The majority of such employers offered these benefits to all
5
employees.
The benefits varied in nature and scale. (pages 27
29)
(b) Life insurance
88.2% did not provide life insurance for their employees. (page 30)
(c) Retirement benefits
78.2%. did not provide retirement benefits for their employees.
(page 31)
Of the remaining 21.8% who provided retirement benefits,
the majority set the retirement age at 60 and had pensions which
increased with the length of service, and would give employees
part of the pension if they left the service before retirement.
(pages 31 32)
(d) Housing loan facilities
77.8% did not offer housing loans to their employees.
Of the remaining 22.2% who did offer such loans, the majority
(87%) also offered loans for other purposes. (pages 33 35)
(e) Other benefits
85.3% did not offer benefits other than those required under
the Employment Ordinance and/or those categorised above. (page 36)
3. Advantages of the proposed scheme to employers
50.4% considered that the proposed scheme would give employers
no advantage.
48.4% thought that it would give employers some advantage. (page 36)
4.
· 5.
Difficulties envisaged in participation
61.1% envisaged no financial difficulties.
52.4% envisaged no operational problems. (page 37)
Modifications suggested for the proposed scheme
(a)
Sickness benefits
56.4% did not consider any modifications necessary. The two
relatively more common suggestions made by the remaining 43.6%
were: (1) the scheme to provide income allowance to participants