Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on October 30, 2009June 27, 2018

House Bill Would Extend COBRA Subsidy by Six Months

Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives would extend and expand an expiring provision in a 2009 economic stimulus law in which the federal government pays 65 percent of COBRA health care premiums of employees who are involuntarily terminated.


That subsidy is available for up to nine months for employees who have lost their jobs since September 1, 2008. Unless the law is extended, the subsidy will not be available to employees laid off after December 31.
 
Under H.R. 3930, introduced this week by Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, the subsidy would be provided for up to 15 months. In addition, those laid off from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2010, also would be eligible for the subsidy.


Without an extension of the current law, employees who began collecting the subsidy on March 1—when it first generally became available—will lose it at the end of November.


“Losing one’s job is difficult enough. But losing one’s health care along with it—and worrying about being able to get treatment for oneself and one’s family, or fearing bankruptcy in the event of injury or illness—is something Americans should not have to cope with in this difficult time,” Sestak said in statement.


The subsidy has had a dramatic effect on the percentage of eligible COBRA beneficiaries opting for coverage. A Hewitt Associates Inc. study released in August found that the percentage of laid-off employees opting for COBRA doubled to 38 percent after the subsidy was enacted compared with the opt-in rate in the several months prior to the subsidy.


The Obama administration has been looking into whether the subsidy should be extended.



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 October 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Report Links Pension Obligations to Layoffs

Fulfilling pension funding obligations can result in job losses, according to a report released Friday, October 30.


The American Benefits Council, a national trade organization composed of large companies and plan sponsors, commissioned the analysis to bolster the case for legislation that would ease rules put in place by a landmark pension reform bill that went into effect last year.


Called the Pension Protection Act, the law significantly tightened defined-benefit funding rules and required companies to meet 100 percent of their obligations within seven years, beginning in 2008.


But companies and business groups are telling lawmakers that the stepped-up pension funding is coming at the worst possible time—in the middle of a severe economic downturn.


“Requiring employers to increase their funding to defined-benefit plans during a recession leads to layoffs and bankruptcies, suggesting that the pension funding obligations could fundamentally alter the distribution of jobs in the economy based upon what industries have made longstanding commitments to defined-benefit plans,” states the report by Optimal Benefit Strategies.


The document consists of an analysis of previously conducted academic research and surveys. For instance, a June report by Aon Consulting shows that 68 percent of employers indicated that allocating cash to pension funding would cause them to cut hiring and workforce training.


Judy Xanthopoulos, a principal at Optimal Benefits Strategies, said that funding a pension plan takes investment away from other business operations.


“The research is pretty consistent in finding that there is an inverse relationship,” Xanthopoulos said in an October 30 media availability. “There is a tradeoff they have to make.”


Advocates are urging Congress to approve a pension relief bill this year, before companies determine their new pension obligations on January 1.


A recent report by Watson Wyatt Worldwide indicates that the funded status of defined-benefit plans will drop to 83.8 percent in 2010 and 76.8 percent in 2011, potentially requiring $89 billion and $146.5 billion in payments, respectively.


Reps. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota, and Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, introduced a measure on Tuesday, October 27, that would give companies more breathing room to amortize pension shortfalls.


On Thursday, October 29, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing on preserving retirement security during the recession.


Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate labor panel, said in an interview afterward that he’s not sure when a Senate pension relief bill might be introduced or how far-reaching it would be.


“It seems like the Pomeroy bill has broad support,” Harkin said. “It’s the short-term fix. Do we do the short term and not do the long term? Kick that can down the road?”


The scope of the relief legislation is just one challenge. There is also the matter of getting it through two committees of jurisdiction each in the House and Senate and then wedging it onto a congressional calendar dominated by health care.


“It will have to be something that really has broad support, bipartisan support,” Harkin said. “Floor time is going to be very, very minimal.”


There also is likely to be resistance over bill details. In testimony before the HELP Committee, Karen Friedman, executive vice president and policy director for the Pension Rights Center, urged senators to deny help to firms where workers were no longer accruing retirement benefits.


“Companies that have stood by their defined-benefit programs while others have abandoned or frozen them deserve the support of Congress,” Friedman said. “Companies that have frozen their plans … have severed this commitment to their workers.”


She also questioned whether the relief savings would be put toward job creation. “This money could be used for any purpose, including moving jobs overseas, automation and executive compensation,” Friedman said.


Relief advocates maintain that all companies should get relief because the central issue is preserving jobs everywhere. They’re hopeful about prospects for legislation.


“The message is getting through,” said James Klein, American Benefits Council president. “We’re cautiously optimistic.”


—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 October 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Labor Department Proposes Historic $87.4 Million Safety Fine on BP

Ever since she was sworn into office in March, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has warned that she would toughen enforcement of workplace laws.


She followed through on Friday, October 30, by announcing $87.4 million in penalties against BP Products North America Inc., an energy company Solis said has not done enough to improve safety since a 2005 explosion at its Texas City, Texas, refinery killed 15 people and injured 170.


The proposed fine is the biggest in the history of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an agency within the Department of Labor. The previous highest levy was $21 million against BP after the 2005 accident.


The latest move follows a six-month OSHA assessment of BP’s compliance with safety-improvement commitments contained in a 2005 settlement agreement.


OSHA found 270 instances in which BP failed to correct previous problems, resulting in fines of $56.7 million. In addition, it discovered 439 “new willful violations” of control standards on pressure-relief safety systems that produced the remaining $30.7 million of the total penalty.


“Let me be clear: The administration will not tolerate disregard for our laws,” Solis said in a conference call with reporters. “Employers have a legal and moral responsibility to protect their workers, who, ultimately, are America’s most important asset.”


But BP asserted that it’s not fair to make it the primary example of the Labor Department’s enforcement strategy because its efforts to improve safety at Texas City “have been among the most strenuous and comprehensive that the refining industry has ever seen,” said Keith Casey, manager of the BP facility southeast of Houston, in a statement.


The company is contesting all the OSHA citations and maintains that the majority of them represent a “disagreement between OSHA and BP” as to whether BP satisfied the 2005 settlement. The dispute is currently before the Occupational Health & Safety Review Commission, which is independent of OSHA.


“We are disappointed that OSHA took this action in advance of the full consideration of the review commission,” said Casey, whose operation refines 475,000 barrels of crude daily. “We continue to believe we are in full compliance with the settlement agreement, and we look forward to demonstrating that before the review commission. While we strongly disagree with OSHA’s conclusions, we will continue to work with the agency to resolve our differences.”


Although it is hitting BP hard, the agency said that it is willing to help companies navigate what many in the business community have called complicated federal safety rules.


“This large enforcement penalty is no comment on our ability or willingness to provide compliance assistance,” Jordan Barab, acting assistant labor secretary for OSHA, told reporters.


But cracking down on safety—as well as wage-and-hour violations—will remain a priority for Solis. The Labor Department has boosted funding and increased the number of inspectors in both areas.


Her vision for the daily operation at the BP Texas City facility is one of quiet routine.


“We would like to see people go into work and go home to their families,” she said.


—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 October 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Workers Want Ethical, Socially Responsible Companies, Survey Finds


Acting ethically and in socially and environmentally responsible manners is key to gaining top talent, according to a new Kelly Services Inc. study.


The Kelly Global Workforce Index surveyed about 100,000 people in 34 countries throughout North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.


Nearly 90 percent of respondents in the study said they are more likely to work for an organization perceived as ethically and socially responsible, according to Troy, Michigan-based Kelly.


The survey found that employees across all generations and regions gravitate to organizations with well-developed social, ethical and environmental policies.


Among the study’s other findings:


• 80 percent of respondents said they would be likely to work for an organization considered environmentally responsible.
• 53 percent of baby boomers said they would be prepared to forgo higher pay or a promotion to work for an organization with a good reputation.
• 48 percent of Gen Xers (ages 30 to 47) and 46 percent of Gen Yers (18 to 29 years) said they would forgo higher pay or a promotion to work for an organization with a good reputation.


Employees gain a sense of fulfillment when their employer is focused not only on the bottom line but also on practices that are good for the communities in which they operate, said George Corona, Kelly executive vice president and COO, in a release.


That translates to increased pressure for companies to meet higher standards of corporate and ethical behavior and to play an appropriate role on issues affecting the environment, he said.


More information on the survey results is available at www.kellyservices.com.


 


Filed by Sherri Begin Welch of Crain’s Detroit Business, 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 October 30, 2009August 31, 2018

TOOL Health Observances for November

More than 23 million people in the U.S. have diabetes, the American Diabetes Association estimates. But another noteworthy figure may be the estimated number of people in that group who are unaware they have the disease: 5.7 million, or about 25 percent. The Wellness Council of America notes that November is American Diabetes Month, a good time for employers and employees alike to become aware of the disease and the toll it takes. Welcoa points out several other observances in November: National Adoption Month, Lung Cancer Awareness Month, National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month and the Great American Smokeout (November 19).

Posted on October 30, 2009August 31, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Reliably Assess Our Corporate Culture

Dear Overwhelmed:

 

There are many software products available to help you build the technical part of the solution to your question, and there are many turnkey services to assist you with creating the survey or using a survey template to administer online. The range of options for third-party products runs from low end to high end. In between are many consultants with their preferred tools, which are provided through the consulting contract.

Corporate culture can mean so many things. Developing the questionnaire requires defining what you want to know. I see corporate culture to be a much more effective information gathering strategy, rather than a tool for boosting employee satisfaction. Perhaps an efficient way to think about it is this: Ask what you want to do with the information (increase profits, reduce turnover, create more bandwidth to accomplish more with fewer resources, etc.). As a consultant, I prefer to approach it from a practical business orientation by focusing on those areas that are critical to the success of an organization. I like to see questions that focus on processes, relationships, work management and leadership. Examples of questions I use include:

• Processes: Team members all participate appropriately. People are not suppressed or ignored, nor do individuals dominate the rest of the group.

• Relationships: Our work together as a team gives me a personal sense of satisfaction and belonging.

• Work management: The necessary blend of skills to accomplish the team’s mission and objectives is present in the team.

• Leadership: The leader helps the team focus on what can be learned from all its efforts, both successes and failures.

The tool I use includes a total of 72 questions across the four areas mentioned above. Custom-developed client-centric questions are occasionally added. Respondents are asked to rate the statement based on how strongly they agree or disagree. The results can be sorted based on the categories that were captured such as employee, management, sector/location or department responses. Most survey tools will be able to do this.

If creating your own questions, to create reliability you will need to craft each question carefully, ensuring the response is not influenced based on the way the statement is worded. I recommend presenting the questions to a small group of employees to identify any bias. Once you administer the survey, the results can be useful in addressing the issues that surface.

But the more powerful application is the ability to introduce organizational change after the survey, and then administer the same survey again after an appropriate amount of time has passed (six months). The second snapshot is invaluable in comparing—and then justifying the continuation, termination or change in the initiatives that have been implemented. If senior management hasn’t indicated openness to initiating changes based on the results of the initial survey, then I caution you to set employee expectations upfront that the survey is intended only for information gathering.

SOURCE: Carl Nielson, principal, The Nielson Group, Dallas, October 5, 2007

LEARN MORE: Please read a previously published Dear Workforce that addresses how to diplomatically change a corporation’s culture.

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 October 29, 2009June 27, 2018

Insurers OK Covering Swine Flu Shots


Illinois’ largest health insurers have agreed to cover the cost of administering swine flu vaccinations for all of their policyholders, state insurance regulators announced Tuesday, October 27.


Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna and Cigna are among the insurers that voluntarily will cover the full cost of the H1N1 vaccinations, the Illinois Department of Insurance said. The federal government is picking up the tab for the vaccine itself, which is now available at some local hospitals and is expected to be more widely distributed in coming weeks.


Some local insurers had previously said they would cover swine flu vaccine costs only for members whose policies covered vaccinations, which would have excluded some policyholders. But in recent weeks, those insurers and others told state regulators they would cover all of their members, including co-payments and other out-of-pocket costs.


Combined, the eight insurers that have agreed to the coverage account for 80 percent of all Illinois residents who have private insurance, said Michael McRaith, director of the Illinois Department of Insurance. The others include Humana, Health Alliance, Unicare and PersonalCare.


Many smaller carriers also are likely to fully cover swine flu vaccination costs, he said.


“Our concern was that some policyholders might have been deterred from getting the vaccine because of the potential cost,” McRaith said. “We were pleased to learn that the companies in fact were planning to cover all costs.”



Filed by Mike Colias of Crain’s Chicago Business, 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 October 29, 2009June 27, 2018

Latest Health Reform Bill Rankles Business Leaders

Employers quickly disavowed a revised health care reform bill introduced by Democrats on Thursday, October 29, standing with the health insurance industry in opposition to a publicly run health insurance plan popularly known as the public option.


The House bill contains far less stringent requirements for employers than an earlier version introduced this summer. Still, business lobbyists say the new version remains the most onerous of the health care reform bills introduced so far. It contains the public option plan, more stringent employer mandates, changes to ERISA, and business penalties that would go toward paying for reform.


“Everything we had said we were concerned with is still in there,” said Martin Reiser, chairman of the national Coalition on Benefits, an organization composed of 200 employers and employer groups—including Xerox, UPS and Target—and such organizations as the American Benefits Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and American’s Health Insurance Plans. “It’s a very big disappointment.”


Employers have opposed the creation of a publicly run health insurance plan from the start. Democratic leaders have begun to reach consensus that a publicly run health plan would negotiate rates with providers rather than set them arbitrarily, as rates are set by Medicare.


Employers believe the government would underpay doctors and hospitals. That in turn would lead medical providers to charge private employers and health insurers higher rates. The effect would be to increase costs and send healthier employees to find cheaper rates elsewhere.


“It sets up a fundamental system where the public plan will drain employees from employer system and underpay doctors that would ultimately shift costs to the private sector,” said Reiser, a manager of government policy for Norwalk, Connecticut-based Xerox.


Employers also are concerned about changes the House bill would make to ERISA, the federal law that allows multistate employers to circumvent state insurance regulations. The House bill would allow state law to govern legal disputes over health coverage. It would also restrict changes employers could make to retiree benefits and require employer-sponsored health coverage to meet federal requirements in five years.


The new House bill, which is 1,990 pages, is estimated to cost $894 billion and would reduce the deficit over 10 years by $30 billion, Democratic leaders said, citing an initial analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.


It would prohibit insurers from denying people coverage based on age or health condition and would eliminate lifetime limits on how much health care a person could receive. It would go into effect by 2013 and would include a requirement that all individuals purchase insurance. It would allow people up to age 27 to stay on their parents’ insurance plan.


Flanked by Democratic leaders in a ceremony in front of the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, likened the legislation to the social safety net laws that created Social Security and Medicare nearly 45 years ago.


“Today we are about to deliver on the promise of making quality, affordable health care available to all Americans, laying the foundation for a bright future for generations to come,” Pelosi said. “The drive for health care reform is moving forward.”


It’s unclear whether Pelosi currently has the 218 votes needed to approve the bill. Republicans immediately blasted the bill, saying it would harm businesses.


“It will raise the cost of Americans’ health insurance premiums; it will kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates; and it will cut seniors’ Medicare benefits,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement.


Shortly after the bill was introduced at the Capitol, President Barack Obama spoke to small-business owners at the White House. Obama sought to reassure them that the House bill would exempt 86 percent of small businesses from a requirement to provide insurance.


An earlier House version would have exempted employers with payrolls below $250,000 from a requirement to provide health insurance coverage to employees. In the latest version, that threshold now stands at $500,000. A penalty would be gradually phased in for businesses with payrolls of between $500,000 and $1 million that do not provide adequate health coverage.


But these employers remained skeptical that other costs would not get passed on to them, said James Gelfand, senior manager for health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who attended the meeting.


“We hope the White House will put their foot down when it comes to forcing small employers to provide something they already struggle to afford,” said Dan Danner, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, a lobby representing small-business owners. “We encourage them not to hide behind flexible [and often moveable] exemptions with job-killing contribution requirements and heavy penalties, as we’ve seen in the House bill.”


Although the bill would take effect in 2013 if approved, Democrats stressed that it contains immediate insurance relief. If passed, it would immediately extend COBRA payments for laid-off workers until the national insurance exchange is set up.


It would also immediately prohibit insurers from rescinding health policies and it would create a fund to help uninsured Americans with high health risks purchase health insurance in the current market.


The bill is heading for a vote on the House floor, perhaps as early as next week. Action on a Senate bill is likely a couple weeks away.


—Mark Schoeff Jr. and Jeremy Smerd 



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 October 29, 2009June 27, 2018

New National Health Care Claims Database to Replace Flawed System


New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo selected Syracuse University to lead a research effort that will create a new national health care claims database. The new entity will create an alternative to the one owned by Ingenix, which was the subject of an investigation and fines by his office.


Cuomo has said that the flawed Ingenix database was improperly used by health insurers across the country to pay low out-of-network medical claims. Cuomo said he would use the fines collected—about $100 million—to create an alternate database.


On Tuesday, October 27, he announced the selection of Syracuse to lead the development. The initiative, called FAIR Health, will be based at Syracuse and coupled with an upstate research network that will create a more transparent reimbursement database.


Ingenix is owned by insurer UnitedHealthcare. The new upstate network will involve Cornell University and the State University College at Buffalo.


The American Medical Association was quick to hail the announcement.


“Syracuse University has exceptional resources and respected experts who have demonstrated a deep understanding of the medical profession’s concerns with the Ingenix database,” the AMA said in a statement. “The combined resources of Syracuse University and the upstate research network should result in the rapid creation of a new database that is free of the flaws inherent in the Ingenix database.”


In June, Cuomo finalized his investigation by announcing that Ingenix ended its relationship with 12 health insurers, including the three largest insurers in the nation, along with the largest national and regional insurers operating in New York state.



Filed by Barbara Benson of Crain’s New York Business, 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 October 29, 2009June 27, 2018

Study Recommends Integrating Workers’ Compensation with Non-Occupational Treatment


Integrating workers’ compensation medical benefits and non-occupational medical treatment under a “24-hour care” system could help pay for a “large fraction” of universal health care coverage, a study concludes.


Integrating occupational and non-occupational treatment would produce savings of $490 billion to $560 billion during the first 10 years, according to the report by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.


“Savings would result from the much greater efficiency with which health insurance delivers care compared to workers’ compensation insurance,” according to the report released late last week that was funded by a grant from the Oakland-based California HealthCare Foundation.


“Only 12 percent to 14 percent of health insurance premiums go toward administration and profit,” researchers said in the report.


“Workers’ compensation turns this ratio on its head, spending the majority (50-60 percent) of premiums on these same overhead costs,” the researchers found. “Consequently, while occupational medical treatment represents a small portion of all treatment, the savings from integrating under private health insurance model would be substantial.”


The report, “Comparing the Costs of Delivering Medical Benefits Under Group Health and Workers’ Compensation—Could Integration Pay for Cover the Working Uninsured?” is available by calling (510) 643-0667.



Filed by Roberto Ceniceros 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 73 Page 74 Page 75 … 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