Compensation in household employment is usually discussed in terms of salary, and salary matters. But the families who retain excellent staff over long careers understand that compensation is a package, not a number, and that the non-salary components of that package do something salary alone can’t do – they signal professional respect, provide genuine financial security, and create the kind of employment relationship that a skilled professional in private service will choose over a higher-paying position that offers less.
Most families who are new to household employment haven’t thought carefully about benefits. They know what they’re willing to pay weekly or annually, and they structure the offer around that number. What they haven’t considered is that the candidate they’re trying to attract has been in positions with different benefits structures and is evaluating the whole package – or the absence of one. And what they discover when they lose good candidates to other offers, or when existing staff are recruited away, is often that salary was competitive but the benefits picture wasn’t.
Health Insurance
Health insurance is the benefits item that matters most to household staff, and it’s the one where the gap between what families typically offer and what the market requires is often largest. For a household staff member who is earning a professional salary but is employed by a single household rather than a company with a group plan, individual health insurance on the open market is expensive in ways that represent a meaningful percentage of their take-home pay. An employer who contributes to health insurance costs – or provides a health insurance stipend that allows the staff member to choose their own coverage – is offering something with real financial value, not a courtesy.
The market standard at the upper end of household employment is employer contribution to health insurance, either through a stipend (typically in the range of several hundred dollars monthly, though this varies by market) or through a formal benefits arrangement. Families who offer nothing toward health insurance and who are competing for candidates who have other offers are at a disadvantage that salary increases alone don’t fully close, because the health insurance gap represents ongoing financial exposure that the candidate has to cover herself.
Paid Time Off
Professional private service staff expect paid vacation, and the amount they expect has tracked upward as the market has professionalized. Two weeks of paid vacation was the historical norm in household employment and remains the floor; the current competitive range at the professional level is two to four weeks, with longer tenures typically associated with more generous vacation structures. Families who offer less than two weeks are offering below market in most of the cities Seaside Staffing Company serves.
Paid sick leave is a separate and increasingly important component that many families still don’t include formally. Household staff who are sick need to be able to take sick days without losing pay, and the families who don’t have a formal sick leave policy are creating a situation where staff either come in sick, which no family actually wants in their home, or lose income when they can’t work. A formal sick leave policy in the range of five to ten days annually is both reasonable and increasingly expected.
Paid holidays are another area where the offer matters. Most professional household staff expect the major federal holidays to be paid. The specifics vary by household, but a clear holiday policy established in writing before the placement starts prevents the ambiguity and resentment that develops when it isn’t.
Retirement Contributions
This is the benefits component where household employment lags most significantly behind corporate employment norms, and it’s the one that becomes most consequential for long-tenured staff. A private chef or estate manager who has been in private service for twenty years has almost certainly had significantly less retirement contribution support than a corporate employee in a comparable income bracket, because household employment has historically not included retirement benefits as a standard component.
Families who are building long-term household staffing relationships, who want to retain excellent people for a decade or more, are increasingly recognizing that some form of retirement contribution is both appropriate and strategically valuable for retention. This doesn’t require a formal 401(k) plan (though that’s possible for household employers); it can take the form of an annual contribution to a retirement account or a structured bonus that’s designated for retirement savings. The amount matters less than the principle: the staff member who has been with a family for fifteen years should not arrive at retirement age with nothing to show from those years beyond their salary.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we discuss benefits structure with every client at the start of a search, because the full compensation package determines what caliber of candidate is realistic and what the long-term prospects for the placement are. The family that structures benefits thoughtfully is the family that builds the long-term household staffing relationships worth having.
