Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on February 23, 2009June 27, 2018

Ford, UAW Reach Pact on Retiree Health Trust Fund

Ford Motor Co. and the United Auto Workers have reached an agreement on changes to the union’s health care trust for retirees.


The proposed modifications to the voluntary employees’ beneficiary association, or VEBA, were not disclosed. The VEBA agreement follows a tentative agreement reached February 15 between Ford and the UAW on labor costs, benefits and operating practices.


Ford said Monday, February 23, that the agreement allows the company to make up to 50 percent of its scheduled payments into the VEBA using Ford common stock.


“We will consider each payment when it is due and use our discretion in determining whether cash or stock makes sense at the time, balancing our liquidity needs and preserving shareholder value,” Joe Hinrichs, Ford group vice president of global manufacturing and labor affairs, said in a statement.


The new agreements with the UAW “allow Ford to become competitive with foreign automakers’ U.S. manufacturing operations and are critical to our efforts to operate through the current deep economic downturn without accessing government loans and continue to fully invest in our One Ford product plan,” Hinrichs said.


Hinrichs said Ford will continue to work with all of its stakeholders to restructure the industry and improve Ford’s competitive position.


“The modifications will protect jobs for UAW members by ensuring the long-term viability of the company,” UAW president Ron Gettelfinger said in a statement.


The UAW will review the proposed changes to local union leadership at a meeting early this week. UAW-represented Ford employees must approve any changes to the contract. Proposed changes to the VEBA also require court approval, the UAW said.


Filed by Amy Wilson of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


Posted on February 23, 2009June 27, 2018

Some Idled Employees May See Workers’ Comp as Income Spinner

Jobs reports released in early February underscore a growing challenge risk managers face: managing workers’ compensation losses in the midst of layoffs that can exacerbate claim frequency and severity.


Employees off the job due to a legitimate injury now may be more motivated to extend the life of their workers’ comp benefits if their jobs may soon be eliminated or already have been downsized.


Despite economic conditions, though, most employees will resolve their claims as soon as is medically possible if employers treat them fairly and with respect, said Dave Dolnick, risk manager for La Mesa, California, construction company The Brady Cos.


But job losses also are pressing workers, and some may be motivated to extend a claim, Dolnick and others agree.


“What we have observed, both somewhat with our own [limited] claims and also in chatting with … peers, is that claims that are otherwise legitimate become much more difficult to resolve in this kind of a market, when the injured worker doesn’t have the option of a job to go back to,” Dolnick said.


Some employees with diminished employment prospects will be less responsive to return-to-work efforts that otherwise would help render them fit for their old job or capable of working for a new employer if a job were available, several observers agree.


“There is a [claims] cost,” said Darrell Brown, workers’ comp practice lead for Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. in Long Beach, California. “If someone knows that their job is going away, or has been eliminated, the motivation to return to work is much less.”


Other laid-off employees may reopen old claims or file new ones for soft-tissue injuries, back pain and other ailments as an alternative income source, depending on state statutes of limitation for bringing claims, said Pam Ferrandino, executive vice president and casualty practice leader for Willis HRH in New York.


New and reopened claims could be a particular issue as unemployment benefits expire in regions where several employers have shut down factories and alternate employment opportunities no longer exist, Ferrandino and others said.


Data compiled by the New York-based Insurance Information Institute and released last week show that during the past four recessions, workplace injury incidence rates actually have declined.


But today’s recession is the longest since 1981, and risk managers, brokers and third-party administrators say a more severe downturn is likely to include more workers’ comp claimants among the employees losing their jobs.


A risk manager in the construction industry said that for the first time in two decades, her company has terminated workers’ comp claimants. They were among a substantial portion of her company’s nationwide workforce let go, said the risk manager, who asked not to be identified.


Close to 600,000 jobs were lost in January, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 16 years.


So far, workers’ comp claims have not spiked at Fleetwood Enterprises, although the recreational vehicle and manufactured home builder has closed several plants, said Bill McMahon, the Riverside, California-based company’s risk manager.


Fleetwood’s programs for reducing claims severity and frequency are paying off. But if the recession continues, McMahon said he expects that costs for open claims will climb, especially in regions where Fleetwood and other employers have closed plants and few jobs are available.


The potential for new claims and workers’ comp cost increases when jobs disappear from an entire community can be substantial enough that risk managers will need to collaborate with the corporation’s CFO to include those expenses in the overall charge for shuttering operations, said Mark J. Noonan, managing director and workers’ compensation practice leader at Marsh Inc. in New York.


“You have to put all that into the pot,” along with other expenses such as severance benefits, Noonan said. “You don’t want to surprise your CFO with, ‘Oh, by the way, we need to book another $20 million for potential comp claims.’ ”


Meanwhile, risk managers—even as some of their own staff may be facing termination under corporate budget cuts—are being more vigilant than usual for claims that are not legitimate or can be terminated if medically appropriate, several sources said.


“There is definitely an ‘on-alert’ kind of behavior [along with] the application of greater investigation” into claims, said Betsy Robinson, vice president of product management and market analysis for Intracorp, a Philadelphia-based unit of Cigna Corp.


Employers are undertaking more descriptive documentation of job functions, said Kimberly George, vice president and managed care practice lead for Sedgwick in Chicago. The documentation can help show physicians that an employee is physically capable of returning to his or her job, even if that job now may have to be with another employer.


“It’s probably a more important practice today as we work on those claims that are impacted by not having a job to return to and making sure the physician has a good understanding of what that job is,” George said.


Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on February 20, 2009June 27, 2018

Cut From Stimulus, E-Verify Likely to Resurface in Immigration Debate

When a bill weighs in at $787 billion, it’s hard to imagine anything being left out. But a provision that would have required companies receiving stimulus funding to sign up for a government-run electronic worker verification system was scuttled during House-Senate negotiations.


The measure could have increased the number of firms, especially in the construction industry, using the system. About 87,000 employers have signed up for the voluntary program, known as E-Verify, which checks new-hire information from I-9 forms against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases.


The author of the bill that established E-Verify was angry that it did not survive in the stimulus package.


“There is no assurance that the jobs created will go to American workers,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, said on the House floor. He asserted that E-Verify was “stripped out of the bill without discussion or debate.”


Employer groups were relieved by the outcome. They have long criticized the system for being inaccurate, inefficient and unable to detect identity theft.


Despite its stimulus demise, E-Verify will remain on the congressional radar. The program is due to expire March 6. A separate provision that would have reauthorized it also was struck from the stimulus package.


But Congress will probably find a way to maintain the program until it can be addressed as part of a larger immigration bill, according to Hector Chichoni, a partner at Epstein Becker Green in Miami.


“It was removed [from stimulus] because it is going to come up in the same or similar form later in the year,” Chichoni said.


E-Verify proponents say the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent. Employer advocates argue that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.


After the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the Bush administration made E-Verify—and work-site enforcement generally—a central component of its battle against illegal immigration.


The Obama administration is likely to continue to support E-Verify, according to Chichoni.


“It’s the best the government can do,” Chichoni said. “They will never abandon this.”


But the government will now take a different approach to enforcement.


“They’re changing the strategy,” Chichoni said. “They’re going after the employer rather than going after the undocumented.”


It’s hard to predict when Washington will turn its attention to immigration reform. It was highlighted by Senate Democratic leaders as one of the items at the top of their agenda.


But the collapsing economy has been the focus of Capitol Hill so far. In the meantime, it’s not just E-Verify that will be in limbo. Technology companies probably won’t get the increase in employment visas that they covet.


Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel, expects that piecemeal immigration concerns will have to wait until Congress takes on comprehensive reform.


“It will all be dealt with at once,” he told reporters after a speech in Washington in early February. “I don’t see [immigration] being a big priority. They have bigger fish to fry.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on February 20, 2009June 27, 2018

Things Go Better With Cash-Balance Plans Coca-Cola Adopts New Pension

The Coca-Cola Co. is adopting a cash-balance pension plan for new and current employees.


Under the cash-balance plan design, employees will receive annual age-weighted credits equal to a percentage of pay. Those credits will start at 3 percent of pay and increase with age. Employees’ cash-balance plan accounts also will be credited with interest, though Coca-Cola hasn’t yet decided on the interest-rate formula it will use.


The plan will be offered to most U.S. salaried and hourly employees hired as of January 1, 2010. Current employees now in Coca-Cola’s traditional $1.5 billion final average pay plan will earn future benefits in the new plan starting January 1, 2010.


Coca-Cola’s move to a cash-balance plan comes at a time when many major employers are phasing out their defined-benefit plans and offering only defined-contribution plans. But Coca-Cola executives rejected such an approach.


“Offering a secure and risk-free benefit to employees is very important to us,” said Sue Fleming, director of global benefits at Atlanta-based Coca-Cola.


The appeal of a cash-balance plan for an increasingly mobile workforce is that benefits, which are based on career average pay, accrue faster than they do in traditional plans, in which employees have to work many years before accruing significant benefits, Fleming said.


Coca-Cola, which last year reported $31.9 billion in operating revenue—up from $28.9 billion in 2007—is the third major employer to adopt a cash-balance plan since 2006, when Congress passed the Pension Protection Act.


That broad pension funding reform law included provisions that let employers set up new cash-balance plans without fear of facing litigation. Several dozen employers who had established cash-balance plans years ago were later sued for age discrimination.


“The PPA took off the handcuffs of employers that wanted to use the plans,” Fleming said.


The other big employers that adopted cash balance since the enactment of PPA are: MeadWestvaco Corp., a Richmond, Virginia, paper packaging and office products company; SunTrust Banks Inc. of Atlanta; and Dow Chemical Co. of Midland, Michigan.


In addition, package delivery giant FedEx Corp. of Memphis, Tennessee, expanded an existing cash-balance plan to cover more employees.


The Atlanta office of benefits consultant Watson Wyatt Worldwide worked with Coca-Cola in designing the cash-balance plan.


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Appeals Court Rules Diabetes a Disability

Being an insulin-dependent diabetic can be considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal appeals court has ruled.


The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, declined to rule whether the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 would apply retroactively to the case of the diabetic metallurgy specialist who sued his former employer under the ADA.


The San Francisco-based panel ruled last week that a district court was wrong to grant summary judgment to Larry Rohr’s one-time employer—the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District—when Rohr claimed to be protected under the ADA. According to the appellate court judges, Rohr had “presented a genuine issue of material fact that his diabetes substantially limited his major life activity of eating and thus raised a genuine issue as to whether he was ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the ADA.”


Rohr was diagnosed as an insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic in 2000 while working for Tempe, Arizona-based Salt River. In 2003, he learned that he had been assigned to work for five to six weeks on a project that required him to travel away from his office. As his condition was deteriorating, he informed his employer that despite following what he called a “very demanding regimen” to control his illness, he needed further accommodations, including not being required to engage in overnight travel, to manage his diabetes.


Both Rohr’s physician and a physician employed by Salt River agreed that Rohr’s travel should be restricted. In 2004, Salt River informed Rohr that his restrictions, including the ban on overnight travel, were preventing him from carrying out the essential functions of his job and gave him the choice of finding another position within Salt River that would be consistent with his limitations; applying for disability payments; or taking early retirement.


Rohr asked his doctor to lift the travel ban, which the doctor did. Salt River’s doctor, however, thought the restriction should remain in place even though he had initially opposed the move. Rohr then applied for disability benefits and brought suit against Salt River, claiming that he had been discriminated against on the basis of both disability and age, although he dropped the age discrimination action.


A district court granted Salt River summary judgment in 2006, and Rohr appealed. The appellate court panel found that being insulin-dependent can qualify as a disability. It also found that Rohr was a “qualified” individual—one who can perform the essential functions of the job—under the ADA. The district had found that Rohr was not qualified for his position because he had not obtained a required annual respirator certification, which Rohr held was discriminatory in and of itself. The panel remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration.


In its opinion, the appeals panel said that the ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, “would provide additional support” for Rohr’s claims. The ADA Amendments Act instructs courts to read the ADA broadly. But since Rohr had provided “sufficient evidence” that he was covered under the ADA, “we therefore need not decide whether the ADAAA, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2009, applies retroactively to Rohr’s case.”


Filed by Mark A. Hofmann of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Funding Plummets for GM’s U.S. Pension Plans

General Motors Corp.’s U.S. pension assets plunged to $84.2 billion as of December 31, making its two plans combined 87 percent funded, versus 124 percent funded a year earlier, according to a preliminary estimate the Detroit-based company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The plans had total assets of $104.1 billion as of December 31, 2007.


GM “may need to make significant contributions to the U.S. hourly pension plan in the 2013-2014 time frame,” the filing states. It estimates the amount at $5.9 billion in 2013 and $12.3 billion in 2014. No pension contributions are expected to be needed before then, although it could prepay some of those contributions ahead of time, said Julie Gibson, GM spokeswoman. “I don’t think we will make any decision on that [prepaying] anytime soon,” she added.


The funding level of General Motors’ hourly plan fell to 83 percent as of December 31, from 120 percent a year earlier. Its assets fell 20.4 percent in 2008 to $55.5 billion. Its salaried plan’s funding level fell to 95 percent from 132 percent, and its assets fell 16.1 percent to $28.7 billion.


“General Motors is currently analyzing its pension funding strategies,” the filing states. “In view of significant negative asset returns in 2008 for most U.S. corporate pension plans, it is likely that the majority of U.S. corporations will re-evaluate funding strategies for their defined-benefit plans,” the filing states.


GM projects it would substantially repay the proposed $18 billion in federal loans by 2013 and repay a $16.5 billion federal preferred equity investment by 2017, “assuming no U.S. pension contributions are required,” the filing states.


But it also could request an additional $12 billion in federal loans, which would bring the total in loans to $30 billion, the filing states. “Additional financial support might be required in 2013 and 2014 if GM has to make contributions to our U.S. pension funds,” the filing states.


The “weakening financial markets have significantly reduced the value of GM’s large pension fund assets,” the filing states. GM pension “asset values have declined significantly over the last six months, especially so over the last quarter” of 2008.


Filed by Barry B. Burr of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.
 

Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Investment Yields Keep Pension Funding Levels Low

Although higher bond yields in January helped to trim funding shortfalls in defined-benefit pension plans, most U.S. pension plans remained significantly underfunded, pension experts at two consultancies report.


The discount rates used by most U.S. corporations to estimate their defined-benefit pension plan liabilities grew last month in response to a 0.75 percent increase in long bond indexes, which were largely driven by increased Treasury bond yields, according to New York-based Mercer.


However, pension assets were still down significantly due to lower investment yields.


The Mercer report estimated that U.S. defined-benefit pension plans are about 75 percent funded, based on a funding deficit of $380 billion. It is based on an analysis of Standard & Poor’s 1,500 companies.


A separate report issued by Watson Wyatt Worldwide put the funding level at 74 percent based on a shortfall of $366 billion. The report is based on 450 of the Fortune 1,000 companies.


Pension funding levels are determined by comparing the value of plan assets with liabilities.


Alan Glickstein, a senior retirement consultant in Watson Wyatt’s Dallas office, noted that tougher funding requirements—mandated by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which went into effect last year—may also have contributed to the ominous calculations.


“Although no recession comes at a good time, this recession couldn’t have come at a worse time for pension plan sponsors,” he said.


At year-end 2007, 46 percent of defined-benefit pension plans were funded at between 90 and 110 percent, and only 5 percent had funding levels between 50 and 70 percent, according to Watson Wyatt.


By contrast, at the end of 2008, 5 percent of plans were funded between 90 and 110 percent, and 61 percent were funded at between 50 and 70 percent.



Filed by Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Stop Chronic Misbehavior?

Dear Beleaguered:

There are definitely options when it comes to using pre-employment assessments that can help to identify individuals who are likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors.

These assessments fall into two major categories: overt integrity tests and personality-based integrity tests. Overt integrity tests commonly come right out and ask the applicant to answer questions about drug use, stealing, absenteeism and other things that have been shown to be directly related to workplace “incidents.”

Believe it or not, these tests do work, and there is a good bit of evidence to support their effectiveness. These tests work best for helping to screen out those individuals who are the most unsuited and most likely to have problems. While overt tests do work, they can be somewhat unfriendly to applicants since they ask sensitive questions and may send a message to the applicant that the organization does not trust them.

Personality-based integrity tests evaluate certain personality traits that have been shown to relate to counterproductive work behaviors and incidents in the workplace. These tests usually do not ask questions that are obviously about stealing or absence. Instead, they generally involve questions that focus on the trait of conscientiousness, as this has been shown to be a strong predictor of things such as theft and absence.

Which type of test is better?

The answer to that depends on your specific situation. Things such as the type of job, the specific problems you are having and your existing hiring process are all things to consider. I strongly encourage anyone evaluating a test to actually take that test and view their results. In this situation, I would make sure to take some examples of both an overt and a personality-based test and see which one feels most appropriate for your situation.

SOURCE: Charles A. Handler, Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, February 2, 2009

LEARN MORE: Please read Job Candidate Assessment Tests Go Virtual for additional perspective.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce Where Can I Find the Best Information to Begin a Compliance Audit?

Dear Overwhelmed:

Because retirement-plan administration becomes more complex every day, regular audits are well worth the effort. The Department of Labor, through its Employee Benefit Security Administration, provides a number of online tools that may be helpful in developing an audit.

These include a reporting and disclosure guide and information about fee disclosures, fiduciary responsibilities, qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) and many other topics. They can be found at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/.

Retirement plans also are subject to extensive regulations under the Internal Revenue Code, making it important to review plan operations from that perspective. Online tools, such as audit guidelines for examiners and tips on corrections and resources, can be found at www.irs.gov by clicking the link on “Retirement Plans Community.”

Even with the tools provided by the agencies, ensuring your plans are fully compliant is a difficult technical challenge. Some plan advisors have experienced staff and well-developed technical services, should you decide that the task requires help from outside your organization.

SOURCE: Deborah A. Powell, The Segal Co., Washington, February 12, 2009

LEARN MORE: Among a string of developments in the fast-changing arena of retirement plans is this: Participants in 401(k) plans now can sue their employers for losses.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Retain People Despite Being Unable to Raise Pay

Dear In the Doldrums:

Many companies are facing the difficult decision regarding the tradeoff between staying within lower budgets and rewarding employees to maintain morale and motivation. While doing performance reviews without pay increases is not ideal, there are ways you can communicate this without sending the wrong message and creating turmoil among your staff. Some important points to consider are:

  • Don’t hide the truth. Be open and honest about your current economic condition, and explain to your employees why pay increases are not being offered. If you hide the real reason, they may begin to assume another rationale was used to make the decision, and feel personal blame or resentment toward other members or parties within the company.
  • Be sure you place extra focus on praising each individual for their positive efforts and responsibilities they handled successfully. For those who have areas where improvement is needed, be ready with a detailed development plan that you, as their manager, will provide and/or coordinate. This will position the company as one that values personal and professional development and is willing to provide the time and resources to help each individual boost their performance.
  • Focus on the company’s future plans for rewarding their efforts. A goal-driven bonus, such as a certain level in sales, a specific number of outbound calls or company profits, will likely motivate them to work toward that goal. Not only will you postpone the expense, but because it is based on performance, it will occur only if performance increases, creating a true win-win situation.
  • Identify your top performers, or those employees who you feel are most important to the company’s future success, and consider sharing a more promising approach that involves higher rewards for these individuals. They will not only be the most disappointed about the news of no pay increases, but you also need to be most concerned about this group’s morale and continued commitment to the company.

While you may not be able to completely avoid any negative feelings or signs of disappointment, companies can take specific action to communicate a positive message during performance reviews. The important thing to remember, no matter what approach your company takes, is to keep an optimistic attitude and position yourself as a leader.

Giving your employees the feeling that you are unsure about the future of the company will be the most significant factor in an increase in turnover following this situation.

SOURCE: Jim Robins, TTI Performance Systems Ltd., Scottsdale, Arizona, January 20, 2009

LEARN MORE: Companies across varying sectors are encountering similar challenges.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 … Page 416 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress