assignability of health benefits and tuition exchange benefits and assignability

I have been preoccupied of late with the concept of assignability. It is such an interesting idea, and my essays on its history (on the chose in action or on champerty, here and here) have presented the issue starkly for me: why can't we assign certain "benefits" that are ours from our compensation package to other people for whatever cost the market will bear? When I discussed these ideas with a fellow faculty member, he put his finger to his lips, as if to "shush" me. So, please, as you are reading this, "Shush!" Let me briefly probe the issue by taking on two hot-button issues, tuition exchange programs and medical benefits.

Tuition Exchange Programs

One of the little-known benefits offered by most private American colleges/universities (and some public institutions) to dependent children of FT employees (sometimes the employee has to have been on the job for three or five years) is for a tuition "waiver" at participating institutions in this program. A typical explanation of a typical program is this one, from Smith College (MA):

"Smith College is a member of the Tuition Exchange Program, a private consortium of colleges and universities nationwide, which offers tuition exchange scholarships to children of employees of member institutions. Smith College offers the children of eligible employees an opportunity to apply for tuition exchange scholarships for study at other participating institutions... "

That is, your kid, if s/he could get into a member institution, can go to another member institution (details have to be worked out) for free tuition. How much is this benefit worth? Well, depending on the number of children you have and their ambitions, it can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over time. Testimony as to the value of this benefit is easily marshaled. From Fred Moore, President of Buena Vista University (IA):

"We see CIC's [Council on Independent Colleges] Tuition Exchange Program as an important value-added benefit for our faculty and staff. It helps us attract and retain able members of our academic community. We are one of the more active participants in the program and those who have taken advantage of it are very grateful. It has also brought talented young women and men to our campus and thereby enriched the learning experience for all. This is a wonderful program and a key benefit of CIC membership."

Examining the Benefit

So, apart from the fact that the benefit is available only to those with dependent children who want to go to elite schools (does this implicate a fairness issue?), there is the following question. What if my child wants to go into the army or doesn't want to go to college or wants to go to work? Why can't I take the benefit, which would have been available to me, and sell it to someone who would want to use it? Indeed, it would have to be a person who "makes the grade," but as long as this criterion is fulfilled, what is wrong with this? My kid could have used it anyway. Isn't it a "win-win" for everyone? If the benefit was worth $20,000 per year, I could probably sell it for $15,000 or so. I would benefit, the purchaser would benefit and the university, since it already has committed itself to providing place for my child (I could even dress the kid in my child's clothes...) would be no worse off. When I raised this question with another faculty member, he explained, "Well, Bill, the benefit is only good if not too many people make use of it. They count on not many people using it" (he is currently using the benefit). Hm, I thought, sort of a like a right that is worth more the less that people use it. The concern is if the benefit became assignable, it would have to be curtailed, because institutions couldn't afford to offer it. I don't know if this is true; I kind of doubt it. In any case, my question stands.

Medical Benefits

Health benefits connected with employment are a fast-dying benefit, but some places still offer them. Let's assume that I have a health care benefit, one that costs my employer $400 per month to cover me. What about if I am married and my spouse has a low-paying but big benefit job with the state where family health benefits are provided? Why can't I take my medical benefit and sell it to someone? Now, I would agree that there may need to be a limit on who would be covered, but what is wrong with the concept? The medical provider was going to cover me. The university was going to be assessed for the cost of the benefit. Thus, I should be able to do with it as I want. If I can do with my salary what I want (well, it is more accurate to say that it disappears rather quickly, but at least I write the checks), why not the same with benefits? When I raised the question with a collegue, he helpfully said, "Bill, they are different."

Conclusion

The concept behind my proposals is that we are sort of walking bundles of rights and claims/potential claims. Oh, God may love us irrespective of our bundle of claims and we may have inalienable rights and all that, but in fact we have all sorts of assets, tangible and intangible, which we ought to be able to sell to the highest bidder. Just as no one would imagine that an employer would put requirements on how I must spend my salary, why must the benefit, which can be tied to a specific person in its offer, remain tied to the person after the contract is signed?

Just asking...

1599