Employers appear to have been spared the ill effects of a weakened economy on their disability and workers’ compensation benefits programs, a new survey has found.
A survey of as many as 13,000 employers by the Integrated Benefits Institute revealed “no dramatic changes” in the incidence of short- and long-term disability claims from 2008 to 2010. Though median costs associated with disability and workers’ compensation claims rose slightly, the median duration of a disability or workers’ compensation claim has remained largely flat since the beginning of the recession three years ago.
Researchers for the San Francisco-based IBI said the survey’s results, released this week, undermined what previously would have been considered reasonable assumptions of the recession’s effects on employers’ claims experience.
“We might expect that tough economic times would lead to falling claims rates as employees seek to maintain jobs,” researchers wrote in their report. “At the same time, we could envision that in a downsized workforce, employees experience more physical and mental job pressures leading to serious health conditions and worse claims experience.”
Short-term disability claims increased 12 percent between 2008 and 2009, but receded in 2010, yielding an overall rise of just 6 percent during the three-year period. Changes to the median duration of those claims were even more modest, increasing 2 percent per closed claim between 2008 and 2010. Claim costs also increased, but by just 7 percent during the three years.
IBI researchers said more dramatic shifts might have been prevented by higher average wages among claimants (due in part to layoffs), changes in plans designed to attract and retain key employees or an altered mix of medical conditions.
Long-term disability claims remained relatively flat, increasing less than 2 percent from 2008 to 2010, however the median cost of closed claims rose by 26 percent while median open-claim costs jumped up 29 percent in the same three-year period.
New and closed workers’ compensation claims also fell from 2008 to 2010, which researchers said could indicate fewer workers willing to claim benefits, or that “employees remain in the workers’ compensation system longer during difficult economic times.”
However, that has not translated into more lost work time, the survey found. The median number of days lost per workers’ compensation claim remained flat, at 33, in all three years the companies were surveyed.
The cost of medical payments from those claims rose 17 percent, while indemnity payments rose 10 percent.
In their summary of the results, researchers cautioned that employers could see significant increases in incidence, duration and costs associated with workers’ compensation and disability claims if they discontinue health care coverage after the implementation of the health care reform laws.
Those programs, they said, provide valuable assistance in managing workforce health, and that costs associated with disability and workers’ compensation claims must be viewed in tandem with those tied to health care coverage.
“Those that continue to view medical costs in a separate and distinct program silo do so at their peril,” researchers said.
Filed by Matt Dunning of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email 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.
401(k) Savings Zoom When Employers Set Autopilot
Americans love their automatic products: ATMs, DVRs, coffee makers, garage-door openers, you name it. Now add to that growing roster the employer-sponsored automatic enrollment retirement plan, typically a 401(k), in which employees are now stashing money in record numbers.
An analysis by Aon Hewitt, the Lincolnshire, Illinois-based consulting firm, of 3 million employees across 120 large companies indicates that close to 76 percent of eligible employees participated in company contribution plans last year, driven by the auto-enrollment feature. That represents a nearly 10 percent jump from the number enrolled in 2005.
“Employees know they need to save for retirement but are too nervous to make the decision themselves, particularly given today’s volatility in the stock market,” says Gerald Wernette, director of Rehmann Retirement Builders at Rehmann Financial in Lansing, Michigan. “They see automatic enrollment as a way to have their investment decisions made for them, trusting their employers to mitigate any risk.”
For employees, the benefit is clear: They save for retirement while otherwise they might not.
“There’s no doubt that automatic enrollment prepares a lot more people for the retirement years,” says Steven Dimitriou, managing partner with Mayflower Advisors in Boston. “Even though automatic enrollment can put employees on automatic pilot when it comes to their retirement savings, they’re better off than without such a plan.”
Auto-enrollment plans have, indeed, broadened the number of people saving for retirement. However, there is concern that they dampen the overall savings rate of participants, who often contribute as little as 2 percent of their salary on a monthly basis without ever increasing their contribution rate.
In other words, employees tend to take a laissez faire approach toward such plans, letting them have a life of their own after the initial sign-up. Those who voluntarily enroll in a 401(k), on the other hand, tend to contribute at a significantly higher rate—an average of 7.8 percent monthly—according to Aon Hewitt’s research.
In addition, more than two-thirds of companies with auto-enrollment programs set default contribution rates at 3 percent of salary or less, an inadequate level of savings for employees who expect to retire one day. The Vanguard Group recommends those with incomes below $50,000 save 9 percent of salary or more, including a company match; those with incomes between $50,001 and $100,000 save 12 percent or more; and those with incomes above $100,000 save at least 15 percent.
“If a company is going to implement an automatic enrollment plan, it should start off employees at a meaningful number,” says Pamela Hess, director of retirement research at Aon Hewitt. “Saving just 1 percent less over a career can have a dramatic impact on savings, ultimately leading to nearly a 15 percent loss in retirement income.”
To drive savings rates higher, many companies have begun adding automatic annual increases to auto-enrollment plans. “An employer will start employees at, say, a 3 percent monthly savings rate but tell them, ‘Every year that monthly contribution will go up 1 percent until you tell us to stop,’ ” Dimitriou says.
Companies can boost participation rates by periodically “back-sweeping” employees, that is, automatically enrolling workers not participating in a 401(k) rather than enrolling only at the point of hire, Hess says.
Companies clearly have begun to see the value in auto-enrollment. According to the Aon Hewitt study, 60 percent of employers analyzed had an auto-enrollment feature in 2010, up from just 24 percent in 2006, when Congress passed the Pension Protection Act. That act removed roadblocks that discouraged employers from offering auto-enrollment and provided such programs protection from liability if they met certain requirements.
Putting such a plan in place, however, only makes sense if a company is willing to fully back it. That means more than sending out periodic emails reminding employees that the auto-enrollment program exists.
“A company has to give the automatic enrollment plan due consideration,” Rehmann Financial’s Wernette says. “It has to put in the time and effort that will give real results.”
That effort should translate into regular updates as to the company’s commitment and ongoing education for employees as to the plan’s benefit, according to Wernette. “You don’t want your employees to feel they’ve been sold a bill of goods.”
Companies also must understand upfront that automatic enrollment will likely drive up in-house costs in terms of matching contributions, as well as administrative expenses.
“It translates into money, time and resources,” Dimitriou says. “On the upside, such plans mean that more assets are in play.”
In addition, auto-enrollment can be a great marketing tool; it sends a message that the company is socially responsible and cares about its employees’ future.
Auto-enrollment, however, isn’t a good idea for all employers. Companies with a high turnover workforce, such as retail stores and restaurant chains, might not want to incur the additional costs and administrative burdens.
In addition, the benefits might be limited for their employees, who would accumulate small balances and be more likely to abandon them or take a lump-sum distribution when they leave the company. Such plans are also ineffective for those nearing retirement, who would benefit more from short-term, higher-yield investments.
Still, research points to the fact that overall, employees overwhelmingly appreciate auto-enrollment plans, and they provide a competitive edge in recruiting and retaining top talent. “Bottom line, employers have a great opportunity to help employees save for retirement,” Wernett says, “and at the same time benefit themselves.”
Workforce Management Online, August 2011 — Register Now!
HSA Changes Add More to Consider When Picking Plans
It has been almost eight years since health savings accounts entered the health care lexicon under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. But penetration for the tax-advantaged plans, which can be rolled over unlike a flexible spending account, remains low.
Research from groups such as the Employee Benefit Research Institute and America’s Health Insurance Plans shows growth in enrollment for high-deductible health plans, or HDHPs, which are a necessary component of HSAs, but the increase is tepid. The EBRI, for instance, shows that 17.2 million people, or 14 percent, covered by private health insurance in 2010 had HDHPs. That compares with 13 percent in 2009. AHIP data show that, as of January 2011, 11.4 million people were covered by an HDHP/HSA, up from 10 million the year before.
Whether you view the enrollment trend as glass half-full or -empty, two elements of federal health care reform legislation passed last year could affect HSAs’ growth even further. Over-the-counter medications had been HSA-eligible, but now only those prescribed by a physician will be allowed. FSAs are also affected by this revision. The second change is an increase to 20 percent from 10 percent in the tax penalties on nonqualified HSA expense withdrawals, such as for cosmetic surgery.
These provisions could affect whether employees see HDHPs/HSAs as a good alternative to traditional PPO or HMO plans, as well as how workers fund and use their existing HSAs. But employees may focus on bigger issues than those changes, says Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s health research and education program. “I think the employer contribution relative to the deductible and the premium savings, if there are any, are the things that people really focus on.” As for HSA enrollment figures, he says, “The number is still growing. It’s got no place to go but up because essentially they’re still brand new.”
Given the complexity of HDHPs/HSAs and the changing regulations, employers are trying to educate their workers on the pros and cons of choosing these lower-cost, high-deductible plans.
Ellen Stone, benefits manager at Bellevue, Washington-based Symetra Financial, says the company introduced an HDHP/HSA for the 2010 plan year and provided plenty of detailed information. “We wanted to ensure that employees factored more than just premium savings into their decisions,” she says. “Our biggest concern was to avoid having employees enroll who were either ineligible for the program, did not fully understand the plan, or for whom the plan was not a good fit.”
Symetra offered online tools comparing the available plans as well as sample utilization models, where employees can plug in savings and spending data to see if they’re saving enough to meet future needs. Some employees didn’t want to change plans because they considered it financially risky or they simply preferred the familiarity of the more traditional offerings, Stone says. “We made a point to say that the HDHP/HSA was not a perfect fit for everyone.” But the HDHP/HSA rate of adoption among Symetra’s 1,100 employees has proven significantly higher than expected. “Nearly 50 percent of the employees [previously] enrolled in our PPO plan moved to the HDHP/HSA, and in 2011 it is our most prevalent plan,” Stone says.
Despite the health care reform law changes affecting HDHPs/HSAs, Folcomer Equipment Corp., a construction machinery dealer in Aberdeen, Maryland, no longer offers traditional PPO or HMO plans. Instead, it has moved its workforce of 40 employees entirely to its HDHP/HSA plan.
“There was initially a lot of confusion about the switch,” says Amanda Haddaway, director of human resources and marketing, especially among employees who had been on traditional HMO and PPO insurance plans, where in-network services didn’t have deductibles. “There was some ‘sticker shock’ when the new HDHP deductibles were explained,” she says.
A concerted education campaign helped Folcomer address employee concerns, Haddaway says. “Once we explained that the premiums, including their portion of the HSA funding, would be the same or less than what they were currently paying, most employees were very happy.”
Workforce Management, August 2011, p. 10 — Subscribe Now!
Mailing Benefits Packets? Feds Weigh the Cost and Risks of Electronic Communication
In the 25 years Steve Klapper has been the corporate payroll and benefits manager for American TV & Appliance, he has received only two questions from employees on benefits information mailed to their homes.
Yet this year, the Madison, Wisconsin-based electronics company will spend about $30,000 printing and mailing benefits information—such as 401(k) summary plan descriptions—to its 1,200 employees, he says.
In this tough economy, American TV & Appliance would much rather use the money to keep or hire an employee, says Klapper, adding that he would prefer to send the information electronically instead of mailing it.
“In this day and age when such a large number of employees are used to receiving information electronically and don’t even know the cost of a postage stamp, the idea we are fulfilling a government requirement for the good of the employee by sending it through the mail is just nonsense,” he says.
Klapper was one of 77 respondents to the U.S. Labor Department’s request for information on sending electronic employee benefit plan information to participants.
While the agency is trying to determine what to do about its current policy on electronic delivery of information, it may not happen before plan sponsors will be required to give an estimated four-page document outlining certain plan and investment fee information to its participants. Without a change in the current electronic delivery, plan sponsors will need to mail this fee information, instead of a less costly delivery via computer.
The Washington, D.C.-based Investment Company Institute said the cost of printing and mailing this particular notice to the 72 million participants in participant-directed retirement accounts ranges from $37.4 million to just under $50 million. Plan sponsors will be required to send this information by May 31, 2012.
“Companies are all focused on ways to cut down on cost, and [electronic disclosure] would be a much more effective way” of giving participants information, says Louis Mazawey, principal and head of the tax group at Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C.
The Labor Department is considering interim e-disclosure guidance and is hopeful it will be issued in late August, one official said. The official did not give more details.
Currently, companies need to get employee consent to send benefit information electronically. The current rule also says employees need to use computers as a significant part of their regular responsibilities to qualify for electronic communication.
Many of the respondents to the agency’s request for information want electronic delivery of information to become the default notification system, where participants would need to opt out to receive paper delivery—similar to how some employees currently opt out of other automatic features, like automatic enrollment.
Plus, many employees are already using the Internet to keep pace with changes in their 401(k) plans. According to the Chicago-based Profit Sharing/401k Council of America’s 2010 annual survey of plans, 91.9 percent of all plans and 96.4 percent of plans with 5,000 or more participants use the Internet for balance inquiries on their retirement accounts.
“Participants are being overwhelmed with information,” says Aliya Wong, executive director of retirement policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We have the technology to get them information more effectively and to give them the best experience possible.”
To highlight the more timely concern plan sponsors have in delivering fee information, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 15 other industry groups told the department they felt the fee disclosure deadline would happen before a new rule for electronic disclosure could be finalized. In a July letter, this group asked the department to consider using existing relief that allows electronic delivery of quarterly benefit statements to apply to the delivery of fee information.
“Such transitional relief would mitigate disruption to and the cost of plan administration and provide participants and beneficiaries with a more consistent and efficient delivery experience,” the letter said. “Mailing the extensive written disclosures required by the new regulation to participants and beneficiaries who currently engage plans via online access would be wasteful, costly and, for many participants and beneficiaries, unwanted.”
The existing relief, called Field Assistance Bulletin 2006-03, allows participants to opt out of electronic delivery and get paper copies of benefit statements. The group’s July 7 letter added that expanding the provisions of the bulletin to the fee disclosure requirement would protect all participants: Anyone wanting a paper copy would have that option available.
“We think this relief is absolutely necessary for the fee disclosure rule because it is a lot of information, and a much better way to get it to people,” Wong says.
Workforce Management Online, August 2011 — Register Now!
Push for Transgender Rights in the Workplace Continues to Grow
Kathleen Culhane was thrilled to land a job two years ago with a large Minnesota-based employer known for its commitment to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.
Culhane, a chemist, was born male. Her decision to change gender in 2001 forced her to quit a job she loved at a university research lab in Iowa after her supervisors tried to fire her, telling her that they doubted she could do the job in her “condition.”
She found a position at another lab and was doing well until she got a new manager who harassed her constantly, she says. Eventually, she quit that job and decided to move to Minnesota where state law bans discrimination against transgender people.
Her new employer, where she still works and which she declined to name, has policies that address LGBT discrimination, but within a few months Culhane, 46, overheard two women make disparaging comments about her gender in the most dreaded room in the workplace for transgender employees: the restroom.
“I was waiting for one of the stalls and I heard one woman say to the other, ‘Did you hear that some guy is using our bathroom?’ It was a kick in the gut,” she says. “All this time I spent building my self-image, and I felt like it could be undercut with one comment.”
Culhane reported the incident to the human resources department, which took it very seriously, she says, although no one was disciplined because she fled the restroom before identifying the women. HR representatives filed a report and a diversity training session for employees soon followed. The incident left Culhane rattled, but thankful that her employer had policies to deal with the situation.
Many companies seem to be taking note of growing support for the rights of LGBT employees. Policies have been introduced by some employers specifically for transgender workers that go beyond written statements and address such issues as safe access to bathrooms, health insurance policies that cover medical treatments and training for supervisors of employees undergoing gender reassignment procedures.
Nearly three-fourths of registered voters from various political parties recently polled by the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank in Washington D.C., say they are in favor of protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination. And a new study by the New York City-based Center for Work-Life Policy that is featured in the July/August issue of the Harvard Business Review highlights the financial impact on companies that fail to create a safe workplace for LGBT employees. According to the study, almost half of all LGBT workers surveyed remain in the closet, resulting in higher rates of depression, stress-related illnesses and greater turnover.
On the legislative front, a growing number of states including Connecticut, Hawaii and Nevada have passed laws prohibiting workplace discrimination against transgender people. In May, the federal government issued guidelines for the treatment of transgender federal employees and called on government agencies to review their anti-discrimination policies for inclusion of transgender workers.
“We are seeing a greater recognition of the importance in taking affirmative steps toward making workplaces more open and accepting,” says Michael Silverman, executive director, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund in New York City. “More and more companies are offering fully inclusive health care benefits to all employees. Transgender workers are almost always excluded.”
The first case in the country to tackle the question of a transgender person’s sex is making its way through the legal system. It’s not the first job discrimination case filed by a transgender person, but it’s the first one to take on the question of what is a man, Silverman says. It involves a worker at a New Jersey drug treatment center who was fired after his supervisors learned that he was born female.
The man was a part-time urine monitor who tried to ensure that recovering addicts did not substitute someone else’s urine for their own. His employer asserts that gender plays a critical role in the qualifications needed for that specific job. The Transgender Legal Defense Fund, co-counsel in the case, contends that legally, the employee is a man.
Companies with comprehensive policies and programs in place are often cited in the Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on how they treat LGBT employees, customers and investors. The index is published annually by the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBT civil rights organization.
The index includes gender identity and expression policies, health insurance coverage for domestic partners and plans that provide transgender employees with medically necessary care like hormone therapy. Specific to transgender employees, it also looks at dress code policies and safe access to gender-appropriate restrooms.
This year, 477 companies participated with 337 earning a perfect score of 100 percent, the highest number since the organization launched the index in 2002.
Kellogg Co., the Battle Creek, Michigan-based packaged-food producer, last year amended its nondiscrimination policy to include gender identity and expression and scored 100 percent. So did communications giant AT&T Inc.
Belinda Grant-Anderson, AT&T’s vice president of workforce development and diversity, says the company wants to “make sure that employees are bringing their full self to work.” In 1987, AT&T established one of the first LGBT employee resources group in the country. Called League, the group has helped to guide the company’s diversity policies.
“We don’t approach this policy by policy, but rather we ask ourselves, ‘What is our global strategy?’ ” says Gary Fraundorfer, vice president of human resources at AT&T. “You can limit your strategy to health and welfare benefits or compliance to state and federal laws, but our approach is totally comprehensive.”
And that means providing unisex bathrooms for AT&T employees undergoing the gender reassignment process—a move that Culhane, the Minnesota chemist, applauds.
“This is the No. 1 issue for transgender employees,” she says. “You hear about transgender people with bladder infections because they hold it every day while they’re at work. The best thing an employer can do is to have unisex bathroom where you can lock the door.”
Workforce Management Online, June 2011 — Register Now!
COBRA Program Subsidies to Expire at End of August
A popular government program that subsidized COBRA health insurance premiums for millions of laid-off employees will end this month.
Under the COBRA premium subsidy program, which was included as part of a huge economic stimulus bill Congress passed in February 2009 during the peak of the recession, the federal government pays 65 percent of COBRA premiums for involuntarily terminated employees.
Since then, Congress several times extended the program in which premium subsidies are provided to laid-off employees for up to 15 months. The last extension—approved in April 2010—extended the subsidy to those let go though May 31, 2010.
For employees who were laid off in May 2010 and have been unemployed since, their 15 months of COBRA premium subsidies will expire at the end of August.
Amid growing congressional worries about a public backlash against measures that would increase the federal budget deficit, the action Congress took in April 2010 to extend the subsidy to those laid off through the end of May marked the end of subsidy extensions.
The exact number of individuals who took the subsidy isn’t known. At the time the original subsidy legislation was passed, congressional analysts estimated that the subsidy would aid more than 7 million laid-off employees and their families and cost the government about $25 billion.
The subsidy had a dramatic effect on COBRA enrollment. A study conducted last year by Hewitt Associates Inc.—later acquired by Aon Corp.—found that the COBRA take-up rate among terminated employees working for large employers roughly doubled after the subsidy was available.
Initially, for employers, the COBRA subsidy created a lot of work as organizations had to locate laid-off employees and tell them of their new right to subsidized coverage. But over time, administrative problems eased.
Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email 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.
Most Employers Say Workers Need Guidance on Benefit Decisions
Virtually all employers—96 percent—say their employees need guidance to make sound benefits decisions and education to help workers understand changes in their benefits programs, yet less than one-quarter—23 percent—say their company’s benefits education efforts are very effective, according to a survey taken at the recent Society for Human Resource Management conference.
The survey, conducted by Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., also found that just over half—51 percent—of employers plan to increase employees’ share of health insurance premiums, while nearly half—49 percent—are increasing deductibles and copayments in response to the rising cost of health care.
“Not surprisingly, employee benefits have taken a hit as companies wrestle with the rising cost of providing health coverage to their workforce,” said Randy Horn, president and CEO of Columbia, South Carolina-based Colonial Life, in a written statement.
Among other survey findings:
• 25 percent of employers are adding consumer-driven health plans.
• 21 percent are adding voluntary benefits options.
• 13.4 percent are eliminating some other benefit.
The survey included responses from more than 750 human resources managers and benefit managers attending the annual SHRM conference in Las Vegas in June.
Filed by Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email 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.
Nontraditional Perks Paying Off for Forward-Thinking Employers
Employees of Domino’s Pizza Inc. enjoy some unusual benefits, in addition to discounts for a large cheese and pepperoni pizza.
Among the innovative benefits offered by the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based pizza chain are Pie Perks, which provide discounts on everything from oil changes to high-definition TVs at various retailers nationwide. There’s also an extensive wellness program designed to increase employee engagement.
Additionally, Domino’s 12,000 corporate employees receive holiday gift boxes, can access adoption assistance programs, are treated to extended time off during holidays and participate in a bonus program.
“Every team member participates in some type of bonus plan,” says Joe Abraham, Domino’s vice president of Total Rewards & Shared Services. “This links with our high-performance culture, and we see a very high return on investment in these programs.”
Nontraditional benefits are playing a bigger role as employers look to add staff and retain key talent, says Carol Sladek, a principal with Aon Hewitt, who helps clients implement work-life solutions. The perks often are inexpensive and help boost spirits in the workplace.
“When an employee wants to add a benefit, or benefits, they are usually addressing a particular problem or opportunity, such as productivity, absenteeism or talent management,” says Sladek, who is based in Lincolnshire, Illinois. “Many of the solutions for these issues come in the form of nontraditional benefits programs that are low-cost and high-value.”
Sladek says her group often works with employers to enrich traditional benefits programs, such as paid time off. That includes pooled time off, which employees can gift to each other, or sabbatical programs.
“The key is to marry the business needs of the organization with the needs of the workforce,” she says. “Traditional benefits may not be suited for a diverse workforce, and that’s where you can expand upon what you have to meet the needs of the group.”
Sladek believes flexible working arrangements and telecommuting programs that give employees more control over their time are highly valued and yet are inexpensive while providing a benefit for the organization, such as more coverage in the morning or at night.
“We see a wide range of programs that help employees manage their time, such as flex time to on-site cafeterias and day care, fitness classes, dry cleaning and car washing services,” she says. “Some of these programs cost little or nothing, while some require a significant investment, however, helping employees save time during their workday can be a win-win for everyone.”
One employer, Oklahoma City, Okla.-based American Fidelity Assurance Co., has benefited from an extensive flex time and telecommuting program.
“We have a family-oriented environment and wanted to find a way to help colleagues balance work and life,” says Heather Henshall, human resources specialist and project coordinator. Henshall says the majority of the insurance firm’s 1,490 employees are women who are balancing work with family.
Henshall says 48 percent of the workforce takes advantage of flex-work arrangements, starting work earlier or later, which allows the insurer to staff its call center longer without incurring overtime.
About 40 percent of its employees telecommute, working from home one to five days a week, Henshall says. Employees who want to telecommute receive extensive training on everything from expectations and guidelines to information technology so they can troubleshoot computer issues on their own.
Chris Morris, a marketing consultant for Benefit Communications Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee, says many of the nontraditional benefits he sees being used by his clients focus on wellness, on-site gyms and cafeterias.
“In this case, the employer is usually trying to drive a behavior change geared toward a healthier lifestyle,” Morris says.
One client has an on-site cafeteria that offers low-cost, healthy meals. Another client runs a call center in Nashville that rewards employees with a break room that has games, including a Wii. And yet another has an on-site health clinic designed to increase employees’ use of health assessments while decreasing time away from the office for doctor’s appointments.
Morris says the increase in nontraditional, often low-cost employee benefits can have a tremendous impact on employee morale, well-being and loyalty.
“However, there needs to be an incentive to use a program, or you won’t see participation … or change,” he says.
Several years ago, Minneapolis-based accounting firm Lurie Besikoff Lapidus & Co. decided to make life more bearable during the tax season for its 120 employees.
“We started bringing in catered meals for lunch and dinner so employees can have time to eat and relax instead of running out,” says Tom Morin, human resources manager. “We now have ‘chocolate Fridays,’ Wii tournaments, on-site massages, drawings for housecleaning services, and have even created survival kits with healthy snacks and wellness products. Anything to lighten the mood and give everyone a break, because we are working six or seven days a week during our busy season.”
Morin says that in addition to traditional benefits, his firm has a flexible schedule program, pays $100 for each year of service toward a dependent child’s college education and offers bonuses to employees who bring in new business.
Another employer trying to “lighten the load” for its employees is San Diego-based ACI Specialty Benefits, which offers work life, wellness and concierge services to employers. Employees, many of whom tackle challenging issues in the call center, can take advantage of a Zen room, complete with a massage chair, lavender-filled eye compresses, and calming music and yoga classes.
“Our goal is to increase retention, because call centers have a high turnover,” says chief administrative officer and head of human resources Gilbert Manzano. “We try to keep our environment fun, with wellness warrior team challenges, and teams that compete on fitness and weight-loss goals. We believe happy and healthy employees are good for business.”
Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!
NFL Players Deal Will Allow Workers’ Compensation Claims in Other States
The National Football League’s new collective bargaining agreement will allow players to file workers’ compensation claims in states where their teams are not based, a loophole the league had tried desperately to close during negotiations.
The NFL and the National Football League Players Association signed off on the new CBA on July 25 with both sides agreeing on terms that will allow the season to start Aug. 4. Workers’ compensation was among the sticking points the two sides had yet to agree on as negotiations wound down over the past several days.
On July 23, an email by player representative and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees outlined three primary issues the players association still was grappling with, including workers’ compensation.
“The NFL is trying to impose a system where they can restrict which states we can file for workers’ comp,” Brees wrote in his email, which was published by the NBC Sports blog, “Pro Football Talk.” Brees added that workers’ compensation is a “major benefit when it comes to long-term health care,” and that the players “will never let [the league] restrict our health and safety long term.”
Mostly at issue is California’s labor law, which has been the reason that several former pro football players file workers’ comp claims in the state despite not having played for any teams based there.
Under the state’s current law, it allows players to make a claim in California if the player has played at least one game within the state. The law grabbed attention in June when the Denver Broncos were sued by a subsidiary of Travelers Cos. Inc. regarding workers’ compensation claims made by retired Broncos players in California.
Under the new CBA, the ambiguity of California’s law for workers’ compensation benefits remains the same. However, California lawmakers are aggressively trying to close the loophole that allows claims to be freely filed by players on teams based in other states, according to reports.
Filed by Jeff Casale of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email 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.
Wisconsin to Review Health Savings Accounts for State Employees
Budget legislation that has been signed into law requires Wisconsin regulators to examine the feasibility of offering state employees a high-deductible health insurance plan linked to health savings accounts.
Under A.B. 40, which Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed into law last month, the director of state employment relations and the secretary of employee trust funds are to make their recommendations to the governor and state lawmakers by Oct. 31.
Earlier this year, Wisconsin lawmakers approved legislation that revised the state’s tax law to follow the 2003 federal law that established HSAs and excludes HSA contributions from employees’ taxable income.
Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email 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.