Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Commentary & Opinion

Posted on September 16, 2009August 31, 2018

Labor Department Nixes Bush Rule to Let Brokers Advise 401(k) Plans


The Department of Labor is killing a regulation issued in the last days of the Bush administration that would have allowed advisors affiliated with mutual funds, brokerage firms and other companies that sell investments to provide investment advice to 401(k) participants.


“We believe the final investment advice regulation published in the January 21 Federal Register went too far in permitting investment advice arrangements not specifically contemplated by the statutory exemption,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, a unit of the Labor Department.


Borzi made the announcement Monday, September, 14 at a conference in Washington that was sponsored by the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries.


“Today’s workers will benefit from quality investment advice—advice that is both affordable and unbiased,” she said, adding that the Labor Department will now take a fresh look at regulations that govern investment advice and issue new rules.


The Obama administration and House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, had objected to the rules issued by the Bush administration on the grounds they would allow advisors who have a conflict of interest to provide advice.


Because of its opposition, the Obama administration had delayed the effective date of the Bush rules. It is not known when the administration will propose new rules.


The Pension Protection Act of 2006 included a provision aimed at making it easier for investment advisors to provide advice to 401(k) participants as long as fees earned by advisors are no different for investment options that are recommended, and as long as disclosures are provided.


The mutual fund industry has fought for allowing advisors affiliated with fund companies to give advice, arguing that the provision would make advice more accessible for 401(k) account holders. Many investment advisors opposed the Bush rule, arguing that fund companies and brokerage firms could exert pressure on advisors to recommend proprietary products.



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


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

Posted on September 14, 2009August 31, 2018

Five Questions for an International Financial Reporting Standards Conversion

A successful conversion to International Financial Reporting Standards begins with an understanding of where an organization lies in its overall readiness for the process. Here are five key questions that project sponsors should ask as they begin the process of conversion:


• Do my organization’s finance, accounting and corporate officers have access to IFRS information that will guide our assessment activities, conversion road map and overall IFRS strategy?


• Are my organization’s HR and rewards structures—including share-based payments, pensions and deferred compensation benefits accounting—designed to support IFRS conversion and reporting?


• Do I understand the impact of IFRS on key employees’ roles and responsibilities?


• Is my organization positioned with the right program management and governance structure to handle a multi-year IFRS assessment and conversion?


• Does my team or IFRS conversion advisor have the skills and resources to handle both the technical accounting and broader HR challenges of conversion?


The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered but is not a substitute for professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Copyright © 2009 Deloitte Development LLC, All rights reserved.

Workforce Management
Online, September 2009 — Register Now!


Posted on September 4, 2009August 31, 2018

New York City Business Groups Ill Over Paid Sick Days


Opposition is slowly building among groups worried that a New York City Council bill requiring companies to provide employees with as many as nine paid sick days per year would place a burden on small businesses.


Earlier this week, the Manhattan and Staten Island chambers of commerce sent an online survey to members to find out where they stand on the proposal, which would compel businesses with 10 or more employees to provide nine paid sick days, and those with fewer than 10 workers to give five. Fines would be levied at a rate of $1,000 per violation.


New York’s other borough chambers are expected to send out similar surveys after Labor Day.


The surveys are a precursor to an organized opposition campaign by the city’s chambers. A meeting is set for next week in which the groups are expected to come up with a plan of attack against the bill.


“I’ve gotten some responses back to our survey and almost everybody opposes the bill,” said Staten Island Chamber of Commerce president Linda Baran. “They feel it’s just another thing they have to contend with at a time the business climate in the city is getting worse and worse.”


And, although most of its members provide paid sick days and wouldn’t be affected by the legislation, the Partnership for New York City has expressed concern over the measure. A spokesman said the proposal would add to the costs of small businesses at a time when they are already stretched to the limit.


Mayor Michael Bloomberg has indicated a willingness to support paid sick days for large firms, but has stopped short of embracing the mandate for small ones.


Supporters of the bill point to successes with paid sick days in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and argue it will level the playing field among businesses, helping them in the long run.


“Paid sick days are often smart business,” says a spokesman for the Working Families Party. “Studies show that when workers come to work sick, they can slow productivity, infect their co-workers, and are even more likely to cause workplace accidents.”


Some 35 council members have already signed on to the legislation, which has been spearheaded by Councilwoman Gale Brewer, D-Manhattan, giving it enough support to withstand a veto should the mayor determine the measure to be too onerous for small businesses.




Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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


Posted on September 4, 2009August 31, 2018

Census Bureau to Release Updated Uninsured Numbers


The U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday, September 10, will release a report showing how many people in the United States lacked health insurance coverage in 2008.


The report is expected to attract a high level of interest as it coincides with the drive in Congress to pass sweeping health care reform legislation to move the nation closer to universal coverage.


The measures would try to do that by providing federal health insurance premium subsidies for the low-income uninsured, among other provisions. The drive to pass health care reform legislation could be bolstered if the Census Bureau report shows a sharp increase in the number of uninsured.


In 2007, both the percentage and number of people lacking health insurance declined. The percentage without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006; the number of uninsured was 45.7 million, down from 47 million the prior year.




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 4, 2009August 31, 2018

Despite Acerbic Posts, HR Blogger Joel Cheesman Insists He Has Mellowed

The Cheezhead blog has taken some sharp swipes over the years, but its chief author says he’s not made of stone.


Joel Cheesman feels some regret that he published an item earlier this year about the indiscreet tweets of a CareerBuilder.com sales rep who apparently lost her job in the wake of Cheesman’s post.


And, says the author of the well-known recruiting industry blog Cheezhead, he’s not impervious to the barbs that have been thrown at him in the course of running a popular site that’s both praised and panned by the HR community.


“People are assholes online,” Cheesman says. “I’m a human being, and I bleed.”


Cheesman, 38, came to blogging largely by accident. The Cleveland resident started a business in 2005, HRSEO, focused on search engine optimization, which involves helping organizations such as job boards improve the way their job listings appear in the organic search results on search engines. In keeping with what was trendy at the time, Cheesman also began a related blog. He’d had about eight years in the industry and some writing skills: He minored in journalism at Ball State University and worked for his high school paper.


To his delight, the Indiana-born Cheesman discovered that the blog served as an alternative to making sales calls. As he blogged, people would call him. “This is great,” Cheesman remembers thinking. “I hate sales in general, but I like blogging.”


Later, Cheesman named his site Cheezhead. From 2006 through 2008, he posted an item virtually every workday. Amid a growing HRSEO business, Cheesman expanded his blog last year to include two writers, former recruiter Vanessa Dennis and journalist Jen Carpenter. Traffic to Cheezhead now tops 21,000 monthly visitors, and it is regarded as one of the most influential blogs in HR.


That’s partly because of Cheesman’s reputation for biting commentary and industry scoops. One early story reported that Yahoo HotJobs was gathering jobs from around the Web, not just listing jobs from its database of paid clients. More recently, he broke the news that Monster was laying off more than 150 employees.


Big job boards have been a favorite Cheesman target. He has called Monster “really dumb” and had this to say last year about CareerBuilder.com: “By most accounts, the latest CareerBuilder TV ads are about as popular as Celine Dion’s greatest hits at a biker bar.”


Monster declined to comment for this story. CareerBuilder did not immediately return a call requesting comment.


Overall, Cheesman gets mixed reviews in the industry.


“When you’ve reached that pinnacle, what you say carries weight. You need to make sure what you’re saying is accurate,” says recruiting blogger Maren Hogan. “From what I know, Joel takes his work seriously.”


Others question Cheesman’s objectivity and reporting methods. Cheesman relies heavily on anonymous sources and has been likened to celebrity gossip site TMZ. He also has what could be perceived as conflicts of interest, given his site’s sponsorship by job board provider DirectEmployers, the HRSEO business and a more recent venture, HirePPC, where Cheesman works for clients including job boards to have their paid advertisements appear more prominently on job aggregation sites such as Simply Hired and Indeed.com.


Cheesman says that about 20 percent of his revenue is blog-related, while his search engine optimization work accounts for roughly 70 percent. He declined to specify his annual revenue.

Katya White, Simply Hired’s senior marketing communications manager, believes that Cheesman’s emphasis on his other businesses have diluted his blog.


“He’s lost some credibility. He used to do more homework,” she says. “The last two times I saw him, he was promoting his new business. How can you be objective when you have another agenda?”


Cheesman, who has written critically about Simply Hired, says White is “entitled to her opinion.” He says he has tried to keep his consulting businesses separate from his blog. And he notes that the sponsorship by DirectEmployers, which runs the JobCentral job board, is disclosed on Cheezhead.


As Cheesman sees it, his blog’s tone has softened as it has aged.


The best way to be relevant, he says, is to “be more objective, be more newsy, be less about ‘Monster sucks’ and more about ‘What’s going on at Monster?’ ”

Posted on September 3, 2009August 31, 2018

Bailed-Out Insurance Giant AIG to Hand Out Retention Bonuses Disguised as Loans to 6,000 Reps, Advisors


On the heels of new American International Group Inc. chief executive Robert Benmosche’s backpedaling from incendiary comments he made about New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the AIG Advisor Group—the battered insurer’s retail securities business—is preparing to hand out retention bonuses to its 6,000 reps and investment advisors.


Dubbed “business-building loans,” the retention bonuses will equal between 5 and 10 percent of brokers’ previous year’s fees or commissions, known as a broker’s “trailing 12” in the industry.


According to sources inside and outside AIG, the percentage a broker receives depends on his or her annual production, with brokers producing less than $300,000 in fees and commissions likely getting nothing.


The common wisdom in the retail securities business is that such bonuses are necessary to keep advisors in their seats, particularly after one broker-dealer is sold.


The three broker-dealers that make up the AIG Advisor Group—Royal Alliance Associates Inc., FSC Securities Corp. and SagePoint Financial Inc.—had been on the block since October as part of AIG’s widespread sale of assets to raise capital to pay back part of the federal government’s $85 billion bailout.


After months of sometimes agonizing waiting for brokers, Benmosche scrapped plans for the sale soon after taking over as CEO of AIG last month.


In some of his first meetings with AIG employees in August, he also revealed his feelings about Cuomo, who subpoenaed AIG in March during a political and media uproar over $165 million in retention bonuses.


According to Bloomberg, Benmosche told AIG employees in Houston on August 11 that Cuomo was “unbelievably wrong” about the bonuses.


“He doesn’t deserve to be in government, and he surely shouldn’t be the attorney general of the state of New York,” Benmosche said.


AIG said Monday, August 31, that Benmosche “regrets his comments regarding Mr. Cuomo.”


The reps and advisors with the broker-dealers of the AIG Advisor Group, however, have one clear difference from the employees Cuomo targeted as part of his bonus inquiry, industry observers noted. The advisors are independent contractors, not employees, and take great pride in that status, which allows them to move with reasonable ease to other broker-dealers.


When asked to give specific details of the retention bonus package to AIG Advisor Group reps, that unit’s CEO, Larry Roth, did not respond directly.


Instead, he wrote in an e-mail: “All of our broker-dealers remain highly committed to their financial advisors and will continue to provide them with the support they need to grow their practices. We help advisers succeed by investing in them in many ways, including practice-management programs, back-office support and technology.”


The issue of brokers receiving bonuses has recently drawn the strong interest of securities regulators.


On Monday, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro warned broker-dealer CEOs that offering large upfront bonuses to potential recruits comes with the responsibility of closely monitoring reps and advisors’ sales practices.


“Certain forms of potential compensation may carry with them enhanced risks to customers,” Schapiro wrote in an open letter to CEOs that was posted on the SEC Web site.


“Some types of enhanced compensation practices may lead registered representatives to believe that they must sell securities at a sufficiently high level to justify special arrangements that they have been given.”



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


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

Posted on August 27, 2009August 31, 2018

The 30 Highest-Paid Human Resources Leaders

Reflecting the down economy, compensation for the top-paid HR leaders dropped in 2008—and experts say that the trend has gotten even worse in 2009.


The average compensation for executives on the list has dropped 20 percent since 2007, says Deborah Nielsen, director of data operations at Salary.com, which compiled the data for Workforce Management. The list is compiled from companies’ proxy filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


A 20 percent drop in overall compensation is in line with what has occurred with other top executives’ pay, Nielsen says.


The majority of executives listed on Workforce Management’s annual list of the 30 highest-paid HR leaders are different from those who were on last year’s list. Among those appearing on both years’ lists are Jean Halloran of Agilent Technologies Inc., Marina Armstrong of Gymboree Corp., Jon D. Walton of Allegheny Technologies Inc., John M. Murabito of Cigna Corp. and Larry D. Hunter of DirecTV Group Inc.


While salaries were down only 1 percent from 2007, discretionary bonuses were almost nonexistent among the 30 top-paid HR executives in 2008. Only four executives received discretionary bonuses in 2008, down from 12 in 2007. And the amounts of these bonuses have dropped drastically. The biggest bonus in 2007 was $1 million. In 2008, the biggest bonus was $420,000, awarded to Robert K. Kretzman, Revlon Inc.’s executive vice president of human resources, chief legal officer, general counsel and secretary.


“This is consistent with what I have been seeing across the board,” says Russell Miller, managing director at Executive Compensation Advisors, a subsidiary of Korn/Ferry International. “In this difficult economy, companies are holding the line more on bonuses than they had in the past.”


But companies continued to pay out their annual non-equity incentives, which are usually determined at the beginning of the year and are based on performance targets. “Those plans were set up early, before a lot of the things with the economic downturn happened,” Nielsen says. “It’s not something you can change in the middle of the year.”


Equity continued to play a big part in how the top-paid HR leaders were compensated in 2008. Equity awards made up more than 50 percent of total compensation for 14 of the executives on the list.


That trend is in line with past years, but many employers argue that the way they have to disclose stock-option valuations isn’t an accurate reflection of what their executives are getting paid, particularly since so many of those options are now underwater.


Under SEC executive compensation rules, companies have to disclose stock-option grants as they are expensed, but not the price at which their executives cash them in–a rule that has caused much controversy in the corporate world. A spokesman for one HR executive made that point with Workforce Management.


“The vast majority of the amount you have listed are equity options that are substantially underwater–and not a fair reflection of how Mike was compensated in 2008,” J.C. Penney Co. spokesman Quinton Crenshaw wrote in an e-mail response to a fact-checking inquiry on the compensation for Michael T. Theilmann, the retailer’s executive vice president and chief human resources and administration officer. “It’s somewhat misleading to attribute those stock amounts attributed to Mike Theilmann–or any other executive for that matter–as if they have been earned or received already.”


This concern is one shared by many companies. The SEC announced on July 1 that it is revisiting its rule regarding how companies disclose stock-option grants in their proxy statements.


“The number that companies are disclosing is the amount that was granted in a year in terms of the expected value, but the problem is that six months later, a lot of those options are underwater,” Executive Compensation Advisors’ Miller says. “I think everyone recognizes that it’s imperfect.”


Another notable trend among the list of top-paid HR executives is that many hold multiple roles at their companies. Half the executives on the list hold at least one other title outside of HR.


“I can’t imagine that if you are splitting your time that HR is your primary focus,” Nielsen says.


One person whose compensation rose in 2008 is the HR leader who holds the No. 1 spot on the list: Michael H. Campbell, executive vice president of human resources and labor relations at Delta Air Lines Inc. He moved up from the 11th position last year. Campbell’s total compensation jumped from $3 million in 2007 to $5 million in 2008.


“Given the fact that Delta is in the middle of a merger with Northwest Airlines, it’s probably not a bad thing that there is such a big jump in compensation for this person because that’s a big job this year,” Nielsen says.


However, the cut in pay for most HR executives—while in line with other executive positions–is probably painful, she says.


“HR has a very tough job these days dealing with layoffs and consolidations,” she says. “It’s hard to have your job become much more difficult and see your pay fall.”

Workforce Management, August 17, 2009, p. 28-31 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on August 27, 2009August 31, 2018

The List—The 30 Highest-Paid Human Resources Leaders at Publicly Traded U.S. Companies

Click here to view the charts.

Posted on August 26, 2009August 31, 2018

Government Agencies Issue Fresh Flu Pandemic Guidance


Two federal agencies have issued fresh guidance about what employers can do if there is a serious influenza outbreak.


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines employers can follow to build a preparedness and action plan in a flu outbreak.


However, experts say fear of a pandemic may have waned and employers may have slipped into a false sense of security. Experts also note the H1N1 influenza virus could wreak havoc on employers if they’re not prepared.


According to a World Health Organization update last week, more than 182,000 confirmed cases of pandemic flu have occurred in 177 countries and territories. Nearly 1,800 deaths have been reported as a result of the flu, the vast majority in the Americas.


Michael Keating, Atlanta-based director of Navigant Consulting Inc., said employers are aware of a potential flu outbreak, but some have not taken the simple step of forming a team to help outline how a company would operate should its workforce be hit by employee illness.


Chicago-based Navigant recently launched a survey of employers that focuses on risk management and human resources departments checking their preparedness in the event of a flu outbreak.


“Interest has kind of atrophied since late April when the outbreak first happened,” Keating said. “There isn’t a lot of new guidance out there, but what the CDC is advocating is [for employers] to prepare to be flexible.”


In its guidelines, the CDC asks employers to work with employees to implement plans that can reduce the spread of flu, while keeping their business functioning during a slumping economy.


The CDC also advises employers to encourage employees to receive a vaccination for seasonal flu as well as the H1N1 virus when that vaccine becomes available.


Keating and the CDC encourage employees with flulike symptoms to stay home. Further, they encourage employers to remain flexible in allowing employees to stay home if they are ill without fear of losing their jobs.


“One of the most important things that employers can do is to make sure their human resources and leave policies are flexible and follow public health guidance,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “If employees are sick, they need to be encouraged to stay home.”


Keating said some employees will abuse this flexibility, but also said employers can put policies in place to ensure employees are actually taking time off because they are ill. He mentioned actions such as unpaid leave and negative vacation balances as two ways of doing this when workers have already used their available days.


“Not getting paid or using vacation is enough to keep most people honest, but it provides that their job is still there for them once they are healthy again so they don’t come to work sick in an effort to prevent the loss of their job,” Keating said.


He also recommends that employers get to know their local health officials and community leaders, who will communicate flu risk information in affected local areas. Another way employers can gauge the seriousness of a flu outbreak is monitoring school closings, he said.


Government agencies also encourage that other steps—such as stocking up on hand sanitizer, soap, tissue and other infection-prevention products—be done as early as possible, so they will be readily available during an outbreak when stores and distributors may not be able to keep up with demand.


Identifying key people within the company who maintain relationships with key clients and ensuring they are vaccinated and remain healthy is another step employers can take, Keating said.


“It’s a good idea to index the skills held by a few people in the organization,” Keating said.


“You have to plan how you’re going to fill those roles should those people become sick, and there may not be time to cross-train someone. It’s important to know where your vulnerabilities are and address them in advance.”


More information on influenza and how businesses can prepare for an outbreak is available at www.flu.gov.



Filed by Jeff Casale 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 August 25, 2009August 31, 2018

Employment Doldrums May Be Easing, Survey Notes

Fifty-three percent of employers plan to hire full-time employees in the next 12 months, and 40 percent plan to hire contract, temporary or project professionals, according to a survey released Tuesday, August 25, by job board CareerBuilder.com and Robert Half International Inc.
 
The survey also found that 47 percent of hiring managers cited underqualified applicants as their most common hiring challenge.


The annual Employment Dynamics and Growth Expectations Report provides an overview of the current employment situation, as well as a glimpse of the future hiring landscape. The report offers information on what types of professionals employers will be looking for when economic conditions improve.


The survey questioned more than 500 hiring managers and 500 workers.


“Companies already are identifying the key skill sets they will need in new hires to take advantage of the opportunities presented by improving economic conditions,” said Max Messmer, chairman and CEO of Robert Half International. “Firms that cut staffing levels too deeply may need to do significant rebuilding once the recovery takes hold.”


Hiring managers consider customer service the function most critical to their organization’s success, followed by sales, marketing/creative and technology. Public relations/communications, business development and accounting/finance round out the list.


Looking ahead, respondents cited technology, customer service and sales as the departments that will add positions first. Marketing/creative, business development, human resources and accounting/finance also were cited.


Despite high unemployment rates across the U.S. and an expanded pool of available talent, employers continue to report difficulty finding skilled professionals for open positions. Employers said that on average, 44 percent of résumés they receive are from unqualified candidates.


As they prepare for growth, employers are open to paying more for hard-to-find talent.  Sixty-one percent of hiring managers said their companies are willing to negotiate higher compensation for qualified candidates.


Employers, however, are unwilling to accelerate the hiring process. The average time to recruit a new full-time employee is the same range as this time last year: 4.5 to 14.4 weeks.


In addition to spending time reviewing and screening a high volume of résumés from unqualified applicants, employers also are more carefully evaluating those job candidates who are invited for interviews in order to avoid hiring mistakes.


—Rick Bell


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 85 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