{"id":266856,"date":"2019-01-16T11:31:22","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T16:31:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/protecting-the-workers-of-the-future-with-portable-benefits\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T22:22:08","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T02:22:08","slug":"protecting-the-workers-of-the-future-with-portable-benefits","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2019\/01\/protecting-the-workers-of-the-future-with-portable-benefits\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting the workers of the future with portable benefits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Employment is changing at its foundations. The traditional single-earner household supported by stable, full-time income, pension and benefits, is increasingly the relic of a bygone era. Temporary and part-time employment have increased steadily<\/a> in recent decades, and the prospect looms of the digital gig economy fuelling a surge in task-based, on-demand forms of work. The solution may be to explore a model known as portable benefits: a nimbler, targeted way of providing benefits.<\/p>\n

The standard employment relationship of the postwar period, when most of Canada\u2019s social programs were designed, assumed that employers would provide access to retirement income security and extended health benefits. These employer-provided supports are backstopped by universal government programs providing relatively modest benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and provincial pharmaceutical programs for low-income residents and seniors.<\/p>\n

Yet this is no longer the reality for many workers in Canada. Nonstandard work, such as temporary, part-time and self-employed positions, has accounted for 60 percent<\/a> of job growth in advanced economies since the mid-1990s. These positions tend to have far less access to pensions and benefits. In Ontario, fewer than a quarter of workers in 2011 engaged in nonstandard employment had medical insurance (23 percent<\/a>), dental coverage (22.8 percent<\/a>), life\/disability insurance (17.5 percent<\/a>) or an employer pension plan (16.6 percent<\/a>). By comparison, three-quarters<\/a> of workers in standard employment relationships (permanent full-time, voluntary part-time and self-employed with paid help) had access to medical and dental insurance, and more than half<\/a> had a pension plan.<\/p>\n

For more and more workers, the question then becomes: If I am not able to access sufficient pension and benefit coverage through my own work efforts, and government programs don\u2019t cover me either, where should I turn?<\/p>\n

One notion is starting to gain traction: that of a portable benefits account<\/a> that workers, employers and potentially even the government pay into, in order to increase benefit levels and access in areas such as pharmacare, life insurance, vision care and mental health services. One of the advantages of portable benefits is that they are tied to the employee, not the employer.<\/p>\n

Not only would portable benefits offer flexibility and advantages for workers, but the broader access that portable benefits would provide might also remove some disincentives to employment reported among marginalized groups. For example, single parents and persons with disabilities who receive social assistance have reported that a significant \u201ccost\u201d of accepting employment<\/a> is the loss of government-provided benefits, such as drugs and dental coverage.<\/p>\n

Expanding access to certain types of benefits \u2014 for example, mental health services, dental care, physiotherapy and other allied health services \u2014 can reduce overall health costs<\/a> by preventing the occurrence or intensification of illnesses that would require more expensive interventions later, or that could result in disability. Furthermore, entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises are drivers of economic growth, but their inability to provide stable benefits may be an impediment to attracting and retaining the talent they need. Portable benefits could help address these issues.<\/p>\n

A portable benefits model would remove the question of employment classification from the benefits equation \u2014\u00a0 whether workers are engaged in full-time, part-time, temporary or gig employment should not determine their access to benefits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A portable benefits approach could offer workers in part-time, temporary and gig roles the opportunity to have some level of coverage for their medical, health and retirement needs without either requiring high levels of public investment or unnecessarily burdening employers with high additional costs for these types of roles. It could also avert other social costs and potentially drive increased entrepreneurship.<\/p>\n

Fundamentally, a portable benefits model would remove the question of employment classification from the benefits equation. Whether a worker is engaged in full-time, part-time, temporary or gig employment should not determine their access to benefits. Employers and workers could both be mandated to pay a portion of earnings into a protected, centrally administered account, which could be drawn upon for certain purposes (for instance, for general income upon retirement, or for pharmaceutical purchases or health services).<\/p>\n

The exact scale and model of the portable benefits account could vary widely. In practice, we are already seeing similar models in certain sectors. For example, in New York City, the Black Car Fund<\/a>, which has provided workers\u2019 compensation benefits for livery and black car drivers since 1999, has recently expanded its mandate to include vision coverage and appointments with doctors for Uber and Lyft drivers.<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s 1.7 million workers in the nonprofit sector, nearly half of whom are on contract or working part-time, may soon be able to participate in a portable retirement savings scheme. Common Wealth is working with Prosper Canada, the Maytree Foundation, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada and the United Way Greater Toronto to assess interest among workers in a plan<\/a> that would deliver lower fees than mutual funds, portability between jobs, flexible contribution rates and optional employer contributions.<\/p>\n

Sectoral approaches have a certain level of appeal, as they are easy to implement among commonly situated workers. However, a more universal approach to portable benefits spearheaded by the federal government could realize far greater cost savings and efficiencies through scale, and by spreading risk among a broader pool of workers. A federal approach could also leverage the Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance programs operated by Service Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada.<\/p>\n

Another key design consideration is the scope of the program. The range of benefits used during an initial implementation (whether it be a broad range of benefits or a small selection) would be a significant factor determining the expense and scope of the program. Whether the program is universal would also be an important factor, as a universal program could reduce contribution rates significantly. Including skills training funds could benefit a broad swath of workers who aren\u2019t currently eligible for employment insurance and associated training programs, and may be of particular relevance in a future world of work where people are frequently bouncing between different roles that require upskilling and reskilling.<\/p>\n

A number of challenges remain to implementing a portable benefits program in Canada, and many key questions need to be addressed.<\/p>\n