Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on September 27, 2009August 31, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Create a ‘Refresher’ Course On Performance Evaluations?

Dear Pop Quiz Time:

Reviewing performance with subordinates is one of the most important roles a manager has. It’s a great idea to be proactive in offering additional training to managers.

The tricky thing about what you want to try is this: Most managers feel they already know the basics of how to conduct performance reviews. Therefore, it’s pretty important your update/refresher class offer information that will deepen the manager’s understanding rather than being perceived as just rehashing old news.

There is an easy way to figure out what information to cover:

• Get the word out to managers that you plan to create a way to answer their “unanswered questions” about the performance review program. Tell them you plan to collect these questions from them.

• Either hold a few open meetings with managers to collect this information, speak individually with interested managers, or ask people to submit their questions by e-mail.

• Take the information you collect and use it to design your training. This way you know what you cover will be meaningful.

On a related note, it might increase manager interest in this topic if you use delivery methods other than classroom training to impart the information.

Or, consider using one or all of the following ways to interact with the managers:

• Offer sessions in which an HR person holds “office hours” in a conference room and is available to any manager who shows up with questions or to review the refresher materials.

• Hold a “study hall” in which managers can write their performance reviews in the presence of an HR person who can help them on the spot with difficult wording or unique situations.

• Deliver the training to all the managers in a given work group as a team. This will allow them to get calibrated on issues that have occurred during the review period that are unique to that group.

• Make checklists, templates, samples of well-written and poorly written reviews, and lists of FAQs available by e-mail or on the HR Web site.

You’re on to a good idea. Good luck with the training.

SOURCE: Ellen Raim, Cascade Microtech, Beaverton, Oregon

LEARN MORE: Make sure your employees don’t perceive evaluations as a threat.

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 September 27, 2009August 31, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Get Better Information From Our Exit Interviews

Dear In the Dark:

 

A well-designed exit survey process is an important source of information on turnover drivers. You could use it to inform your company’s retention efforts. Also, exit surveys could help organizations manage the final “handshake” with departing employees, to ensure that both sides part ways on the best terms possible.

Nonetheless, many organizations struggle with response-rate problems and issues of data integrity in their exit surveys. Both sets of difficulties stem from the same fundamental problem: Employees may not be entirely willing or able to share their true reasons for leaving at the time of departure.

Research generally has demonstrated low correlations between reasons for leaving given in exit interviews and those cited in follow-up surveys conducted in the months following a person’s departure. In exit interviews, departing employees may feel apprehensive about criticizing the organization, not wanting to compromise letters of recommendation or create difficulties for former work colleagues. Alternatively, when the exit interview is conducted, departing employees may not have yet fully examined and evaluated highly charged feelings toward the organization they are leaving.

What can organizations do to increase exit survey response rates and the accuracy of turnover-related information? Here are a few suggestions:

1) Review communication approaches related to the exit survey to ensure that it is clear to employees why they are being asked to provide feedback and what will be done with the information.

2) Consider enlisting the support of a third-party partner in administering the survey process, to provide employees with additional confidentiality protections.

3) Consider supplementing exit interview data with information collected at a time when employees have placed some emotional distance between themselves and the organization. Former-employee surveys, targeting employees who have been out of the organization for three to six months, can be used to gather feedback on work experiences, current employment situations and current perceptions of their former employers.

SOURCE: William Werhane, global managing director, Hay Group Insight, Chicago

LEARN MORE: Please read The Best Conditions for Conducting Exit Interviews for more tips.

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 September 25, 2009August 31, 2018

GAO Suggests Change To 401(k) Hardship Withdrawal Rule


To enable employees to replenish their 401(k) plan account balances more quickly after they take hardship withdrawals, Congress should consider changing current law that bars plan participants from making new contributions until six months after a hardship withdrawal, the Government Accountability Office suggests in a report.


The GAO also recommends that the Labor Department encourage employers to post on participant Web sites information on the long-term impact preretirement withdrawals of funds can have on their 401(k) plan account balances.


For example, employers could provide participants with modeling tools to help them calculate the impact of a preretirement withdrawal of funds, the GAO said.


In addition, the Labor Department could encourage employers to provide employees who terminate employment with projections showing how their account balances would compare at retirement if left in the plan or taken as a lump-sum distribution, the GAO said.


Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging and who requested the GAO report, said in a statement that he intends to introduce legislation to reduce preretirement “leakage” from 401(k) plans.


“Despite the financial hardships many are facing, people need to resist raiding their 401(k), because it can be a really bad deal for them over the long run,” Sen. Kohl said.



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 September 25, 2009August 31, 2018

High-touch vs. High-tech

Nothing highlights divergent customer service styles at Amazon and Zappos more than the case of the disappearing novels.


The incident involved Amazon remotely removing books, including George Orwell’s 1984, from customers’ Kindle electronic readers. Customers complained they got an e-mail about a refund to their account but no explanation. The books had been entered into Amazon’s catalog in violation of U.S. copyright law, and observers agreed the company was within its rights to erase the novels from customers’ devices. But in contrast to Zappos’ tradition of bending over backward for customers with high-touch service, Amazon came off as a kind of high-tech Big Brother.


“How ironic that the book they deleted is 1984,” says Jennifer Benz, a San Francisco-based communications consultant.


In the wake of the dust-up, Amazon pledged that in the future it will not remove books from customers’ devices in such circumstances. Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos also apologized in a user forum and called Amazon’s response to the problem “stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles.”


Amazon is no service slouch. It ranked first on BusinessWeek’s list this year of the “Customer Service Champs.” Zappos also did well, ranking seventh. But the firms differ in their approaches to service. On its Web site, Amazon defines what customers want as “low prices, vast selection, and convenience.” It relies largely on customer self-service over the Internet: The main home page does not list a phone number; nor does the “Help” main page, though users can click a button to contact the company by phone.


Zappos, by contrast, puts a 24/7 customer service number at the top of its home page. And it emphasizes the human touch—including extended phone calls with customer service representatives and handwritten notes from them.


In the BusinessWeek ranking, Zappos outperformed Amazon in a coveted category: percentage of customers who would “definitely recommend” the brand. Zappos scored a 69 percent, second only to insurance company USAA. Amazon ranked fourth with 64 percent.


Amazon has pledged to let Zappos run itself independently once acquired. Still, a firm’s customer service reputation can affect employee morale throughout an organization. So it’s conceivable the Kindle-Orwell incident may have dampened Zappos employees’ enthusiasm for the merger.


Aaron Magness, Zappos’ director of brand marketing and business development, says he is “very satisfied” with how Bezos handled the situation.


“He personally addressed the issue and addressed those affected by the decision,” Magness says.

Posted on September 24, 2009August 31, 2018

Sexual Orientation Bias Bill Starts Moving Again

A bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation has once again begun a legislative journey, this time carrying a controversial provision on gender identity that was dropped by the wayside in a previous Congress.


The Employment Non-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses with 15 or more employees and government agencies from using sexual orientation or gender identity to make employment decisions.


In 2007, the House approved the bill after the gender identity portion was excised. The amended measure also gained the support of the Society for Human Resource Management.


Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and a champion of the measure, took out the gender identity provision in the previous iteration of the bill because otherwise he didn’t have the votes to get it through the House.


“I hope we will now,” he said at a Wednesday, September 23, hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee.


Democrats in the House strengthened their hand in the last election. They now have a commanding 256-177 majority. On the Senate side, there are 59 Democrats, pending the replacement of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts.


When they reach 60, Senate Democrats will be able to overcome Republican filibusters. In 2007, Republicans had enough senators to block the sexual discrimination bill. In addition, President George W. Bush threatened to veto it. President Barack Obama has vowed to sign the measure if it gets to his desk.


Supporters say the bill would end the fear that people have of being fired because of their sexual orientation. They point to the fact that 38 states do not have laws banning such discrimination.


But the business community is leery of how the gender identity protection would be implemented in the workplace.


Camille Olson, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, testified that the bill is ambiguous about standards that companies with transgender workers must meet for “shared facilities,” which could include dressing rooms and restrooms. She also said that it is unclear whether companies would have to modify offices and production centers.


SHRM has not taken a position on this year’s version of the bill because it is trying to figure out what the impact will be on HR professionals.


“The inclusion of gender identity makes the legislation more complicated for everyone,” said Michael Layman, SHRM manager for labor and employment. “Any sort of employment discrimination law can lead to consequences that affect how business operates on a practical, day-to-day basis.”


Layman and others in the business community emphasize that employers have a strong record on sexual orientation diversity.


The Corporate Equality Index 2010, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, says that 434 of the Fortune 500 companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Those policies extend to gender identity for 207 companies.


But advocates for the bill said that they are trying to help millions of gay, lesbian and transgender people who don’t work for the nation’s largest companies.


In her testimony, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, cited a recent study by the American Civil Liberties Union that shows that one in four homosexual employees experiences discrimination on a weekly basis.


“They are harassed. They are fired. Or they are passed over,” she said.


Rep. George Miller, D-California and chair of the House labor committee, called a ban on sexual discrimination imperative for improving U.S. workplaces.


“If we do nothing, untold numbers of American workers will continue to go to work with the legitimate fear that they could be fired for nothing more than who they love or their gender identity,” Miller said.


The ranking Republican on the panel, Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, warned that the bill “creates an entirely new protected class that is vaguely defined and often subjective” and would lead to an “explosion in litigation.”


But Stuart Ishimaru, acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, downplayed the fear that courts would be clogged with sexual orientation suits. He said that has not been the case in states that ban such discrimination and he expects the same result at the federal level.


“We don’t believe that the numbers will be extraordinary,” Ishimaru 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 September 22, 2009June 27, 2018

Dropping Golden Parachutes Among Pay-Reform Recommendations

The elimination of golden parachutes and overly generous severance packages for top corporate executives were among executive-compensation reform recommendations made recently by the task force on executive compensation of the Conference Board, a business membership and research association.


The recommendations also include:


• Creating a link between pay and performance


• Demonstrating board oversight of executive compensation


• Maintaining transparency with respect to compensation


“Shareholders of American companies and the public deserve to see executive- compensation programs that serve shareholders’ interests and are explained to shareholders in thoughtful dialogue. Implementing the compensation principles we recommend is an important step in restoring the damaged trust in American companies,” Robert E. Denham and Rajiv L. Gupta, task force co-chairs, said in a news release.


“At the same time, we believe compensation committees and boards must be free to develop compensation programs that reflect their shareholders’ interests and fit their companies’ business objectives.”


The full report on the recommendations can be found at http://www.conference-board.org/ectf. 


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 September 22, 2009June 27, 2018

Flu Outbreak Could Give Momentum to Paid-Sick-Days Bill

An outline posted at www.flu.gov recommends that employers “establish policies for employee compensation and sick-leave absences unique to a pandemic.”
 
Such directives could boost momentum for legislation requiring employers to provide paid sick days as preparations ramp up for an outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus this fall. 


Even with the government urging companies to keep sick workers at home, the measure faces significant legislative obstacles.


But advocates are using the flu scare to promote the bill. Titled the Healthy Families Act, it would enable workers to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work up to a total of 56 hours, or seven days.


Providing days off is exactly what the government is asking companies to do if their employees catch the flu. An outline posted at www.flu.gov recommends that employers “establish policies for employee compensation and sick-leave absences unique to a pandemic.”


Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states, “Regardless of the size of the business or the function or services that you provide, all employers should plan now to allow and encourage sick workers to stay home without fear of losing their jobs.”


Advocates of paid sick leave couldn’t have written it better themselves.


“What they said was tailor-made for passing the Healthy Families Act,” said Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations at the American Association of University Women. “We’re taking advantage of that statement.”


Supporters also are making the case on Capitol Hill that the workers least likely to have paid sick days are those in the food service, child care and health care sectors.


“This new outbreak is highlighting the public health risk of so many people not having job-protected paid sick days,” said Steffany Stern, policy coordinator for the work and family team at the National Partnership for Women and Families.


Stern said government flu guidance doesn’t reflect the reality of the workplace. Many employees fear losing their jobs or income if they stay home.


“They’re very fearful of taking time off without pay,” Stern said.


Opponents of the paid-sick-leave bill acknowledge that the public health argument can be compelling. But they point to the economy as a reason not to move forward with the bill, which they say would place a mandate on companies trying to cope with the recession.


“You have to balance [flu concerns] against a pretty tenuous job situation,” said Victoria Lipnic, an attorney and consultant and former assistant secretary of labor for employment standards. “Is this the right time to impose what would be an additional cost on them?”


The legislative calendar is another impediment. Health care and energy reform as well as appropriations bills presumably would all come before paid sick days.


The measure has had a hearing in the House.


But action in the Senate may be further delayed by a change in leadership at the Health Education Pensions and Labor Committee, where Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has taken over from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who died in August. Kennedy was the Senate champion of the paid-sick-days bill.


As a practical matter, even if the measure were approved this fall, it would likely take months for the Department of Labor to issue regulations to implement the law.


“Paid sick leave is in no way the answer to the H1N1 scare,” said Lisa Horn, manager of health care at the Society for Human Resource Management. “The Healthy Families Act is the wrong approach at the wrong time.”


In her Capitol Hill meetings, Horn is stressing that the bill could present problems for companies that already provide paid time off. It’s not clear whether PTO days would meet the requirements of the sick-leave bill.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that more than three-quarters of employees receive some form of paid leave. But advocates for the bill say that about half of private-sector workers lack paid sick days.


SHRM is proposing a safe harbor from federal leave mandates for employers that have paid-time-off programs.


Although talks about that idea have yet to begin in earnest, advocates say that the current version of the paid-sick-days bill was modified from previous iterations to meet corporate concerns. For instance, the time off is now accrued and absences of more than three days require medical certification.


“We’ve been engaging with the business community and listening to what they’re saying,” Stern 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 September 21, 2009June 27, 2018

Congress Eyes Compromise in 401(k) Independent Investment Advisor-Advice Rule



Now that the Department of Labor is scrapping a rule proposal that would have allowed brokers affiliated with financial-services firms to provide advice to 401(k) participants, Congress will move forward with legislation that would require that such advice be given by independent advisers, according to a key congressman.


The rule proposal was one of several Labor regulations put forth by the Bush administration during its final days.


Labor Secretary Hilda Solis “will work with Congress to find ways to further develop the existing market of qualified independent advice,” said Rep. Robert Andrews, (D-New Jersey), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee’s Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee.


His recent comments came after Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis Borzi, head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, told a conference of 401(k) administrators that new regulations will be issued for investment advice to participants in the $2.3 trillion 401(k) market.


She gave no timetable for issuing a new proposal.


In July, the House Education and Labor Committee approved the 401(k) Fair Disclosure and Pension Security Act of 2009.


The bill, which was sponsored by Andrews and committee chairman George Miller, D-California, prohibits advisers affiliated with financial-services firms from offering advice if their compensation rises and falls with specific product recommendations.


The Pension Protection Act of 2006 would have to be changed for the DOL to issue the kind of investment advice rules Congress would support, Andrews indicated.


“It will take statutory and regulatory change to create the goal of qualified-independent-investment advice affordable to every investor,” he said.



Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, 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 September 17, 2009June 27, 2018

Yale Student’s Death Cited as Case of Workplace Violence


The arrest of a co-worker in the strangulation death of Yale University student Annie Le has led police in New Haven, Connecticut, to portray the killing as an example of workplace violence that has become increasingly prominent nationwide.


Police on Thursday, September 17, charged Raymond Clark III, a technician who worked alongside Le in one of the school’s animal research laboratories, with murder, alleging that DNA evidence linked him to the crime. New Haven Police Chief James Lewis told reporters the homicide could have happened anywhere in the country.


“It is important to note,” Lewis said, “that this is not about urban crime, university crime, domestic crime, but an issue of workplace violence, which is becoming a growing concern around the country.”


Yale University president Richard C. Levin said in a statement that Clark had been a lab technician since December 2004, and that his supervisor said nothing in the history of his employment at the university indicated he might commit a violent crime against a student.


Levin urged members of the Yale community “to engage with each other in the classroom, to collaborate in the laboratory, and to trust one another in workplaces across the campus.”


He added, “This incident could have happened in any city, in any university, or in any workplace. It says more about the dark side of the human soul than it does about the extent of security measures.”


Lewis told reporters that Le and Clark did not appear to have a romantic relationship and there was little indication that he could become violent.


Experts on workplace violence say early intervention is the best way to deal with troubled employees but that incidents of conflict in the workplace are typically underreported.


“There is very severe underreporting of a preliminary conflict that leads up to violence,” said Richard Denenberg, author of the book The Violence-Prone Workplace. “So when violence breaks out no one [first] bothered to report it or intervene.”


Workplace homicides accounted for 517 of the 5,071 workplace fatalities in the U.S. last year, a drop of 18 percent from 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While workplace homicides are particularly disturbing and garner intense public interest, the number of murders committed in the workplace has fallen 52 percent from a high of 1,080 workplace homicides in 1994.


Workplace suicides, on the other hand, increased last year by 28 percent to a high of 251 cases, federal statistics show.


Ewa Antonowicz, a clinical psychologist and clinical director at Chicago-based ComPsych, a provider of employee assistance programs, said it is hard to predict who among co-workers may turn violent.


“When something like this happens everybody is looking for a profile,” she said. “And there really isn’t one.”


More important, employers should have corporate policies in place to deal with outbursts and inappropriate behavior. Policies should allow managers to report incidents to HR, unions and executives. Training for managers would allow them to intervene early without fear of reprisals from troubled employees.


Too often, though, employers dismiss inappropriate behavior as a person’s individual quirkiness. Or they overreact and fire someone at the first sign of unusual behavior.


“We as a society do not know how to resolve conflict,” Antonowicz said.


Employers should watch for employees who have a history of poor impulse control; get angry or frustrated easily or engage in verbal confrontations; have a history of drug or alcohol abuse; or have a history of unstable work performance or personal relationships, Antonowicz said.


Resources for preventing and dealing with workplace violence


  • It Could Happen Here
  • Develop a Workplace Violence Program for Every Site
  • Points to Cover in a Workplace Violence Policy
  • Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Policy
  • Preventing Violence: An Organizational Self-Assessment
  • Useful Information on Workplace Violence and Strategies for Prevention and Response
  • Dear Workforce: We Have a Longtime Employee with a History of Belligerence. Is It Too Late to Reverse His Behavior?

—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 September 16, 2009August 31, 2018

Senate Panel Releases Trimmed-Down Health Reform Plan


The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a much-anticipated health reform plan Wednesday, September 16, that has allayed some employer concerns while introducing a controversial tax on high-cost health plans.


Gone from the proposal released by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, is a public plan option. Many in the business community believed such a plan—essentially a Medicare-like publicly run insurance plan—would shift more health care costs to employers. Instead, it calls for the creation of nonprofit, member-run health cooperatives that would operate in the individual and small-group markets.


Baucus said the committee also removed an employer mandate. In its place is what critics call a “backdoor mandate”—a requirement that employers pay for subsidies provided by the federal government to help employees purchase their own health insurance.


The America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, released as a “chairman’s markup” because it does not yet have the full support of Republicans on the committee, would cost an estimated $774 billion over 10 years, which is less than the $1 trillion price tag of proposals in the House and the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.


“It ain’t perfect, but it is certainly a vast improvement over the other bills we’ve seen so far,” said James Gelfand, senior manager for health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This is a much better place to start the conversation.”


To pay for health care reform, the finance committee is proposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurers for employer-sponsored health plans that exceed $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families in 2013.


A family health plan is expected to cost $16,949 annually by 2013, according to research published Tuesday, September 15, by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. In the case of self-insured employer health plans, the tax is applied to the plan’s administrator.


“For example,” the chairman’s draft states, “for an employee who elects family coverage under a fully insured health care policy covering major medical and dental with a value of $28,000, the amount subject to the excise tax is $7,000 ($28,000 less the threshold of $21,000). The employer reports $7,000 as taxable to the insurer, which calculates and remits the excise tax to the IRS.”


Gelfand said the chamber would prefer the tax be applied to individuals rather than the insurance industry, which he believes will pass the cost on to consumers.


The tax would generate $215 billion over 10 years, according to a preliminary review of the plan by the Congressional Budget Office. Over time, what constitutes a high-cost health plan would grow with inflation, a point that employers say is a problem because medical costs have been rising at least two times faster than inflation.


“Considering the cost of health insurance has doubled over the last 10 years, this [tax] could very quickly hit everyone,” Gelfand said.


The health insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans applauded the committee’s proposal but reiterated its opposition to a public plan in the form of health cooperatives.


The 223-page plan from Baucus shares basic elements with proposed legislation in the House and in the Senate HELP Committee, including a requirement that all individuals purchase insurance or face a penalty of up to $3,800 a year for families. The bill would also create a national health insurance exchange where consumers and small employers could purchase health plans.


Like other proposals, it would reform insurance regulations to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or based on annual or lifetime limits. It states that insurance companies could rate individuals and small group plans based only on age, tobacco use and family size, though insurers would be limited in how much they could raise premiums. Insurers would also have to provide tobacco cessation programs if they raised rates on people who smoke.


While many of the reforms would not take effect until 2013, consumers who have been denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions would have immediate access to a high-risk insurance pool created by the federal government.


Despite forgoing an employer mandate, the bill could hit companies that employ more than 50 people with penalties if they do not provide insurance deemed acceptable or affordable.


A plan would meet the “minimum creditable coverage” requirement if it offers benefits on par with high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts. It would be considered affordable if the plan’s cost to employees does not 13 percent of their gross adjusted income.


If employers’ plans are neither affordable nor acceptable, employees would be eligible to opt out of employer-sponsored health insurance and buy coverage through a health insurance exchange, where they could be eligible for federal subsidies. In such cases, an employer would be required to reimburse the government for any federal subsidies given to its employees.


This provision has brought opposition from retailers and other employers that hire low-wage workers.


Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, called it a “backdoor mandate,” though he praised the decision to drop an earlier “free rider” proposal that would have required employers to pay for the cost of providing Medicaid to employees.


“We’re never going to support an employer mandate because we are such a labor-intensive industry and we have little room to pass costs on to customers,” he said.


Another change allows individuals 25 or younger to purchase a “young invincible” policy that would only provide catastrophic coverage.


Thomas D. Snook, an analyst at actuarial firm Milliman, said allowing young people to purchase catastrophic plans would make it more likely they could comply with an individual mandate. It could, however, increase costs for older, sicker individuals, since the young invincibles would contribute less to the overall risk pool.


The finance committee plan also introduces new provisions that could make insurance more affordable for individuals and small employers. Under the plan, insurers would be allowed to create multi-state plans for small groups and allow them to circumvent state insurance mandates unless such a requirement exists in 26 or more states.


Individuals would also be allowed to use pretax dollars to purchase health insurance.


The bill, while appealing to employers, must be approved by the Senate Finance Committee before being introduced as legislation.


—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.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 … 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