在印度丟失了自由與安全 風險津貼背後的祕密

Deborah Manzoori left behind a career as alicensed insolvency practitioner last September to follow her husband, achartered engineer who designs jet engines, on a two-year placement to India.

去年9月，黛博拉·曼祖裏(Deborah Manzoori)放棄了破產執行人的工作，跟隨着擔任噴氣式發動機工程師的丈夫來到了印度。他們要在那裏居住兩年時間。

But when the 46-year-old Brit landed inBangalore, India with her husband and 9-year old daughter, she realised thatshe wasn’t just giving up her job; as a trailing spouse she was also givingup some independence and, potentially, her sense of safety.

但當這位46歲的英國人與丈夫和9歲的女兒一起降落在印度班加羅爾時，她意識到自己放棄的不只是工作；作爲一名隨遷配偶，她還放棄了一些獨立性，甚至安全感。

The family was advised by her husband’scompany to hire a personal chauffeur as driving in Bangalore can be dangerous.“Driving is on the left, but in reality it's on the right, in the centre oranywhere in between and in any direction you please,” Manzoori explained. “In additionWesterners have been attacked at crash sites …and women, inparticular, are vulnerable.”

丈夫的公司建議這家人聘請一名私人司機，因爲在班加羅爾開車是件很危險的事情。“本來應該在路的左邊行駛，但實際上有在路右邊的，有在路中間的，還有隨心所欲亂開一氣的。”曼祖裏解釋道，“不僅如此，還發生過兩車相撞後毆打西方人的事件，而女性尤其容易受到傷害。”

Manzoori said not being able to pop out inthe car at any time to go to the shops, the cinema or for any other reason canbe frustrating. “We have to wait for the driver and… everything has to be planned in advance.”

曼祖裏表示，不能隨時開車出門逛街、看電影或幹其他事情，是一件令人極爲沮喪的事情。“我們必須等待司機……幹任何事情都要提前規劃。”

She said she has adjusted to her newlifestyle after seven months, “but I still don't like it”.

她表示，經過7個月的時間，她已經適應了新的生活，“但我依然不喜歡這種生活”。

Many expats who relocate for work to thedeveloping world are given hefty compensation packages to make up for lifestyledifferences or difficulties — whether physical, psychological, or financial —that they may encounter during the course of their assignment times, a personal restriction is because of a societal sensitivity —particularly for women —in cultures where status is an important consideration, butequality may not be.

很多外派到發展中國家工作的人都可以獲得高額津貼，以便彌補他們出國工作後，在生活上遭遇的變化或困難——無論是身體上、心理上還是財務上。有時候，之所以感覺遭到人身限制，是因爲那些重視地位而不看重平等的文化所營造的社會敏感性——對女性尤其如此。

Companies often avoid terms such as“hardship allowance,” “danger pay” or “hazard pay” because of perceivednegative connotations or legal ramifications. And some critics of the practicequestion whether putting a figure on danger and discomfort is advisable or evenethical. Yet experts say that to draw top talent to important but difficult ordangerous locales (think compensating for the threat of terrorism in Turkey oreven smog in polluted cities such as Beijing), the practice is necessary.

企業往往都忌諱使用“辛勞津貼”、“風險津貼”和“危險津貼”這樣的詞彙，因爲這會產生負面影響，還有可能引發法律問題。而一些批評人士也擔心，用金錢來衡量危險和不安是否明智？是否有違倫理？但專家表示，爲了派遣頂尖人才前往艱苦或危險的地方工作(例如爲在土耳其遭受恐怖主義威脅或在北京這樣的城市面臨霧霾侵害的人提供補貼)，這種措施很有必要。

Those who can stomach the potentialchallenges of a hardship posting often find that they can make up to 40% moremoney than for a similar job elsewhere, according to Mercer’s 2015 report onhardship assignments. That figure can be even higher in areas of extremehardship. Mercer found that 73% of companies worldwide have no cap on theamount of money paid as a hardship allowance.

美世諮詢發佈的2015年艱苦環境工作報告顯示，如果能夠忍受艱苦環境中蘊含的種種挑戰，往往就能獲得比其他地方的類似工作高出40%的薪水。如果工作環境極端艱苦，這一數字還會進一步提升。美世諮詢發現，全球有73%的公司沒有對“辛勞津貼”設置金額上限。

Employees relocating from Europe are themostly likely to receive a hardship allowance with 90% of companies offeringone in most cases, according to the study. Their counterparts in Latin America,meanwhile, are the least likely with just 50% of companies open to the idea.

該研究發現，從歐洲調往其他地方的員工最有可能獲得辛勞津貼，90%的公司多數情況下都會提供這種津貼。與此同時，拉丁美洲提供辛勞津貼的概率最低，只有50%的公司有這種想法。

“This is where a lot of business opportunities are increasing — theyneed to incentivise,” said Sebastian Reiche, an associate professor of managingpeople in organisations at the IESE Business School in Barcelona. Theseincentives, he added, tackle a variety of concerns and are unique to theconditions of each overseas placement.

“這裏蘊含的商業機會正在增多——他們需要物質獎勵。”巴塞羅那IESE商學院組織員工管理副教授塞巴斯蒂安·雷切(Sebastian Reiche)說。他補充道，這些激勵可以緩解很多擔憂，而且需要針對具體的海外環境制定專門的計劃。

What’s a hardship?

什麼是辛勞？

Not all danger or hardship allowances arelabelled as such, but they aren’t hard to spot.

並非所有的風險或辛勞津貼都會如此標榜，但其實不難分辨。

The Manzooris’ compensation packageincluded help finding accommodation in a gated community, school fees to sendtheir daughter to an international school, and the personal chauffeur. Butthere was no explicit mention of the gated community or chauffeur being part ofa hardship package.

曼祖裏的薪酬待遇包括幫助他們在封閉式社區尋找住處、送女兒去國際學校就讀的學費和私人司機。但卻並沒有明確提到封閉式社區和私人司機是辛勞津貼的一部分。

While some intergovernmental agencies andNGOs still use those terms —including the UN and USAID —many privatecompanies simply don’t label the additional allowances as anything other than what theyare.

雖然某些政府間機構和非政府組織(NGO)仍在使用這些說法——包括聯合國和美國國際開發署——但很多私人公司並不會明確說明這種額外津貼的屬性。

“Global mobility managers may call it whatever they want,”Reichesaid, “but it’s essentially a way to make it acceptable that you’ll havecertain sacrifices as a part of your work or for you and your family.”

“國際流動性經理可能給它起任何名字，”雷切說，“但本質上都是爲了讓人們或者他們的家人願意爲了工作而做出一些犧牲。”

It’s essentially a wayto make it acceptable that you’ll have certain sacrifices as a part of your work or for you andyour family.

本質上是爲了讓人們或者他們的家人願意爲了工作而做出一些犧牲。

Factors that can lead to additionalallowances for expats run the gamut from the economic (like regionalinstability, lack of public services and sanitation) to the geographical (likeextreme weather, pollution and remoteness) or the cultural (like restrictedpersonal freedom and religious tolerance).

從經濟(例如地區不穩定、缺乏公共服務和衛生設施)到地理(例如極端天氣、污染和地處偏遠)再到文化(例如個人自由和宗教寬容受限)，促使僱主爲外派人員提供額外津貼的因素多種多樣。

Companies may similarly provide additionalinsurances (beyond health insurance) to address security threats, such askidnappings, pandemics, terrorism or civil unrest. These may include a kidnapand ransom insurance, war risk insurance or an insurance to cover burglary andother household effects, depending on the particulars of the assignee’sdestination.

企業也可能提供額外的保險(除了醫療保險外)來解決安全威脅，例如綁架、流行病、恐怖主義和國內動亂。這可能包括綁架和勒索保險、戰爭風險保險或涵蓋盜竊及其他家居用品的保險，具體情況取決於員工被派往的地方。

Slagin Parakatil, who manages the qualityof living reports for HR consulting firm Mercer, said the list of concerns isconstantly changing.

美世諮詢生活質量報告主管斯拉金·帕拉卡迪爾(Slagin Parakatil)表示，人們擔憂的問題一直在不斷變化。

“In a case like Brazil, where people are concerned by Zika virus,companies will most likely put some policies around that to repatriate womenwho are pregnant … but we haven’t seen any specific companies increase hardshipallowance for this just yet,” he explained. “For the Ebolaoutbreak in West Africa there was definitely a decrease in the hardship andthat affected our recommendations for allowances because it impacted the entirepopulation.”

“在巴西這樣的地方，人們都很擔心寨卡病毒，所以企業可能出臺一些政策，將懷孕的女性遣返回國……但我們還沒有看到任何企業針對此事增加辛勞津貼。”他解釋道，“埃博拉病毒在西非的爆發肯定會增加在那裏工作的艱苦程度，而由於這會對那裏的所有人產生影響，所以也會影響我們的津貼建議。”

Getaways to get away

休閒度假

Allowances for hardship postings don’t justinvolve traditional on-the-ground incentives like cars and safe housing.

辛勞津貼不僅包括汽車和安全住所等傳統激勵因素。

Human resources consultant ECAInternational found in its report on the benefits for mobile employees thatmany assignees experiencing adverse living or working conditions – perhapsworking in an isolated oil field or near a war zone – are likely to receive anallowance for additional leisure trips to pamper themselves in a less difficultlocation nearby.

人力資源諮詢公司ECA International在流動員工福利報告中發現，很多身處惡劣的生活或工作環境的外派員工——可能在與世隔絕的油田或者靠近戰區的地方工作——獲得的津貼可能是額外的休閒旅遊，好讓他們到附近沒那麼艱苦的地方放鬆一下。

“This type of trip is more common amongst employees in the oil &gas sector … in [countries like] Angola, Algeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria andIndia where around 40-50% of companies provide these trips,” explained ECAInternational marketing manager James Davis.

“這種旅行在石油和天然氣行業，以及安哥拉、阿爾及利亞、巴基斯坦、伊拉克、尼日利亞和印度等國家比較多見，那裏約有40%至50%的公司都會提供這樣的福利。”ECA International營銷經理詹姆斯·戴維斯(James Davis)說。

While the average is about one to twoadditional paid vacations per year, Davis said, it can be as high as aquarterly allowance.

戴維斯表示，雖然平均每年會提供1至2次這樣的額外假期，但最多也可能達到每季度一次。

Smog alert!

霧霾警報！

Coca-Cola is reported to offer somethingcalled an “environmental hardship allowance”for employees whorelocate to China. That hazy label addresses an acute problem in many Chinesecities: smog.

據報道，可口可樂爲在中國的員工提供了“環境辛勞津貼”，以此應對中國很多城市面臨的嚴重霧霾。

A Coca-Cola spokeswoman was quoted by theAustralian Financial Review in a July 2014 article as saying that the company’s“competitive mobility package includes an environmental allowance for postingsto China” which the AFR report put at 15% on top an employee's base salary,without citing a source for the figure. The company declined to comment aboutthe policy.

《澳大利亞金融評論報》(Australian Financial Review)在2014年7月的一篇文章中援引可口可樂發言人的話稱，該公司擁有“頗具競爭力的流動性補貼，包括針對中國的環境津貼”。該報稱，可口可樂會在員工基本工資的基礎上額外增加15%作爲霧霾補貼，但並未提供數據來源。可口可樂拒絕對這項政策發表評論。

In March 2014 Panasonic, which employsabout 70,000 people in China, became the first major company to announce a “lifestyledifferential allowance”for expats that included coverage for air pollution.

2014年3月，在中國擁有約7萬名員工的松下成爲首家宣佈爲外派員工提供“生活方式變化津貼”的大型企業，空氣污染也涵蓋在內。

“We’ve seen some companies in China that did a full increase in payfor the entire year, while others have done more temporary increases forperiods when the smog is particularly bad,” said Parakatil of Mercer. Both thefull-year increases and the temporary ones (typically allocated proportionallyon a monthly basis) can be has high as 15% of an employees base salary, butmany more companies simply pay for home installation of air and waterpurification systems, according to Parakatil. Most companies guard theparticulars of such arrangements for fear of embarrassing the Chinesegovernment.

“我們發現，有些中國公司會提升全年的薪酬，還有一些則會在霧霾特別嚴重時臨時上調薪酬。”美世諮詢的帕拉卡迪爾說。無論是全年加薪還是暫時提薪(通常按月發放)，最高都能達到員工基本工資的15%，但還有更多的公司只是爲員工支付家用空氣和自來水淨化系統的費用。多數企業都會將這類信息對外保密，擔心因此令中國政府感到難堪。

Studies show that expats are increasinglyconcerned about the link between exposure to high levels of smog andrespiratory illnesses like asthma, lung cancer and emphysema. A recent surveyby the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing found that nearly half offoreign companies operating in China report air quality concerns as drivingsenior executives away. Thus environmental hardship allowances have become avital tool for global corporations to solve their problems recruiting andretaining talent in Chinese (and more recently, Indian) cities.

研究顯示，外派員工越來越擔心暴露在高濃度霧霾中可能引發哮喘、肺癌和肺氣腫等呼吸系統疾病。北京美國商會最近的一項調查顯示，約有接近一半在華經營的外企將空氣質量列爲迫使高級管理人員離開的主要原因。因此，環境艱辛津貼已經成爲跨國企業在中國招募和留住人才的重要工具，印度最近也出現了同樣的情況。

An ethical dilemma

倫理困境

Davis, though, questions enticing people totake risks by compensating them. ECA International doesn’t advise theuse of “danger pay”or similar allowances.

但戴維斯卻對這種通過補償吸引人們冒險的方式提出質疑。ECA International不建議使用“風險津貼”或類似的補貼。

“From an ethical point of view … there is the moral conflictincentivising staff to take dangerous assignments,” he said. “On the legal sideof things, by explicitly paying ‘danger money’ you’re acknowledging that you’re[doing this].” That could prove problematic if someone decides to take legalaction over an incident.

“從倫理角度來講……鼓勵人們接受危險的工作存在道德衝突。”他說，“從法律角度來看，如果明確支付‘風險津貼’，就相當於承認你知道自己在做這樣的事情。”如果有人發生意外後提起訴訟，這就會造成問題。

For many in-demand workers, however, therisks are only worth it if there are tangible rewards.

但對很多面對這種機會的員工來說，如果能夠得到實實在在的獎勵，還是值得爲此冒險的。