When is a benefit not really a benefit?

Pay rises in Scotland financial sector may be rarer than a banker-praising politician at the moment, but benefit packages appear to have remained relatively in tact. However, even this has an element of the scrooge about it.

The latest Scottish financial services employment review by recruiters Joslin Rowe shows that 83% of firms surveyed intend to maintain the same benefits package as last year. In the 2009 survey, 61% said they would keep benefits in line with the previous 12 months.

This might appear to be an attempt to placate workers in lieu of pay rises, as well as the threat of redundancy and reduced bonus payments, but it's actually a(nother) cost-cutting devise.

Slashed are the likes of pensions and life assurance, even sick pay is likely to be reduced. Little perks like gym membership and free cinema tickets have also been eliminated - we don't want healthy, happy workers after all.

So, what are we left with? An increase in flexible hours, options to work part-time, and rise in four-day weeks and the chance to buy more holiday. As Joslin Rowe puts it: "In other words, benefits that would ultimately save the company money."

The prospect of a four-day week, or the opportunity to navigate the Inca trail during an extended holiday might sound like an appealing idea, but it's the company (not the employee) that benefits the most.

Packaging reduced working hours (and commensurately smaller salaries) as a benefit, doesn't really cut it - it reduces overheads and essentially means that the main benefit is simply keeping your job.

Joslin Rowe adds that 14% of companies are intending to increase their benefits again this year. But wait: "the benefits being implemented were overwhelmingly around flexible working" it says. What a bonus.