WHILE WE BELIEVE IN liberty and justice for all, and while Christians believe that the ground is equal at the cross, assuming “equity” means “equality” when it comes to compensation and benefits can create a real unfairness among church staff.

One administrator recently faced the challenge of potential staff members requesting health benefits not currently available to existing employees. Providing them to all staff members would mean a significant bite out of the church’s salary-and-benefits budget. Providing them only to those requesting it would cause inequality in staff remuneration.

The solution to such dilemmas is not always cut and dry, and like many issues that arise in human resources, the question, “What would you do?” is best answered by the response, “It depends.” It’s important that managers consider as many of the interrelated issues as possible before making a decision.

In the parable concerning those hired at different times of the day to work the fields, the master paid all of them the same at the end of the day. Those who worked the longest felt they were being discriminated against, but Jesus said they each got what they were promised. Nevertheless, in that case, the master paid all equally – though not fairly or equitably, except that he did keep his promise to each and every one.

Choosing equality over equity in compensation may indeed be a better choice than the other way around. However, today we are faced with the opposite requirement in personnel practices, regulations and laws. Today there is more concern for fairness and equity than there is for equality – working for what one happily agreed to work. One of the reasons for this is the need to avoid possible labor lawsuits for unfairness and discrimination. (While the master in the parable would argue he avoided discrimination by paying equally, the courts today would disagree, arguing his pay wasn’t equal on a per-hour basis of payment.) These same legal requirements, however, allow an employer to consider compensating differently or providing different benefits in at least three different ways:

1. It is OK to compensate differently for the same work – provided one can show, through a fair and well-structured performance-assessment plan, that one employee performs better than the other. An employer can justify a difference in pay by considering a particular variable, such as years of experience.
2. An employer may also pay differently by category of employee. For example, executives may have different health care plans or perks than regular employees. The secret here is that all employees within a specified group are treated equally with the terms of their own plan. For this reason, employees often aim to have their positions reclassified into higher groups, in order to gain access to better benefits.
3. It is also possible to pay employees differently if one has established an approach to compensation known as the “total compensation approach.” The sum value of all payments and benefits must be equal in nature for the same positions, but the various components of the total compensation package may vary. The best example of this is referred to as “cafeteria-style benefits.” In this approach, employees have a certain set amount of dollars that their company will spend on their benefits. The employer chooses the basic mandatory benefits for all employees and pays for them out of the designated amount. What remains in the employee’s benefitcost account are “discretionary dollars” that can either be put toward better benefit levels, previously uncovered benefits, or, if nothing is desirable, paid out in cash. The argument for this is that not all employees need or value the same benefit. This approach also gives them some control over how their benefit dollars are spent.

Most churches, like most employers, may require some outside consulting assistance in implementing some of the ideas (e.g., performance-evaluation plans or cafeteria-style benefits) as outlined above. There are, however, a myriad of other considerations a good employer needs to take into account:

• What are the policies for benefits and compensation in the church? If some are in place, they need to be followed. If none are in place, the church should consider developing and implementing some.
• How much flexibility is allowed within the policies, and under what circumstances are they allowed? For example, if one has a salary range, a more experienced potential employee can start higher up in the salary range on the basis that he or she is more experienced than someone coming right out of school. In one case, I suggested that an employee who wanted two more weeks of vacation than the policy allowed would be granted a leave of absence without pay for those two extra weeks. If necessary, and subject to the policy, his actual salary could have been adjusted in the salary range to compensate him for the two weeks he would not be paid. This way, the vacation policy would not need to be altered.
• What was promised to the potential employee? When? By whom? If such promises cause you concern, steps should be taken to ensure that no one without authority and full knowledge of the policies (and the consequences of breaking them) can make them.

There are times when you desperately want a particular employee and, to get him or her, you must go outside your financial or policy comfort zone. In these circumstances, you only have a few options:

• Give up your strong desire to have this person on your team. You probably don’t really want the type of employee who demands much more than you can offer, doesn’t care about your current policies and won’t work with you to find a compromise. Save yourself some future angst and say goodbye now. As most experienced human-resources people will tell you, the best time to fire someone is before you hire them.
• Treat him or her differently as long as you can justify it. Thankfully, this is usually only the case with the top one or two positions in the organization; thus you can handle it under that aspect of differentiation: as in, “This is our executive group.”
• Provide the same conditions appropriately and respectfully to others in the same employee category, knowing there is a cost involved. I remember a boss who hired someone in the same position as me just three weeks after I joined the department. The newcomer asked for and received an additional benefit I didn’t have. The next day my manager extended that same benefit to me and explained why. You can imagine the respect I have for that boss, and the trust I had from that point forward.

No matter what you do, as a Christian leader, you need to be able to explain it to all who find out about it. And, above all, you need to be sure that you have acted in a fair and God-honoring way. In coming to your decision, remember that equity does not always equal equality.

Ken Godevenos has served on and/or chaired several church boards. He is a human resources and church consultant, mediator and executive director of SCA International. Call 905.853.6228 or visit www.accordconsulting.com for more information.