Author: Site Staff

T he chart below shows the percentage of companies and how they described various goals of their stock option plans.

2000				2002
	Major Goal	Minor Goal	Not a Goal		Major Goal	Minor Goal	Not a Goal
Attracting and retaining talent	80%	17%	3%		76%	2%	4%
Motivating employee performance	74%	21%	5%		78%	18%	5%
Focusing employee attention on organizational performance	65%	26%	9%		72%	20%	8%
Creating a culture of ownership	59%	31%	10%		62%	29%	9%
Educating employees about the business	15%	41%	43%		21%	40%	39%
Conserving cash by substituting options for cash	11%	28%	61%		15%	27%	58%

Reprinted with permission from The State of Employee Stock Options 2002 by WorldatWork in conjunction with Sibson Consulting, a division of The Segal Company, Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

The charts below were provided by Walter F. Stewart of AdvancePCS, and represent one of the only national studies of the cost of depression in the last 20 years.

As a leading hospitality services company in North America, this food and facilities management expert employs 130,000 people to prepare meals, manage buildings, clean offices, maintain grounds, and provide a myriad of other facilities-management services for its clients. The company is big, diversified and growing very quickly.

Business Challenge
    With thousands upon thousands of people at the heart of every service this company provides, it faced a number of recruiting challenges. Even if associate turnover was tightly controlled, the sheer number of employees needed clearly demanded an ongoing and efficient system of talent replacement. Moreover, the company’s mandate to become a world-class service provider meant it had to find a way to fill both new and vacant positions promptly, effectively and with the best possible candidates.

    Exacerbating the situation were both the vastness and the very nature of its decentralized operation. While some of its far-flung locations employed as many as 400 people at a time, others only called for 10 employees; it was difficult if not impossible for its human resources department to take a centralized, consistent approach to employment processing.

Partnering with Spherion^®
    But that was exactly what this company was determined to do. So, focusing first on its non-food operations, it brought in Spherion and asked it to reengineer the recruitment function so that it would be more efficient and more cost-effective. In addition to reducing cycle time–something it believed would not only cut expenses but increase the potential for revenue generation–the company hoped Spherion would establish a larger pool of management candidates on a regional basis, while balancing internal and external recruitment efforts.

    Working closely with key managers in the firm, Spherion’s top-level multi-disciplinary team worked to reengineer the employment process to yield greater efficiencies, minimize the cost per hire and reduce cycle time. At the same time, the team identified and brought up-to-speed a seasoned recruitment team–within Spherion–that could quickly assimilate client culture while producing qualified candidates.

Measurable Results
    Spherion, from the beginning, had specified measurable objectives through which its client could judge the program’s effectiveness. These included such standard metrics as cycle time (which Spherion brought in 50% faster than the client requirement), internal/external hire ratio (Spherion’s external/internal placement ratio was 1:1) and cost per hire (which was reduced by up to 140%). And, confronting the geographic problem head on, Spherion employed a targeted recruitment strategy focused on attracting talent within specific geographic regions and developing a region-specific candidate database; this reduced average annual relocation spend from $3.5 million to $212,000.

    What made the real difference was a focus-by both the client and Spherion-on the project’s outcome. “From Spherion’s point of view,” says Diane Shelgren, senior vice president of product management for Spherion, “this focus set everything in motion. If we aren’t delivering a significant outcome, we haven’t done our job,” she says. As for the client, “While we might not have anticipated outsourcing our recruitment process,” said its senior vice president of HR, “we knew what we needed to achieve and were willing-and able-to do whatever was necessary to achieve those objectives.”

(c) 2003 Spherion Pacific Enterprises LLC. All rights reserved. Spherion and the Spherion logo are registered service marks of Spherion Pacific Enterprises LLC.

Workforce, July 2003, p. 76 — Subscribe Now!

Deb Mosley understands firsthand the importance of income protectioninsurance. She had just embarked on her career as an attorney for Morrison &Foerster LLP, a California-based law firm, when she was diagnosed with breastcancer at the age of 31.

    In addition to her health, Deb’s immediate concern was for her jobsecurity. Her position as a new employee with the firm was important to her bothin terms of financial support and because she was eager to make her mark as anattorney.

    Deb’s financial worries were eased by income protection benefits shereceived under her employer’s UnumProvident long-term disability policy. HerUnumProvident case manager, Christine Davis, provided practical support byhandling benefits paperwork and physician contacts during Deb’s leave fromwork.

    Christine also provided much-needed emotional support. “Christine was verycompassionate and gave me a place to turn and talk about my experience,” saidDeb.

    Throughout her recovery from a bilateral mastectomy, eight chemotherapyinfusions and 27 radiation treatments, Deb remained determined to return to workas quickly and safely as possible. She succeeded in this goal by rejoining thefirm–incredibly, just ten months after her diagnosis.

    “A motivated individual is the key to any successful return-to-work story,”notes Christine. “Deb told me she wanted to go back to work, and I said, ‘Thenlet’s partner to make it happen.’”

“UnumProvident helped make my return to work possible. Thesupport was above and beyond what I expected.”

    As Deb explains, “UnumProvident helped make my return to work possible. Thesupport was above and beyond what I expected. I wanted my life back and I got it… I’m lucky.”

    The facts of Deb’s story are unique, but her experience with UnumProvidentis not unusual. Hundreds of thousands of individuals turn UnumProvident eachyear during times of disability. The insurance coverage and benefits theyreceive help ease the financial uncertainty resulting from their disability.

    UnumProvident will pay more than $3.6 billion in disability benefits in 2002,and employs 3,000 in its Customer Care Center claims management organization.These professionals include claims paying specialists, physicians representing18 subspecialties, nurse case managers and vocational rehabilitationspecialists. UnumProvident has 30 percent more medically related resources thanits eight closest competitors combined.**

    Clinical expertise and personal attention to each claim form the heart of theorganization. When an individual like Deb reports a disability claim, the claimis “triaged” to specialized impairment units based on type of injury orillness and expected duration.

    UnumProvident’s dedication to claimants’ income protection andreturn-to-work needs translates into the support employers need in today’sbenefits environment. Benefits managers have to do more with fewer resources andneed an insurance partner with the scale to service employees as efficiently andempathetically as possible. Through resources including its unique impairment-based claim management approach, return-to-work program development, and trenddata analysis, UnumProvident helps employers build a more productive workplaceculture that encourages employees to stay at work possible and return to workafter an absence.

**UnumProvident represents multiple insuring subsidiaries of UnumProvidentCorporation and includes the #1 group and individual income protection carriersin the United States according to JHA 2001 Group and Individual DisabilityMarket Surveys, 2002.

*UnumProvident internal competitor analysis, March 2002

Deb Mosley’s employer-provided policy is underwritten by Provident Life andAccident Insurance Company.

Here is a link to Rep. Dreier’s June 3, 2003 testimony about the accounting treatment of stock options.

Here is a link to the Hudson Institute. The Institute’s report examines what the global workforce will look like in the decades to come.

Six years ago when purse strings were tightened at the Merced City School District in California, Ellen Kraft, Risk Management Technician, was forced to look at the district’s ancillary lines. Responsible for 1,200 employees at some 20 different sites, Kraft wanted to be certain that the school district was getting the most for their money when it came to vision care. With assurances that a competitor’s vision plan would offer “almost” the same level of benefits as VSP, at a lower price point, Kraft decided to switch.

    The employee reaction after the switch was far from positive. According to Kraft, the district experienced difficulties with plan providers, customer service was poor and the volume of complaints was considerable. Soon after, Kraft realized the change was not worth it. “We were so used to the exceptional service from VSP. It’s very hard to duplicate that. The members were so dissatisfied and it takes a lot of time to handle employee complaints. I ended up spending a large portion of my time handling employee complaints.”

    Kraft is emphatic that the cost savings was not worth the hassle. “If the price had been a third or a quarter of VSP’s cost, it still wouldn’t have been worth it to switch carriers. I’ve learned a hard lesson, that you get what you pay for.”

International Network Services, Inc.
    Another “boomerang” client, Santa Clara, California based International Network Services, Inc. (INS), a leading vendor-independent provider of global network consulting and security services, became a VSP client in 1998, but switched to another vision carrier after being acquired by Lucent Technologies, Inc. With the switch came a dramatic change for INS employees. Julie Threet, INS’s Director of Compensation and Benefits acknowledges “after the switch, vision became one of the biggest employee issues.”

    Their new vision benefit had a large chain component, and Threet says her employees missed VSP’s large doctor network and member service features. “Our engineers travel all the time based on their assignment and can’t be constricted by chains. They are technical and want to know they can go to a Web site and find a doctor they can see in the city they are in. They want their spouse to have the same experience at home.”

    With the heavy chain emphasis of the new benefit, Threet and her employees were also concerned about the quality of the care they were receiving. “We didn’t like going to the same place to have our eyes checked where we buy laundry detergent.”

    By the time INS was spun-off in 2002, Threet says “VSP was the first plan we knew we wanted to re-instate.”

    Both employees and benefit administrators at INS applauded the change back to VSP. “Based on my experience with VSP, we’ve never had an issue with cost, administration or employee satisfaction. The last thing I want my engineers doing, is tracking down a claim issue instead of billing clients. That is how we generate revenue. Any time the employee spends worrying about their benefits, is valuable time away from their work. With VSP, I don’t have to worry about it.”

“Based on my experience with VSP, we’ve never had an issue with cost, administration or employee satisfaction.”–INS Director of Compensation and Benefits, Julie Threet

Workforce, July 2003, p. 65 — Subscribe Now!

Bob Nelson believes that today’s workforce may be more motivated by apersonal thank-you than a pay raise. He shares his top 10 ways (in order ofpriority) to motivate employees:

1. Personally thank employees for doing a good job. Thank them face-to-face,in writing, or both. Do it early, often, and sincerely.

2. Take the time to meet with and listen to employees–as much as they needor want.

3. Provide specific feedback about performance of the person, the department,and the organization.

4. Strive to create a work environment that is open, trusting, and fun.Encourage new ideas and initiative.

5. Provide information on how the company makes and loses money, upcomingproducts and strategies for competing in the marketplace, and how the personfits into the overall plan.

6. Involve employees in decisions, especially as those decisions affect them.

7. Provide employees with a sense of ownership in their work and workenvironment.

8. Recognize, reward, and promote people according to their performance; dealwith low and marginal performers so that they either improve or leave.

9. Give people a chance to grow and learn new skills; show them how you canhelp them meet their goals within the context of the organization’s goals.Create partnerships with employees.

10. Celebrate successes of the company, of the department, and ofindividuals. Take time for team- and morale-building meetings and activities.

Workforce, April 2003, p. 50 — Subscribe Now!

The Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index is an ongoing study that quantifies thelink between specific human-capital practices and shareholder value. Conductedevery two years, beginning in 1999, it has a four-pronged objective: 1) toprovide HR with financial-performance metrics; 2) to test the belief that itpays to manage people right; 3) to help managers assess their human-capitalinvestments; and 4) to determine whether some HR practices offer a “biggerbang for the buck” than others.

    Seven hundred and fifty large publicly traded companies in the United States,Canada, and Europe took part in the 2001 study. Human resources executives atthe companies were asked a wide range of questions about how the organizationscarried out their HR practices, including pay, people development,communication, and staffing. Their responses were matched to objective financialmeasures, including market value, three- and five-year total return toshareholders, and Tobin’s Q, an economist’s ratio that measures anorganization’s ability to create value beyond its physical assets.

    The 2001 survey linked 49 specific human resources practices to a cumulative47 percent increase in market value.

    To view the results of the HCI study, go to www.watsonwyatt.com/hci.

Workforce, November 2002, pp. 43 — Subscribe Now!

The Company has an Open Door Policy for all Associates, which provides aninternal procedure to present work-related concerns, ideas or suggestions. TheOpen Door Policy is designed to encourage Associates to communicate theirconcerns, ideas, or suggestions to their supervisors and also to provide themwith the option of carrying their concern to the next higher level ofmanagement, to Human Resources, or to senior management without retaliation orfear of retaliation.

    The Open Door Policy is intended to provide effective communications withinthe Company, but is not intended as a contractual right to any due process orgrievance procedure.

GUIDELINES:

Normal Procedure

• Associates are encouraged to discuss their concerns, ideas or suggestionswith their supervisor. The supervisor knows more about the Associate and the jobthan anyone else and is in the best position to handle the situation quickly andsatisfactorily. Often, frank and open communication about a situation is theeasiest way to address it.
• First–The Associate should discuss the matter with his/her supervisor(unless, due to the nature of the matter, the Associate cannot discuss it withhis/her supervisor, then the Associate should discuss it with the next levelmanager). The supervisor should act to resolve and answer the concern. If anAssociate feels a concern, idea, or suggestion has not received the attention itdeserves, then…
• Second–The Associate should attempt to resolve the matter with thenext level of management within the local facility because they are best able towork out a satisfactory solution for all concerned. However, if an Associatefeels that a satisfactory answer still has not been received, continue to thenext levels of management, or…
• Third–The Associate may address the matter with any other manager heor she chooses.

    The Human Resources Manager is available to assist the Associate at anytime and with any level of management in pursuing the resolution of a matterunder the Open Door policy. Upon request, the Human Resources Manager may alsoassist the manager/supervisor in understanding reasons for the matter raisedthrough the Open Door procedure and provide guidance and information onpolicies, benefits, etc.

Direct Referral to Corporate Management

• There may be times when an Associate may wish to submit a statement inwriting for consideration by a specific level of management. The writtenstatement should be as specific as possible and identify the Associate.
• The Company will provide the Associate with a confidential answer inwriting, usually within ten working days from the receipt of the statement, whenpossible and appropriate.

Management Responsibility

• All members of management have a basic responsibility to see that OpenDoor matters are considered carefully and seriously and that an answer ispromptly given.
• Management also has the responsibility to ensure that no Associate ispenalized for exercising his or her privilege to utilize the Open Door policy.

   While the above procedure is preferred, it should be understood that anyAssociate, at any time, and for whatever reason, has the right to bring up anissue of concern directly to the Chairman and/or other Corporate Officers.

SOURCE: Reprinted with permission from “Exhibit Books of Personal Policies–Set II; Volume 3: Benefits and Employee Programs,” Watson Wyatt DataServices. For more information, visit www.wwdssurveys.com or call (201)843-1177.

Workforce Online, September 2002 — Register Now!