Author: Site Staff

Dear Creative Solutions:



When it comes to priorities, controlling health care costs tops employers’ benefits-related agendas. Many employers find themselves having to make changes to the plan’s design at the 11th hour to address a large rate increase. Sometimes the employer must accept the increase and share it with the participants. Unfortunately, these solutions are temporary and do not distinguish among low, medium and high users of the plan.

Flexible-benefit plans sought to mitigate this same predicament back in the 1980s and 1990s. Although not a new concept, flex plans are making a comeback as the composition of the U.S. workforce continues to change, and as employees feel the pinch of increased premiums. With a flex program, the employer can adopt a “defined contribution” approach to benefits, deciding at the start of each plan year how much it will spend on benefits that year. Then, the employer makes available various levels of coverage at various prices. At open enrollment, employees can either tailor their benefits and contributions to fit their own needs or choose to receive cash compensation instead.

More recently, employers have begun introducing consumerism and consumer-driven plans that also can be viewed as an attempt at equitable distribution of health care dollars. In one model, the employer allocates a specific dollar amount to a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) for each covered person (perhaps $1,000). The account is used to reimburse the first $1,000 of medical expenses before a “high” deductible kicks in and a traditional medical plan is layered on top. For big users of medical care, the account balance will be zero at the end of the year. For low users, accounts may be used to reimburse over-the-counter drugs, dental, vision or other qualified expenses, or the person may roll the balance to accumulate in future years.

Perhaps a hybrid approach would have the employer offering more than one high deductible option as part of a consumer-driven health offering (perhaps $1,500 and $3,000). People who don’t use medical care as much would be able to buy into the $3,000 deductible option at a lower contribution rate.

Regardless of what form they take, health plan designs that promote consumerism, make employees more aware of costs, and foster equitable treatment of all employees will play a growing role in employers’ health care cost management efforts.

SOURCE: Elizabeth A. Dudek, Vice President, The Segal Company, Washington, D.C., Sept. 22, 2003.

LEARN MORE: Please read ourFour Questions About Consumer-Driven Health Plans.

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.

Companies wishing to develop an in-house domestic violence policy might want to take a look at this document provided by the Corporate  Alliance to End Partner Violence.

Introduction
    (Company Name) seeks to provide a work environment free from violence or threats of violence against individuals, groups, or employees, or threats against company property-including partner violence that may occur on our property. This policy requires that all individuals on company premises or while representing the Company conduct themselves in a professional manner consistent with good business practices and in absolute conformity with non-violence principles and standards.

Definition
    For purposes of this policy, workplace violence is defined as a single behavior or series of behaviors which constitute actual or potential assault, battery, harassment, intimidation, threats or similar actions, attempted destruction, or threats to Company or personal property; which occur in a Company workplace, at a Company work location, or while an individual is engaged in Company business.

Company Response
    (Company Name) strictly prohibits use of violence or threats of violence in the workplace and views such actions very seriously. The possession of weapons in the workplace, threats, threatening or menacing behavior, stalking, or acts of violence against employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on (Company Name) property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy will lead to disciplinary actions up to and including termination of employment and the involvement of appropriate law enforcement authorities as needed.

    Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on (Company Name) premises shall be removed from the property as quickly as safety permits, and may be asked to remain away from (Company Name) premises pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident. People who commit these acts outside the workplace but which impact the workplace are also violating this policy and will be dealt with appropriately.

    When threatening behavior is exhibited or acts of violence are committed, (Company Name) will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, evaluation by (Company Name) Employee Assistance Professionals and/or external professionals, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person/persons involved.

    No existing (Company Name) policy, practice, or procedure should be interpreted to prohibit decisions designed to prevent a threat from being carried out, a violent act from occurring, or a life-threatening situation from developing.

Reporting Procedure
    (Company Name) personnel are responsible for notifying the designated management representative of any threats which they have witnessed, received, or have been told that another person has witnessed or received-including those related to partner violence. Even without an actual threat, personnel should also report any behavior they have witnessed which they regard as threatening or violent, when that behavior is job related or might be carried out on a company controlled site or is connected to company employment. Employees are responsible for making this report regardless of the relationship between the individual who initiated the threat or threatening behavior and the person or persons who were threatened or were the focus of the threatening behavior. If the designated representative is not available, personnel should report the threat to their supervisor or another member of the management team.

    (Company Name) understands the sensitivity of the information requested and has developed confidentiality procedures, which recognize and respect the privacy of the reporting employee(s). Consistent with the values of (Company Name), people should take action in ways that maintain respect and dignity for individuals while acting in an accountable and swift manner to address the situation.

Protective or Restraining Orders
    All individuals who apply for and obtain a protective or restraining order which lists company locations as being protected areas, must provide to the designated management representative a copy of the petition and order.

Designated Management Representative
  Name:

Title:

Department:

Telephone:

Location:

Partner Violence and the Workplace
    (Company Name) recognizes impact of partner violence on the workplace. Partner violence is defined by (Company Name) as abusive behavior occurring between two people in an intimate relationship. It may include physical violence, sexual, emotional, and psychological intimidation, verbal abuse, stalking, and economic control.

    (Company Name) is committed to heightening awareness of partner violence and providing guidance for employees and management to address the occurrence of partner violence and its effects on the workplace.

    (Company Name) intends to make assistance available to employees involved in partner violence. This assistance may include: confidential means for coming forward for help, resource and referral information, special considerations at the workplace for employee safety, work schedule adjustments, or leave necessary to obtain medical, counseling, or legal assistance, and workplace relocation (if available). In responding to partner violence, (Company Name) will maintain appropriate confidentiality and respect for the rights of the employee involved.

    (Company Name) intends to publish, maintain, and post in locations of high visibility, a list of resources for survivors and perpetrators of partner violence.

    (Company Name) will not deny job benefits or other programs to employees based solely on partner violence related problems. When employees confide that a job performance or conduct problem is related to partner violence, in addition to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action consistent with company policy and procedure, a referral for appropriate assistance should be made to the employee.

Leave Options for Employees Experiencing Threats of Violence
    (Company Name) will make every effort to assist an employee experiencing threats of violence. If an employee needs to be absent from work due to threats of violence, the length of the absence will be determined by the individual’s situation through collaboration with the employee and (fill in appropriate title(s) for your company.) [Examples may include: supervisor/manager, Human Resources representative, union representative, etc.]

    Employees, managers, and supervisors (or appropriate titles for your company) are encouraged to first explore paid leave options that can be arranged to help the employee cope with the situation without having to take a formal unpaid leave of absence. Depending on circumstances, this may include:

• Arranging flexible work hours so the employee can seek protection, go to court, look for new housing, enter counseling, arrange child care, etc.
• Considering use of sick time, job sharing, compensatory time, paid leave, informal unpaid leave, etc., particularly if requests are for relatively short periods.

Suggested Procedures for Safety and Protection of Employees Experiencing Threats of Violence

Employee

• Encourage the employee to save any threatening e-mail or voice-mail messages. These can potentially be used for future legal action, or can serve as evidence that an existing restraining order was violated.
• The employee should obtain a restraining order that includes the workplace, and keep a copy on hand at all times. The employee may consider providing a copy to the police, his/her supervisor, security, or human resources [or appropriate individuals/departments within your company].
• The employee should provide a picture of the perpetrator to reception areas and/or security.
• The employee should identify an emergency contact person should the employer be unable to contact the victim.
• If an absence is deemed appropriate, the employee should be clear about the plan to return to work. While absent, the employee should maintain contact with the appropriate Human Resources personnel

Employer

• Arrange the victim to have priority parking near the building.
• Have calls screened, transferring harassing calls to security-or have the employee’s name removed from automated phone directories.
• Limit information about employees disclosed by phone. Information that would help locate a victim or indicates a time of return should not be provided.
• Relocate the employee’s workspace to a more secure area or another site.
• The employer should have trained EAP professionals or external professionals assist the employee with development of a safety plan
• Work with local law enforcement personnel, and encourage employees to do so regarding situations outside the workplace.

Source:Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence. CAEPV provides this sample for the SOLE PURPOSE of guidance in development of their own policies. Any policy developed by a company should always be with the advice of that company’s legal counsel.

A Canadian Wal-Mart store may become “the first affiliate of the retail giant to be unionized,” according to the Associated Press.

A labor board in Quebec accredited a union in the Saguenay area, a couple of hours from Quebec City, to represent the workers.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada says that Wal-Mart is likely to fight the ruling. According to the AP, in the past, “Wal-Mart has cited Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its legal challenge of the Saskatchewan Labor Relations Board’s authority.” The company, in other words, isn’t happy with Canada’s laws regarding the forming of unions. An August 20 hearing will be held to finalize the makeup of the union. It’s also possible that Wal-Mart could choose to close the store.

Michael J. Fraser, the food worker’s national director for Canada, tells the CCNMatthews wire service that “What’s happened in Quebec can happen at any Wal-Mart store in North America.” This union drive, he says, “is only the first of more to come.”

G lobally, insider CEOs leaving the company left a positive impact of three percentage points on shareholder returns in their wake. In contrast, when an outside-hire left the top slot, shareholder returns typically fell by half a percentage point as a result of his tenure.

The same trend holds true in North America, Europe and Japan.

Source:CEO Succession 2003: The Perils of “Good” Governance by Chuck Lucier, Rob Schuyt and Junichi Handa; a Booz Allen Hamilton Group annual survey.

A proposal to save about $120,000 by encouraging some city employees to use generic drugs instead of name-brand drugs is causing an intense debate in the city of Milwaukee.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, what’s causing so much consternation is that the benefits change would only apply to managerial employees. Many city employees are union members, and the union doesn’t want to change the current benefits outlined in its contract. Milwaukee Alderman Jim Bohl is arguing that the city could save a lot more money if union members also ponied up some more money for prescriptions. According to the Journal Sentinel, Bohl ripped into city benefits manager Mike Brady for not consulting enough with aldermen when crafting the proposal.

Right now, managers who are in the Milwaukee health plan have a $4 co-pay for each generic drug prescription and an $8 co-pay for name-brand drugs.

The new proposal would work on a percentage basis. Managers would pay 20 percent of the cost and the city would pay the other 80 percent, according to the Journal Sentinel. A $15 generic drug, for example, would cost a manager $3, and a $90 name-brand drug would require a $18 co-pay.

The worldwide market for outsourcing human resources will grow 21 percent annually, reaching $7 billion by 2008, according to market research firm NelsonHall. While Europe and other non-U.S. regions will grow at a faster rate than the United States, most of the outsourcing money will still be spent in North America in 2008.

Partial outsourcing initiatives–such as payroll outsourcing or benefits outsourcing–will grow at a rate of approximately 8 to 11 percent.

Other findings from the study:

• Organizations outsourcing multiple human resources processes expect to save between 20 and 40 percent, but are as focused on better results and better metrics as they are on saving money.

  
  

• The manufacturing and financial services industries will continue to be industries ripe for outsourcing. Retail and government may be next in line.

  
  

• Exult/Hewitt leads the North American market for full-scale human resources outsourcing (not partial outsourcing, where ADP has been a long-time leader). Accenture HR Services and ACS are also major players.

  
  

The human resources outsourcing market is experiencing “acquisition fever,” with sixteen major acquisitions between April 2003 and April 2004, and it’s not likely to let up.

Dear Tiptoeing:



First, remember that 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.

OK, with that out of the way: Many companies, as a part of their employee policies and procedures, address the issue of sharing confidential company information with unauthorized parties. In fact, confidentiality is so sensitive that in many policies, a confidentiality breach results in immediate termination. If you have a policy, then it would be just a matter of following it, assuming you have credible proof that a violation has occurred.

In the absence of such a policy, you may revert to your regular discipline policy (again, presuming you have one). Many companies have progressive policies that start with a verbal warning, escalate to written warnings and, finally, mandate either suspension or termination for continued violations. However, in the area of confidentiality, you may not want to give the employee another chance to violate, which is why many discipline policies have immediate-termination clauses for acts of “gross misconduct.” You would have to determine, with appropriate counsel, the severity of the act and whether it constitutes gross misconduct.

In either case, be sure you have solid proof of a violation, rather than the hearsay of other employees. Then confront the employee as soon as possible. Document your conversations and set clear, written boundaries for future action, so that there is no ambiguity as to your expectations about conduct or the consequences of violations.

Meet with the employee and point out the issue and its severity, noting that continued violations will result in progressive discipline.

In some cases, he may be a valued employee who nonetheless has this one fault. Or perhaps he holds a key position in the organization. You could try restricting the employee’s access to confidential information. If that isn’t possible, try to find another position within the company that doesn’t involve access to sensitive information. If neither of those is workable, you may have to suffer the short-term loss of letting the person go, knowing that the company will be much more stable in the long run.

SOURCE: Bill Dickmeyer, CEBS, Madison Human Resources Consulting, LLC, Madison, Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2003.

LEARN MORE: Please readWhat to Do When a Disciplined Employee Tells Her Story.



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.

Dear Down in the Dumps:



Let’s see here…your goals are not your own and clearly you aren’t looking to make them your own. Yet obviously you feel the frustration of having to meet someone else’s goals–goals you don’t buy into. You regret the “disposable” attitude of your firm and include yourself as one of its members (hopefully).

What to do? Either get out of the game or get some skin in it. Whiners can’t lead, and leaders aren’t about to stand still for letting vice presidents or anyone else set goals for them.

You have three choices:

• Make those goals your own and start working to achieve them.
  
• Accept the preset goals, but methodically build a case as to why these goals harm the company financially.
  
• Present compelling data to top management to persuade them that you have a better handle on what the proper time to fill a job should be.
  

Whatever you choose, be prepared to take responsibility for it, because the current cost is way too high. What you do (or don’t do) can negatively affect the careers–and the lives–of a lot of people, yours included. If you assume you’re a partner and act like it, you might still get fired. But you’ll be better off than you are now.

Who interviewed the 21 people who left this year? I doubt it was you. Interview the interviewer and then personally call–after hours–every person who has been gone for 90 days or more. Use a structured technique to elicit what “disposable” really means on a behavioral level. Think about what the firm must do to reduce turnover and retain solid employees. Do what you have to do to sell your idea and begin the change process. Become the company’s “retention champion,” and measure the return on investment of keeping top-notch people.

The answer to your recruiting blahs: change your attitude about making a difference. Your willingness to display a different attitude will challenge you to use and develop business skills, as well as own and embrace clear performance goals as a condition of how you work. In the end, your success is an absolute certainty. You will either prove your skills, determine what you need to learn to improve hiring results, or find that your skills, work ethic and attitude would be better appreciated in another environment. Ask yourself which person you would hire for a senior recruiting position–the one with the blahs or the “new you.”

Oh, and by the way, a recent study by Staffing.org of 1,500 firms indicates the average “time to start” is 70 days.

SOURCE:Gerry Crispin, co-author ofCareerXroads, Kendall Park, New Jersey, Sept. 11, 2003.

LEARN MORE:Curing the Turnover Disease.

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.

The percentage of American employees who chose to change employers has increased for the fourth consecutive quarter, according to Lee Hecht Harrison.

International Communications Research did the study for Lee Hecht Harrison, surveying 1,019 adult Americans by phone.

Bernadette Kenny is executive vice president for Lee Hecht Harrison. “During the depths of the downturn,” she says, “most people who weren’t laid off, or in imminent danger, stayed put. They were grateful to have jobs, even if they weren’t happy in them. Now with the recovery making slow but steady strides and new jobs opening up, more workers seem emboldened to make a move.”

As to whether the proverbial “war for talent” is back, Kenny tells Workforce Management that “I do not think it ever ended.” Sure, says Kenny, there are plenty of people looking for jobs. But employers, she says, are just bringing people on board slowly. “They’re being very, very cautious,” she says, because they realize how expensive it can be if a new hire doesn’t work out. “At some level, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.”

To deal with the increase in job-hopping, Kenny says that senior management needs to make a decision about whether the company wants to be an employer of choice. If so, she says, “that cascades into a lot of decisions.” Companies will want to identify who their talented employees and potential employees are. They also need to groom replacements for the top talent so that the high-potential employees can get promoted.