Haute Lumière

Commerce · V.04 · MMXXVI · daylight

La Bourse  /  Volume V  /  Nº V.04  /  Workbook — the Gainshare employee

WORKBOOK — THE LUMINOUS GAINSHARE EMPLOYEE

Chapter V.04 · Care as Infrastructure

For the person working inside a gainshare arrangement — where a defined share of verified improvement returns to the people who created it. This workbook is about the largest uncounted gain most schemes contain, how to make it countable, and how to ask for what the arithmetic already says you are owed.

---

WHY CARE IS THE BIGGEST THING YOUR SCHEME IS MISSING

A gainshare pays a share of verified improvement against a baseline. So the first question is never "is this valuable" — it is "is this counted", because an uncounted gain is an unshared gain, every time, without anybody having to intend it.

Care is the largest uncounted gain in most schemes, for a specific and fixable reason. The saving lands in a line nobody in your scheme is measured on. A colleague who does not resign is a saving of roughly 21.4 percent of their annual salary. On US$70,000 that is US$14,980 — an enormous number, and it appears in nobody's gainshare because turnover sits with HR, the cost of turnover sits with finance, and the thing that prevented it sat with a team leader who rearranged a rota.

This workbook is about moving that saving into the ledger.

---

PART ONE — DISCOVERY

Days 1–30: find where the uncounted gain is

Exercise 1.1 — Read your own scheme for the care blind spot (2 hours)

Take your scheme document and answer six questions in writing:

1. What exactly is the baseline, and what date was it set?
2. What is the measure, as a formula?
3. Is the share of gross improvement or net of costs?
4. Who verifies, and when?
5. Does the measure include labour cost, and if so, does it include the cost of replacing people?
6. What happens to the baseline when a gain is realised?

Question five is the care question. If your measure counts only wages paid and not the cost of separations, then every resignation your team prevents is invisible to your scheme and every resignation it causes is invisible too.

Question six is the survival question, and it is the same in every scheme. If the baseline resets to the improved level each period, you are on a treadmill — the same effort yields less each cycle and eventually nothing. That is baseline ratcheting, and it is the most common way a gainshare quietly dies. A well-designed scheme holds the baseline for a stated term, three to five years, or ratchets on a published schedule everyone can see coming.

Exercise 1.2 — Count the carers on your own team (one week)

Not a survey. A conversation, one at a time, in these words:

"I'm trying to work out what this team actually costs the company and what it saves it. Do you have someone you look after — a child under five, a parent, a partner? You do not have to tell me any detail. I just need the count."

Then count what you can see: how many people have changed hours, refused a promotion, taken a shift nobody wanted, or left in the last three years, for a reason that was actually care. Write the count, not the stories.

Against the global benchmark, the scale of the work being carried is not small: 265 minutes a day for women and 83 for men — 1,612 and 505 hours a year, a gap of 1,107 hours, which is 0.81 of a full working year. Somebody on your team is doing that on top of the shift.

Exercise 1.3 — The appreciative conversation (45 minutes, with the team)

"Think of a time somebody here was able to stay when it would have been easier to leave. What did we do? Who arranged it? What would it take to have more of that?"

Take notes on conditions, not outcomes. A gainshare pays for repeatable causes, and conditions are the only repeatable thing in the room.

---

PART TWO — THE ARITHMETIC

Days 31–45: compute what the team already earned

Exercise 2.1 — The retention gain, computed (90 minutes)

  avoided separations  =  (baseline separation rate − this period's) × headcount
  gain                 =  avoided separations × 21.4% × average salary

Worked, on the chapter's reference figures: a 6-point fall in the annual separation rate among parents of under-fives, on a US$70,000 salary, is US$899 per affected employee per year. Two avoided absence days at a US$269 day rate — US$70,000 ÷ 260 — is US$538. Together, US$1,437 per affected employee per year.

Do it with your own numbers. Then multiply by your team's headcount in the affected band. That total is a real, verified, defensible gain, and if your scheme's measure does not include it, it is currently worth nothing to you.

Exercise 2.2 — Your share of it, if it were counted (30 minutes)

  your scheme's share %  ×  the gain  ÷  headcount in the pool

Write down the per-person figure. This is the single most useful number in this workbook, because it converts "care matters" into "this is worth £X to each of us this year", and one of those two sentences gets on an agenda.

Exercise 2.3 — The two valuations, so you can hold the argument (one hour)

You will be told the number is soft. It is not, and here is how to hold it.

An unpaid care hour has two defensible prices. Replacement cost: what it costs to buy the service — US$16.12 an hour for a home or personal care aide, US$14.60 for a childcare worker. Opportunity cost: what the carer gave up — US$25.12 an hour at median full-time earnings for women.

  wedge  =  25.12 ÷ 16.12  =  1.559 ×

Both are real. Use the lower one in a negotiation, always, because the conservative figure is the one nobody can attack — and then say, once, that the honest range is 56 percent higher and you have chosen the bottom of it.

Exercise 2.4 — The whole-system check, so you know you are not exaggerating

Nationally, this is not a marginal item. The UK's household satellite account put unpaid household service work at £1,240 billion for 2016 — 63.0 percent of GDP — with childcare alone at £352 billion. Unpaid adult care in England and Wales was valued at £162 billion a year against an NHS England budget of £164 billion — a ratio of 0.99. Globally, unpaid care is 16.4 billion hours a day, 2.05 billion full-time equivalents.

You are not asking for a favour. You are asking for a line in a ledger that every statistical office in the developed world already keeps.

---

PART THREE — DESIGN

Days 46–70: make the uncounted countable

Exercise 3.1 — Draft the measure (one week)

A measure the scheme can adopt has to be computable by two people who get the same answer. Propose exactly this:

  CARE RETENTION GAIN

  baseline      separation rate and absence days among employees with declared
                caring responsibility, averaged over the three years before the
                scheme period, set and signed before any intervention

  measure       (baseline separation rate − period separation rate) × headcount
                × replacement cost % × average salary
                + (baseline absence days − period absence days) × day rate

  share         the scheme's existing share percentage, unchanged

  verifier      internal audit, using HR and payroll data, annually

  baseline term fixed for three years, then ratcheted on a published schedule

Do not invent a new share percentage. Ask for the existing one applied to a new measure. That is a small ask that changes what the scheme is, and it is far more likely to be granted than a large one that does not.

Exercise 3.2 — Declaration without exposure (one week)

The measure needs a carer population, which needs people to declare. Declaration has to be voluntary, self-made, reversible, and visible only in aggregate, or people will not do it and they will be right not to. Write the four lines of the declaration policy yourself and take them to the scheme committee with the measure. Turning up with the privacy answer already written is what gets the measure adopted.

Exercise 3.3 — The place, and the three payers (2 hours)

If your firm goes further and buys places, know the structure so you can hold the conversation:

And know the one thing to insist on: the ratio, in the contract, as a number, with money against it. The chapter's evidence is unambiguous — a place at 1:6 with a US$52,000 teacher is US$8,667 of staff per child; at 1:12 on US$34,000 it is US$2,833, a factor of 3.06, and the scaled programmes that cut that line produced no effect and in one lottery evaluation a negative one. A cheaper place is not a cheaper place. It is a different product with the same name.

---

PART FOUR — DESTINY AND DELIGHT

Days 71–90: make it hold

Exercise 4.1 — Get it into the standing calculation (one meeting)

A measure that is computed annually by exception will be dropped in the first difficult year. Get it into the same run as every other component of the scheme, on the same date, with the same verifier. The administrative detail is the durability mechanism.

Exercise 4.2 — Find the second owner (two weeks)

One person is a hobby; two is a practice. Find the second owner and recruit them by giving them the credit for the first result. The best candidate is usually the person in finance who already knows what a separation costs and has never been asked about it by anyone outside their own function.

Exercise 4.3 — Watch the baseline (ongoing, forever)

Every period, check one thing: did the baseline move, and was the move published in advance? An unpublished ratchet is how a scheme becomes a bonus. If it moved without a published schedule, raise it once, in writing, with the schedule you would accept attached. Arrive with the clause, not the grievance.

Exercise 4.4 — Notice what changed (30 minutes, at the end)

Six months after the measure is adopted, ask the team one question: what is different about the week? The answer is usually not about money. It is that the conversation about a dependent stopped being a confession — nobody lowers their voice, and "can you make four o'clock" gets a plain answer instead of a calculation about how the answer will be read. A whole layer of small performances leaves the week, and that is what the gain actually bought.

---

THE THREE THINGS TO ASK FOR, IN ORDER

Most people inside a scheme ask for the wrong thing first, which is the share percentage. It is the hardest thing to move and the least valuable.

First, ask for the measure. A new measure with the existing share costs the scheme owner nothing to agree in principle and changes what the scheme is about. It is also the only one of the three that can be drafted entirely by you, which means it is the only one you can arrive with finished.

Second, ask for the baseline term. Three years fixed, then a published ratchet schedule. This is worth more than any share percentage you will ever be offered, and it is almost never refused when asked for on its own — because refusing it requires saying out loud that the intention is to ratchet quietly.

Third, and only then, ask about the share. By this point you have two years of a measure showing a gain nobody previously counted, and you are negotiating from a number rather than a position. A share argued from a measured gain is a different conversation from a share argued from fairness, and only one of them has ever worked.

And one thing to ask for that costs nothing: publication to the pool. Not just the total paid, but the measure, the baseline, the period figure and the arithmetic between them, circulated to everyone in the pool on the day it is computed. A scheme whose working is published cannot ratchet quietly, cannot drift, and cannot become a bonus — which means the publication clause does more for the scheme's durability than any of the other three.

---

KNOW YOUR SCHEME — A CHECKLIST

Every "don't know" is a finding, and it is the most valuable thing you will produce this month. Go and find out, in writing, from the person who owns the scheme.

---

THE CONVERSATION, SCRIPTED

For the meeting where you ask.

*"I've costed something the scheme currently doesn't see. Our separation rate among people with caring responsibilities is X points above baseline. At 21.4 percent of salary, each avoided separation is worth about US$14,980, and a six-point reduction is worth about US$1,437 per affected employee per year.

I'm not asking for a new share percentage. I'm asking for the existing one to be applied to a measure that includes retention among carers. Here is the formula, here is the baseline I'd propose, here is who verifies it, and here is the declaration policy so that nobody has to expose anything personal to be counted.

If the measure shows nothing, it costs the company nothing. If it shows what I think it will, it pays for itself out of the saving it measures. What would you need to see before the next scheme period?"*

Three things make that work. It is small. It reuses the existing share. It is verified. It runs on HR and payroll data that already exist. And it is reversible. Nobody is being asked to bet on a conviction — they are being asked to look.

---

APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS FOR YOUR TEAM

1. When has someone here been able to stay through a care responsibility when leaving would have been easier? What did we do, and who arranged it?
2. What has this team saved the company in the last year that the scheme does not currently count?
3. If the measure included retention among carers, what would we do differently next quarter?
4. What would we want to be true about our baseline five years from now, and what would have to be published for that to hold?
5. Who outside this team already knows what a separation costs, and what would we have to give them to make this theirs as well as ours?
6. What is the first sign we would see if the scheme were quietly becoming a bonus, and who would notice it first?