Author: Site Staff

Several proposals lawmakers are considering to reform the health care system could hurt small businesses, witnesses testified before the House Committee on Small Business.

Many in Congress are insisting upon the creation of a mandate that would require employers to sponsor insurance coverage for employees.

“The idea that an employer mandate will increase coverage is illusory, because new rules will not change financial realities for small businesses,” said James Wordsworth, an owner of several small businesses who testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Health care coverage costs for entrepreneurs are 74 percent higher than in 2001, said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-New York, who chairs the House small business panel and is co-sponsor of a bill that aims to rein in health care expenses for small businesses.

John Nicholson, another small-business owner who testified on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business, agreed that mandates would adversely affect small employers by raising payroll costs, eroding competitive positions and increasing startup costs.

He and other witnesses also denounced a public health insurance option.

When considering policies that would expand the government’s role in health care, “Ask yourself: Do you want a program that has the responsiveness of the U.S. Postal Service, the heart of the IRS and the cost inefficiency of the Pentagon?” Nicholson asked.

Filed by Jennifer Lubell of Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

The global recession is taking a toll on workers on both sides of the Atlantic.

British employees are spending more time at work practicing so-called “presenteeism” as they worry about their jobs during the recession, a new survey concludes.

The survey of 2,247 workers by the Lancaster University Center for Organizational Health and Wellbeing in Lancaster, England, found that 66 percent of employees are working more hours because of worries about job security, and 42 percent said feelings of insecurity regarding their jobs have increased in recent months.

Presenteeism is when employees become more conscientious about being present on the job but are not necessarily more productive.

The survey also gave some clues as to employees’ attitude about their jobs.

Forty-five percent agreed it is best to “play it safe at work and keep my head down.” Forty-one percent of respondents said they have a negative attitude at work.

“Presenteeism may make the employee feel more secure because he or she is putting the hours in, but there is no evidence that consistent long hours result in increased productivity,” Cary Cooper, professor of organizational psychology and health at Lancaster University, said in a statement.

The health and well-being center, which launched in mid-May, said 71 percent of female employees reported spending more time at work versus 61 percent of male employees, suggesting that women may feel more vulnerable about their jobs than men, the survey concludes.

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

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

Dear Back to School:

This is a great question that has two answers: a short one, and a longer one (which might be more important).

Short answer:
• Gather stakeholders and subject-matter experts and create the training content.
• Identify potential trainers.
• Equip the trainers with the tools they need (training materials, program templates, etc.).
• Equip the trainers with the skills they need (facilitation and presentation skills).
• Pay attention to trainer evaluation and evaluation of the training program as a whole.

The size of the population to be trained and your pool of candidates to become trainers will determine a great deal regarding what “training the trainers” will entail.

If expertise in the subject is not prevalent, then the trainers might be learning the topic first themselves as part of the process of equipping them to then train others.

Your favorite search engine can probably provide you with tons of examples of how other organizations went about this, but the fact that this is a new move for your organization warrants special attention.

The longer and more important answer:
Since this is a first for your organization, take a step back and make sure you have proper context before launching into identifying trainers and building content.

Any training initiative needs to start with a clear understanding of what the purpose of the training is (i.e., what is the result the organization wants?). What will success look like? How success will be measured will translate into how you will be judged, so making sure you fully understand that is where to start.

If this is a new path for the organization, you really need to explain why it’s being pursued.

Obviously, this must be approached carefully and respectfully, but do not be afraid to do a bit of digging to understand what is driving this move. Remember that this is a first for the organization, and not just you, so make sure everyone is in sync about key objectives.

If there are any significant disconnects or conflicting expectations, you must identify these early, because making sure everyone is in sync will determine your chances for success.

Here are some possible driving factors:
• To reassign or increase the use of internal employees to avoid layoffs or to increase employee engagement.
• To “insource” in an effort to rein in training costs because of economic issues.
• To address a new area needing training (such as ethics) that previously did not have training associated with it.
• To comply with regulations (e.g., mandatory sexual harassment training).
• To address concerns related to the value or quality of existing or past training programs or initiatives.

There are distinct nuances to each of these, but whatever the driving factors are, they should be guiding your efforts throughout the entire process.

Successfully hitting milestones and target dates are valuable accomplishments only when the driving factors of the training program are met in the process. So, make sure you know these. That is where you need to start.

SOURCE: Scott Weston is the author of HR Excellence: Improving Service Quality and Return on Investment in Human Resources, May 5, 2009

LEARN MORE: Organizations have been growing their own training experts internally for a long while, and the trend likely will continue amid the economic crunch.

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

Dear Speechless:

 

Employers offer many types of rewards—both tangible and non-tangible—to motivate and retain employees and to attract prospects. To receive these rewards, employees offer their effort and contributions, their continued membership in the organization and, hopefully, a positive attitude. Frequently, however, employees have minimal knowledge of the value of the programs available to them. This is because little has been done to communicate how the programs fit together to provide a supportive environment to grow both professionally and personally.

Total rewards
Many organizations are using a total rewards approach to unite and integrate these rewards—the organization’s people policies, practices and programs—under a single structure. This helps employees and candidates more easily view all the components of a work experience offered by an employer. Once the programs are viewed holistically, a variety of tools and media can be used to educate and communicate their value and how employees can make the best use of them.

Print/online cool tools
A number of communication approaches can be used both in print and online:

• Personalized statements. All the generic information in the world does not have as much impact as giving an employee a snapshot of their own health and retirement benefits. Personalized statements are voted the most appreciated communication among employees. A personalized statement—in print or online—should include all the people programs offered by the organizations. The quantifiable benefits should be on the statement pages and a cover page should introduce and provide context for the statement and linkage to total rewards and the organization’s employer/employee philosophy.

• Printed pieces—newsletters/bulletin—become online spotlights for posting to the Internet.

• FAQs become online interviews with audio files.

• Create a “how to read your statement” audio file to help employees better understand their online personalized statements.

• Introduce online open enrollment by adding a “how to enroll” audio file.

• Turn scripted PowerPoint presentations into webinars.

• Conduct long-distance focus groups via webinars.

• Measure ROI via online surveys.

• Create podcasts for communicating with employees via iPods.

• Set up an internal blog to introduce wellness, promote the value of your 401(k) and educate on making the right choice at annual enrollment by having carefully selected internal subject-matter experts develop and manage the content.

• “High-touch”: Don’t forget the power of in-person presentations, especially when issues/messages are complex, challenging or negative.

Resources
• CAMTASIA: Create online training videos or stream narrated PowerPoint presentation on a Web page.

• Swish Jukebox: Plays audio on a Web page in Flash format without a separate audio player.

• Movable Type: Blogging software for professionals and enterprises.

• WebEx LiveMeeting: Online presentations or webinars that can be recorded for future playback.

SOURCE: Nenette Kress, senior vice president, Segal/MGC Communications, New York, June 8, 2007

LEARN MORE: Communicating the value of benefits is important, as a recent survey suggests.

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

Dear Health-Conscious:

 

Your concern about the potential spread of the swine flu virus among your employee population, and its subsequent impact on your business, is appropriate. Though it is small comfort, you are not alone. As of May 13, some 3,352 cases of H1N1 had been confirmed in 45 U.S. states.

Information: Given that this is a new strain of flu virus, some education is in order for you and your workforce. We have found the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be quite helpful. In addition to the latest factual updates on the management of this disease, you’ll find links to a host of audio, visual and print media that you can rebroadcast to your employees. The site also contains an entire section for employers.

Policy: One of the first things you’ll want to do is review your internal policies vis-à-vis the objective of maintaining a functioning, relatively disease-free workplace.

Specifically, do your current policies further or impede this objective? As a case in point, many organizations have attendance policies that put employees in a disciplinary mode after a set number of illness occurrences. If your policies—and the threat of disciplinary action—potentially coerce an employee to come to work who shouldn’t, consider temporarily suspending the automatic punishment provisions in favor of a more reasoned approach.

Similarly, as you point out, people might be induced to work when they shouldn’t due to economic sanctions. This might be a good time to reconsider your sick-day policy in general or at least in view of the virus-related cases.

If you truly want people to stay home when they are sick, you simply must remove those things that serve to punish desired behavior.

The simple fact is that people, all of us, do what we are incented to do. We have found a very strong bias among world-class employers for treating employees like responsible adults and then expecting them to measure up. They usually do.

Be advised that any changes of this sort will require some careful communication with your management team to ensure they understand that the organization is not lowering standards or “going soft.”

Facilities: As the CDC has maintained continuously, the exercise of simple hygiene measures may provide the best weapons against the spread of H1N1.

To wit, it just makes sense to do things like making hand sanitizer, tissues and appropriate refuse containers readily available. The same for keeping restrooms well stocked and scrupulously clean. Make sure there is ample hot water for hand washing.

Similarly, you will want to review any policies, processes or practices that put large numbers of employees into close proximity with one another.

Break rooms, fitness facilities and meeting rooms pose an opportunity for the airborne spread of disease. To the extent that you can schedule smaller numbers of people into these facilities at one time, it may make sense to do so. (As for the meetings, you can probably eliminate a lot of them entirely and get a standing ovation for your effort.)

Special measures: Some organizations make private or co-op medical facilities (physician, clinics, etc.) available to their employees.

Indeed, we know of another California employer, the Pebble Beach Co., that has an excellent facility and medical staff for its workers and families. Though a facility like that takes time and real commitment, it is possible to organize private outpatient, in-home or on-site screening and treatment services for your employees pretty quickly.

This is something that can be done on your own or in concert with other area employers. Your health insurance administrator or workers’ comp carrier can likely offer guidance and make referrals.

Whatever you do, don’t wait, because time is not your friend.

SOURCE: Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette, co-authors, Contented Cows MOOve Faster, May 13, 2009

LEARN MORE: A Workforce Management webcast on preparing for pandemics provides deep discussion and 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

The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering cracking down on the use of target-date retirement fund names that could be “misleading or confusing to investors,” SEC Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro testified Tuesday, June 2, at a Senate subcommittee hearing.

“Among other issues, we will consider whether the use of a particular target date in a fund’s name may be misleading or confusing to investors and whether there are additional controls the SEC should impose to govern the use of a target date in a fund’s name,” Schapiro said in prepared remarks to the Senate Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Target-date funds “have produced some troubling investment results,” Schapiro testified.

She said the average loss in 2008 among 31 funds with a 2010 retirement date was almost 25 percent. In addition, she said the different investment strategies used by the 2010 funds resulted in investment losses last year ranging from 3.6 to 41 percent.

“These returns cause concern for investors and regulators alike,” Schapiro said. “I can assure you that SEC staff is closely reviewing target-date funds’ disclosure about their asset allocations. In addition, in connection with our joint hearing with the Department of Labor, we will consider whether additional measures are needed to better align target-date funds’ asset allocations with investor expectations.”

The joint hearing by the SEC and Labor Department on target-date funds is scheduled for June 18.


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

Shareholders should be given more power to bring lawsuits against companies for paying excessive compensation to executives, the chairman of the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over securities matters said Tuesday, June 2.

“We probably have to re-examine the capacity of shareholders to bring lawsuits,” said Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pennsylvania, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises.

“It doesn’t sound good. Nobody likes litigation, but in reality, that does get attention of boards and managers,” he said in a talk in Washington sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy of Washington and the Institutional Educational Foundation of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kanjorski also suggested that shareholders be given more say in the election of corporate directors.

Replacing an entire board of directors is extremely difficult, he said. New methods need to be found to incorporate “better democratic principles into corporations,” Kanjorski said.

He also called for examining new ways of handling debates about compensation at shareholder meetings and within boards of directors, and said a requirement that public corporations respond to questions from shareholders should be considered.

However, Kanjorski made it clear that he thinks Congress should be cautious when considering ways to rein in executive compensation.

“It’s not easily handled,” he said.

“We should be very careful in determining whether or not the Congress or some other public institution should establish the rules of compensation in our society,” Kanjorski said.

Executive compensation is “not the most important thing in the world,” in terms of business and economic health, he argued.

“It’s more important that we create and use this atmosphere to rethink the laws that govern American and world business institutions,” including the rights of shareholders, Kanjorski said.

Corporate compensation and bonuses are determined primarily by boards of directors and shareholders.

“Now what we’re getting very close to is deciding, because of the hot temper of the moment on salaries and bonuses, whether or not we want to extract that decision-making process from where it presently lies and put it somewhere else,” Kanjorski said.

Congress is not well-equipped to determine executive or other types of compensation, he said, warning that such power could quickly expand to encompass government power to determine many other salaries.

“That law will apply eventually to you or will cause a precedent for us to further extend ourselves into everyone’s life,” Kanjorski said.
The House Financial Service Committee is tentatively scheduled to hold a hearing on executive compensation issues June 11.

Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

The American Hospital Association told President Barack Obama on Monday, June 1, that it would focus on short- and longer-term measures, as well as initiatives that require commitment from a host of other providers, in order to help reduce overall annual health care expenditures during the next 10 years.

In a 28-page letter sent to the White House and backed by five other health care groups, the AHA said it would immediately focus on reducing common infections from surgeries.

Longer term, the association said it would encourage its members to improve how care is coordinated, use a variety of health information technology tools and boost overall efficiency. Many initiatives require the participation of providers of care both at the bedside and elsewhere.

The steps are meant to be taken in concert with a host of other groups, including America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the Service Employees International Union, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.

In short, the groups Monday identified three main areas where savings can be realized. Those areas are in the utilization of care, where up to $180 billion in savings are projected; chronic-care management, which could yield $850 billion in savings; and administrative simplifications, which at the high end are predicted to save $700 billion.

On May 11, the coalition made a highly public pledge to the president himself to do their part in helping lower overall health care expenditures by more than $2 trillion over the next decade.

In the letter June 1, each group identifies a number of different areas where costs could be recouped.

For instance, AHIP said it would wring savings by moving toward a standardized and electronic way to deal with claims, submissions and payments.

The group also said it would create a Web portal that will allow physicians to conduct business with insurers through a singular Web site. And PhRMA said it would support a “well-designed” comparative-effectiveness program.

Meantime, the SEIU said it wants to see expanded efforts on the home care front, including bonus Medicaid payments to some states.

At least one key senator said he was unsure about the proposals.

“I’m skeptical that these proposals will add up to anywhere near $2 trillion. In the legislative process, proposals rise or fall based on what [the Congressional Budget Office] says about them, and the same will be true here.”

Filed by Matthew DoBias of Modern Health Care, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter