

Where These Arrangements Go Wrong

The second row is the one that does slow damage. A difference noticed and never addressed doesn't stay neutral; the person fills the gap themselves, usually with something about how they're regarded, and that conclusion is much harder to shift later than the original difference would have been to explain.

The third row is the near-miss version. An explanation was offered, it addressed the wrong question, and the person concludes either that you misunderstood or that you were avoiding the point.

The sixth row is the one that costs trust rather than goodwill. Offering a structural reason where the actual reason is that nobody looked is a small dishonesty that people detect more often than organisations assume.

The fifth row is the version that is not dishonest and still wrong. A specification made quickly under pressure at the outset, left in place for years, describes nobody's considered view and persists only because nothing prompted a look.

What to Put in Writing

The second row is the one that prevents the worst version of this conversation. Knowing the difference before your colleague does means you're explaining something you'd already looked at, rather than reacting to something they found.

The fourth row is the one that turns a good intention into an actual answer. Knowing in advance what adding something involves is the difference between being able to respond and having to go and find out.

Questions to Ask Before You Commit

On composition. What is actually in the package, itemised? A bad answer is a standard local package.

On choice. Who decides what is included? A bad answer is that it is configured.

On constraint. What limits what you can offer here? A bad answer is nothing.

On additions. What does adding something involve? A bad answer is that it is possible.

On comparison. How does this compare with a typical package there? A bad answer is competitive.

On changes. What happens if we want to change this next year? A bad answer is that it is flexible.

What Getting This Wrong Costs

The first cost is an inference somebody made without you. They noticed a difference, nobody explained it, and they arrived at a conclusion about how the organisation regards people in their position. That conclusion forms quietly, it's rarely stated, and it's considerably harder to change once it exists than the original difference would have been to explain at the start.

It also colours everything afterwards. Somebody who has concluded they are regarded differently reads the next ambiguous thing through that, and a run of ordinary decisions starts looking like a pattern.

The second cost is a request that became a refusal through delay. Somebody asks whether something can be added, nobody knows, the question goes to a provider, the answer takes a fortnight, and by the time it arrives the person has already concluded that the answer was no and has stopped expecting anything. Establishing the route before anybody asks costs one conversation.

They also stop asking for anything else. A request that disappeared into a process teaches somebody that requests disappear, and the next thing they might have raised does not get raised.

The third cost is a package nobody ever chose. Specified quickly at the outset by somebody who didn't have the detail, never revisited, and now the arrangement your colleague lives with reflects a decision made under time pressure years ago rather than anything anybody currently believes. Nobody decided it should be that way, which is exactly how it persists.

It also becomes the precedent for the next person in that country. A package set once without much thought quietly becomes what everybody there receives, on the reasonable-sounding basis that it is what the last person had.

So do three things. Get the package itemised, so you know what you're actually providing. Compare it with what your own people receive, before somebody else does. And tell the person how it was assembled, early, rather than waiting for the question.

The third is the one that costs nothing and prevents most of the difficulty, which makes it an odd thing to skip. It gets skipped because nobody's role obviously includes it.

When You Are Ready to Go Further

Start by finding out what's in it. Itemised rather than summarised, from the provider, in a form you can read. Most organisations approved a description in a proposal and have never seen the composition, which means they can't answer the simplest question anybody might ask about it.

Ask for it in the person's own terms where you can. A list matching what they would see, rather than a commercial summary, is the version that lets you have a conversation with them about it.

Then compare it with what your own people get, not to match it but to know. The comparison your colleague will eventually make is one you should have made first, and knowing where the differences are means you're explaining something considered rather than reacting to something discovered.

Do it item by item rather than at the level of an overall impression. The differences people notice are specific, and a general sense that the packages are broadly similar will not survive a conversation about one particular thing.

Finally, explain the mechanism early and address the real question. Benefits are assembled in each country from what's available there, packages differ between colleagues in different places as a result, and that's a reason most people accept. Where the honest explanation is that nobody looked closely enough, say that instead, because it's a better position than a structural answer that isn't the actual reason.

And where you do not know, say you will find out and then do. The specific failure people remember is not an unsatisfying answer, it is an answer that was promised and never arrived.

HROpsLab publishes independent comparison work across HR tooling and global employment. We sell nothing, we take no vendor money, and we publish no paid placements. If the next step is seeing how the providers in this space describe themselves, our comparison work is one place to start.

Frequently Asked Questions

They are not comparing with the local market. They are comparing with the person next to them.