Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on November 13, 2009June 27, 2018

Bah, Humbug! Goldman Sachs Says No to Christmas Party


In an attempt to keep a low profile, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has told its employees that it won’t be hosting a corporate Christmas party this year.


The investment bank is also prohibiting employees from funding their own parties, an insider at the firm told InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management.


The Christmas party ban comes as Goldman has been under sharp public criticism for paying bigger bonuses this year while national unemployment hovers at 10.2 percent and many workers have taken pay cuts.


In the third quarter, the company announced a profit of $3.19 billion and said it has set aside nearly half its revenue to reward its employees. Last year, Goldman paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses, awarding 953 employees at least $1 million each and 78 employees at least $4 million.


The rewards this year are expected to be greater.


Melissa Daly, a spokeswoman, confirmed that Goldman will not host a Christmas party this year and that it didn’t hold one in 2008. She could not comment on whether the company is banning employees from holding their own parties.


Given the shaky economic climate, it makes sense that Goldman is putting the kibosh on holiday festivities, said Steven Hall, managing director of Steven Hall & Partners, an executive compensation shop.


“The last thing they want are pictures showing up of lavish parties while everyone is talking about their paying lavish bonuses,” Hall said. “This is just not the time to be flaunting it.”




Filed by Jessica Toonkel Marquez of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 13, 2009June 27, 2018

Senate Bill Would Boost, Extend Federal COBRA Subsidy


With hundreds of thousands of laid-off employees soon to lose a federal subsidy of their COBRA health insurance premiums, more lawmakers are introducing legislation to extend and increase the subsidy.


Under bill S. 2730, proposed by Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, the nine-month subsidy would be extended by six months, to 15 months, and the 65 percent federal premium subsidy would be raised to 75 percent.


In addition, workers who lose their jobs through June 30, 2010, would be eligible for the subsidy. Under the current law, employees who lose their jobs after December 31 will not be eligible for the subsidy.


And because of the unusual way the current law is written, employees laid off before December 31 but whose COBRA eligibility doesn’t begin until next year also would not be eligible for the subsidy. That could happen, for example, if an employee is laid off in mid-December and the individual’s former employer voluntarily extends group coverage through the end of the month.


“This legislation will make health care coverage more affordable for laid-off workers and bring some security in troubling times,” Sen. Casey said in a statement.


A somewhat similar bill was introduced in the House last month by Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania. The Sestak bill, though, would keep the subsidy at 65 percent.


The proposals come as the subsidy soon will run out for laid-off employees who became eligible for the subsidy when it started, which generally was March 1.


A Hewitt Associates study found that the percentage of involuntarily terminated employees opting for COBRA doubled to 38 percent compared with the opt-in rate in the several months before the subsidy.





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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.


Posted on November 13, 2009June 27, 2018

TOOL IRS Information on Using Independent Contractors

The IRS provides employers with a resource page containing information on properly determining whether workers are independent contractors or employees. Within the page, you’ll find these resources and others:


Presentation on Proper Worker Classification
The IRS’ Rick Schampers presents information on what the law says in general about the factors and situations that indicate a worker should be treated as an employee and the situations that indicate workers should be treated as independent contractors. For the transcript, click here. For the audio, click here.


IRS Internal Training: Employee/Independent Contractor
This manual provides tools to make correct determinations of worker classifications. It discusses facts that may indicate the existence of an independent contractor or an employer-employee relationship. This training manual is a guide and is not legally binding.


Evidence of control: Examples and discussion
The IRS looks to three categories of evidence that show degree of control and independence:


1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?


2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (How is the worker is paid? Are expenses reimbursed? Who provides tools/supplies?)


3. Type of relationship: Are there written contracts or employee-type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance and vacation pay)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?


Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding


If, after reviewing the three categories of evidence, it is still unclear whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Form SS-8 can be filed with the IRS. The form may be filed by either the business or the worker. The IRS will review the facts and circumstances and officially determine the worker’s status.


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.

Posted on November 6, 2009August 3, 2023

Congress, Obama Extend Benefits as Unemployment Rises

On a day that brought more bad news about the number of Americans searching for work, President Barack Obama signed a bill Friday, November 6, that would extend unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks.


The measure, which was approved unanimously in the Senate on November 4 and by a 403-12 in the House on November 5, would provide 14 additional weeks of unemployment checks to all jobless workers and six more weeks on top of that to people who live in states where the unemployment rate is greater than 8.5 percent.


The House passed a narrower version of the bill last month. It was held up in the Senate as the unemployment benefits were expanded and other provisions were added, such as business tax cuts and a renewal of a tax credit for homebuyers.


The additional unemployment benefits are financed by extending a surtax on employers through 2011.


The bill marks the third time that Congress has increased unemployment benefits since the recession started in December 2007. Previous legislation added up to 53 weeks of benefits to the normal 26 weeks.


But as the recession has endured, the safety net has frayed. The National Employment Law Project in Washington estimates that 600,000 workers exhausted their unemployment benefits in September and October and that 1.3 million will run out of support by the end of the year.


The Economic Policy Institute says that more than one-third of the 15.7 million jobless Americans have been out of work for more than six months.


Obama enacted the legislation on a day when the government reported that the unemployment rate had reached 10.2 percent, its highest level in 26 years. He framed the measure as a way to boost the economy by increasing consumer spending.


“Although the extension will help over 1 million Americans, it won’t just put money into the people’s pockets who are receiving the benefits,” Obama said in a statement in the White House Rose Garden. “Economists tell us that when these benefits are spent on food or clothing or rent, it actually strengthens our economy and creates new jobs.”


Lawmakers said the bill would help ease the pain and anxiety that the economy is inflicting on many of their constituents.


“We know that when an economy recovers, the unemployment rate is one of the last numbers to rebound,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a November 4 statement. “So even as our economy begins to turn around, jobs are turning around slower, and it is our responsibility to ensure the out-of-work are not left out in the cold.”


Reid portrayed Republicans as having needlessly delayed the legislation before voting for it as a bloc this week. Senate Democrats and Republicans slowed down the original House bill as they enhanced the unemployment benefits and added the tax amendments.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 6, 2009August 31, 2018

U.S. and U.K. Pension Agencies to Share Information


The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will share non-confidential information on defined benefit plans with the U.K.’s Pensions Regulator and Pension Protection Fund under an agreement announced Wednesday, November 4.



The PBGC and the two British agencies will share “any unrestricted information that advances the security of defined-benefit plans sponsored by private-sector companies,” the PBGC said in a statement.



The agreement “is formalizing an existing relationship that is increasingly important as the economy globalizes,” a PBGC spokesman said.



The Pensions Regulator oversees U.K. corporate defined-benefit plans; the Pension Protection Fund insures the plans similarly to the PBGC in the U.S.



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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 5, 2009August 31, 2018

H1N1 Paid Sick Leave Splits Democrats, Advocacy Groups


With H1N1 flu fears spreading as fast as the sickness itself, a leading House Democrat wants rapid action on legislation that would give employees five paid sick days.


But in rushing out the measure on Tuesday, November 3, Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, roiled paid leave advocates who worry that he gives employers too much power to determine who can stay home.


The author of broader paid sick leave legislation, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, is not on board.


“I am concerned that the Miller bill—while a modest step forward—would establish a limp paid leave benefit that is triggered by the employer and can also be taken away by the employer; and it offers no real guarantee that a working parent can care for a sick child,” DeLauro said in a statement Thursday, November 4, to Workforce Management.


DeLauro added that she “can work with Chairman Miller to make it a better bill.”


The House labor committee will hold a hearing on Miller’s measure, the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, the week of November 16. It’s unclear when or if a companion Senate bill will be introduced.


President Barack Obama declared the H1N1 pandemic—popularly known as swine flu—a national emergency on October 24.


Miller caught some in the advocacy community and on Capitol Hill by surprise with his proposal, which would guarantee five paid sick days to an employee if an employer “directs” or “advises” him or her to go home. The employer can end the leave at any time.


“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood and their co-workers’ or customers’ health,” Miller said in a statement.


He asserts that at least 50 million workers lack paid sick leave.


The bill applies to companies with 15 or more employees but exempts those that already offer at least five days of sick leave.


DeLauro’s bill, the Healthy Families Act, would allow workers to accrue up to seven days of paid sick leave a year and gives them time off to care for sick family members.


Supporters of the DeLauro bill are cautious about Miller’s legislation.


“We want workers, not employers, to decide when they’re too sick to work and when they feel well enough to return,” said Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations at the American Association of University Women.


Judith Lichtman, senior advisor at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said more work needs to be done on the Miller measure.


“We should all sit down and figure out how to retool this legislation so that it includes some of our most basic labor protections for working families,” Lichtman said. “We’re interested in seeing the bill strengthened, expanded.”


A business group, however, is gratified that Miller gives employers credit for existing leave programs.


“I was heartened to see that the idea that we’ve espoused is included in the bill,” said Mike Aitken, director of government relations for the Society for Human Resource Management. “It’s a recognition that employers are responding to this kind of leave.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 5, 2009August 31, 2018

Survey Finds Service Requirements for Joining 401(k) Easing


Employers are improving access to their 401(k) plans, according to a survey released Wednesday, November 4.


The Hewitt Associates Inc. survey of 300 midsize to large employers found that 74 percent of 401(k) plans do not have a service requirement, up from 61 percent in a comparable survey Hewitt conducted in 2007.


In addition, looking at plans with employer matching contributions, 56 percent of plans in 2009 did not have any service requirements for participants to receive the match, up from 44 percent in 2007.


On the other hand, 10 percent of employers have suspended their matching contributions during the past two years, the survey found.


“Companies’ bottom lines were significantly impacted by the financial crisis in 2008. As the last resort, some had to reduce or suspend their employer contribution to 401(k) plans to make ends meet,” said Pam Hess, Hewitt’s director of retirement research in Lincolnshire, Illinois, in statement.


Still, many of those freezes either have been lifted or soon will be.


“That trend has slowed. In fact, many employers have already indicated their likelihood to reinstate matching contributions in 2010,” Hess said.


Employers continue to move away from investing matching contributions exclusively in company stock. Just 17 percent of employers do so, down from 23 percent in 2007 and 45 percent in 2001.


That downward trend coincided with the collapse of one-time energy giant Enron Corp.


Enron matched employees’ deferrals exclusively with company stock and barred employees until age 50 from divesting those shares, leaving thousands to watch helplessly as the value of their shares plunged to virtually nothing.


The survey found a big increase in the number of employers offering an automatic enrollment feature.


Such programs are geared to those employees—typically new hires—who don’t indicate whether they want to enroll in their employer’s 401(k) plan. With automatic enrollment, those employees are enrolled unless they specifically object.


In 2009, 58 percent of employers offered automatic enrollment, up from 34 percent in 2007 and 19 percent in 2005. Of those employers using automatic enrollment, 69 percent default employees into a target-date fund, up from 50 percent in 2007.


The funds are so named because the investment mix is adjusted over time, with a more aggressive allocation for funds with retirement target dates further in the future and more conservative asset allocations for retirement dates that are closer.


A summary of the survey, “Trends and Experience in 401(k) Plans,” is available online at www.hewitt.com.



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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 4, 2009August 31, 2018

Employer Health Plan Share Falls for Individuals


Employees with individual coverage in consumer-driven health plans are seeing their employers’ contributions decline, while those with family coverage are seeing their employers’ contributions increase, according to a survey released Tuesday, November 3, by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.


The survey by Washington-based EBRI also found that the percentage of employers making contributions to either health reimbursement arrangements or health savings accounts tied to consumer-driven health plans dropped from 67 percent last year to 63 percent this year.


Between 2006 and 2008, the percentage of workers with employee-only coverage whose employer contributed at least $1,000 to either their HRA or HSA increased from 26 percent to 37 percent; but in 2009, it fell to 32 percent.


Meanwhile, the percentage of workers with individual coverage who received an employer contribution of less than $200 increased from 3 percent last year to 8 percent this year.


By contrast, the percentage of workers with family coverage who received a contribution of $1,000 or more increased from 59 percent last year to 73 percent this year. Nearly three-quarters of workers with family coverage in a CDHP now receive an annual employer contribution of $1,000 or more, EBRI estimates.


Among other findings in the survey:


● The percentage of individuals remaining in CDHPs for three to four years increased from 9 percent in 2006 to 26 percent in 2009, and the percentage who remained in the plans for five years or more increased from 3 percent in 2006 to 9 percent in 2009.


● The amount of money individuals have accumulated in their accounts has grown over time. Forty-seven percent had balances of at least $1,000 in 2009, compared with 43 percent in 2008, 44 percent in 2007 and 25 percent in 2006.


● Only 4 percent of the adult U.S. population in 2009 is enrolled in CDHPs linked to HSAs or HRAs, up from 3 percent in 2008.


The report, which presents findings from the 2008 and 2009 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Surveys and the 2006 and 2007 EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Surveys, was published in the November EBRI Notes and is available online at www.ebri.org.



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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 2, 2009August 31, 2018

Defense Bill Extends Military Families’ FMLA Coverage


President Barack Obama has signed into law a Defense Department spending bill that further expands Family and Medical Leave Act coverage for families of employees in the military.


The measure, H.R. 2647, builds on a 2008 law that gave new FMLA rights to military families.


Under the new law, signed by Obama on Wednesday, October 27, employees will be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of leave when a spouse, child or parent on active military duty is deployed to a foreign country. The 2008 law did not explicitly give FMLA leave rights in that situation.


In addition, the law allows employees to take up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of a child, spouse, parent or next of kin who was discharged from the military and whose military service aggravated a medical condition that existed prior to the service.


While the new law “makes changes around the edges” of the 2008 law and will affect a small number of employees, those changes will be very important to those individuals, said Matt Morris, a legal consultant with Hewitt Associates Inc.




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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.


Posted on November 2, 2009August 31, 2018

Public Option Back at Center Stage as Health Care Reform Debate Resumes


The stage is set for the full House and Senate to take up health care reform legislation.


After months of work, House Democratic leaders last week finished cobbling together a 1,900-page reform bill, pulling provisions from measures that three House committees passed this summer while amending, dropping and adding others, including a cap on contributions to flexible spending accounts.


With that step, the full House is expected to begin debate on the bill later this week and likely pass it at the end of the week, Washington observers say.


The Senate is not quite as far along, with consideration of reform legislation possibly to begin this week.


But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, last week announced a key decision: The reform bill he will send to the Senate floor will include a public option—a government-run health insurance plan.


A public option is part of the House reform bill, as well as an earlier bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but is not in the measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, kept a public option out, saying it lacked the votes to be approved by the full Senate.


Creation of a government-run plan has triggered enormous controversy. Its advocates say a public option is needed to inject competition into the health insurance market, while critics say a public plan would drive out private insurers and self-funded employers from the market and result in a single-payer health care system.


With both congressional branches moving ahead on reform measures, whose central features include health insurance premium subsidies for the low-income uninsured and penalties on employers that do not offer coverage, the odds of a final agreement being reached—either later this year or early next year—continue to improve, observers say.


“The Democrats control the House and Senate and the White House. They will make it happen,” said Frank McArdle, a consultant with Hewitt Associates in Washington.


Still, there are many battles to be fought and issues to be resolved.


“The last chapter certainly has not been written,” said Paul Dennett, senior vice president of health care reform with the American Benefits Council in Washington.


“We are nowhere near the end,” said Neil Trautwein, vice president and employee benefits counsel with the National Retail Federation in Washington.


In fact, a looming battle—perhaps the most important one to date—soon will play out on the Senate floor: whether a public option will be part of the reform legislation.


Reid has provided few details on how the public option would work beyond saying that states would have the right to opt out.


At the moment, though, observers doubt that Reid has the votes for a public option.


“He is giving it the old college try, but I don’t see 60 votes for it,” Trautwein said.


“I just don’t see where 60 votes would come from,” Dennett agreed.


In fact, Reid dodged answering questions at a news conference last week on whether he thought there was enough support for the full Senate to pass a public option, said James Gelfand, senior health care policy manager for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.


If Sen. Reid sees that he lacks the 60 votes needed to stop a certain Republican-led filibuster on a public option, he might revamp the proposal to try to attract enough votes. One way the public option might be revamped, observers say, would be if it was triggered if health care costs exceed a certain level or if studies find there is insufficient competition among health insurers.


While the outcome of the public option battle won’t be known for some time, employers already may have lost a battle on another reform provision: curbing tax breaks for those who contribute to health care FSAs.


The House bill now includes a provision in which, starting in 2013, the maximum pretax contributions an employee could make to an FSA would be $2,500. That amount would be increased annually to match annual increases in the Consumer Price Index.


That cap is somewhat similar to one embedded in the Finance Committee bill. That panel also would cap FSA contributions at $2,500, though starting in 2011 and with no future indexing.


With an FSA tax cap expected to be included in the health care reform bill Reid will send to the Senate floor, and the House bill also including an FSA cap, the odds now are high that a cap will be part of the final bill.


Employers have embraced FSAs as a way for employees to pay for uncovered health care-related expenses on a pretax basis, significantly cutting the true cost for employees in higher tax brackets.


But employers prevailed on another issue: Excluded from the House bill is a provision that would have allowed states to set up their own single-payer health care systems.


Under current law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act pre-empts states from passing measures that relate to employee benefit plans. The Education and Labor Committee provision, proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, would have exempted state single-payer laws from ERISA pre-emption.


Other provisions in the measures approved by the House panels and opposed by employers that made it in the bill that the full House will consider include:


● Preventing employers with retiree health care plans from reducing benefits unless they also cut benefits provided to employees. Experts previously said the effect of such a requirement would be to accelerate the exodus of employers from sponsoring retiree health care plans.


● Allowing COBRA beneficiaries to retain coverage far beyond what current law requires. Under the measure, COBRA beneficiaries could continue coverage until they become eligible for group coverage under a new employer’s plan or until they become eligible for coverage through new state health insurance exchanges, which the legislation would start in 2013.


Under current law, employees who terminate employment are entitled to up to 18 months of COBRA coverage, while employees’ dependents can obtain up to 36 months of coverage in situations involving death, divorce or marital separation.




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


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 … 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