Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Compliance

Posted on September 8, 2009August 31, 2018

California Clarifies Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Rating Disabilities


The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has clarified previous rulings in closely followed cases that address rebuttal of a schedule for rating permanent disability claims.


The board ruled earlier in Wanda Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco and in the consolidated cases of Mario Almarz v. Environmental Recovery Services and Joyce Guzman v. Malpitas Unified School District that a schedule adopted in 2005 for rating permanent disabilities can be rebutted with certain evidence.


In a clarification of those earlier rulings, the board said Thursday, September 3, that doctors must stay within “the four corners” of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment when attempting to justify a disability determination other than that stated on the rating schedule.



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


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

Posted on August 28, 2009August 31, 2018

Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurer to Be Liquidated


A Florida judge has ordered First Commercial Insurance Co. and its subsidiary, First Commercial Transportation & Property Insurance Co., into liquidation, Florida’s Department of Financial Services said Wednesday, August 26.


The Florida Department of Financial Services has acted as the appointed receiver of FCIC and FCTPIC since July 10, when the companies consented to be placed in receivership for the purpose of rehabilitation.


Miami-based FCIC wrote workers’ compensation, commercial auto, general liability and multi-peril policies in Florida and Georgia, the Department of Financial Services said.


FCIC and its unit have approximately 18,000 in-force policies that are canceled effective September 23. The Department of Financial Services has been appointed receiver of both entities.



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


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

Posted on August 25, 2009August 31, 2018

Judge Rejects $1 Billion Workers’ Compensation Suit Against AIG


A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging American International Group Inc. underreported workers’ compensation premiums over several decades in order to underpay residual market assessments.


The National Workers Compensation Reinsurance pool, which ultimately is operated by Boca Raton, Florida-based NCCI Holdings Inc., brought the suit that sought more than $1 billion in damages. Hundreds of insurers, many of them AIG rivals, participate in the pool.


The pool argued that it was excluded from a 2007 settlement in which AIG agreed to pay states more than $300 million to settle allegations that it underreported workers’ comp premiums over several decades.


Residual market assessments are calculated as a percentage of an insurer’s premiums written in a state. The pool alleged that AIG underreported comp premiums to avoid paying its full share to the residual market, which covers hard-to-place risks.


The NCCI suit alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, among other allegations.


But on Thursday, August 20, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that both the pool and NCCI lacked standing to sue on behalf of pool members, said Michael Carlinsky, an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges representing AIG.


The dismissal of the pool’s lawsuit, however, does not end the litigation, according to a pool spokesman. The federal judge in Chicago still is considering the fate of a separate class-action lawsuit brought by the pool members against AIG.


Meanwhile, a counter-complaint that AIG filed in response to the pool suit continues to move forward, Carlinsky said. AIG’s suit alleges that pool members also underpaid residual market assessments to states.



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


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


Posted on August 17, 2009August 31, 2018

Hartford to Refund Some Florida Workers’ Compensation Payments


The Hartford Financial Services Group will refund or credit $48.2 million to Florida employers for “excess profit” earned on workers’ compensation policies, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty announced Wednesday, August 12.


But Hartford has done nothing improper, a spokesman for the commissioner said.


Florida maintains a cap on the profit workers’ compensation insurers can reap. Market conditions, meanwhile, sometimes push insurers to exceed that cap, the spokesman said.


In total, insurers have refunded “excess workers’ comp profits” totaling $98.8 million this year, according to the spokesman.


While Hartford’s share of “excess profit” is more than double that of any other insurer in Florida, there are nine Hartford units writing workers’ comp insurance in the state, the spokesman said. The $48 million is the combined amount they all must refund.


The refunds are for accident years 2004, 2005 and 2006, and Hartford must provide them within 60 days.



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


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

Posted on August 17, 2009August 31, 2018

Compensation Cuts Ahead for Money Managers


Incentive compensation for money managers will decline this year from 2008 levels, even as other financial services sectors, including major investment and commercial banks, enjoy a rebound, according to a midyear report by compensation boutique Johnson Associates.


Even with the recent rebound in equity markets, the report stated, market averages this year will trail 2008 levels “significantly.” As a result, incentive compensation for long-only equity managers could fall 35 percent this year from 2008, while that of fixed-income professionals could decline by 25 percent, the report predicted.


Meanwhile, hedge fund managers could see declines of 20 to 30 percent in incentive compensation, reflecting the impact on performance fees of funds being below their high-water marks, the report said.




Filed by Doug Halonen of Pensions & Investments, 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 7, 2009August 31, 2018

Payrolls for Temporary Workers Fall by 9,800 in July

Temporary help payrolls fell by 9,800 jobs in July to approximately 1.7 million, a smaller decrease than the month-over-month decline of 31,400 in June, according to seasonally adjusted numbers released Friday, August 7, by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The temporary help penetration rate was 1.32 percent in July, compared with 1.33 percent in June.


Year over year, temporary help payrolls were down 26 percent, or 609,700 jobs. 
 
Temporary job losses as a percentage of total job losses were 8 percent in July. Internal employment in direct hire was down 9.2 percent year over year in July and internal employment in executive search was down 12.9 percent year over year.
 
Total nonfarm payrolls fell by 247,000 in July. That’s down from the July 2008-July 2009 12-month average job loss of 478,000 per month.
 
The U.S. unemployment rate in July was 9.4 percent, down 15 basis points from June.
 
In construction, employment fell by 76,000 in July; that compares with the 12-month average change in employment of a loss of 88,000 per month.
 
In manufacturing, employment fell by 52,000 in July. It was a smaller decline than the 12-month average change in employment of a loss of 136,000 jobs per month.
 
Employment in the financial activities sector fell by 13,000 jobs in July. The 12-month average change in employment was a loss of 34,000 jobs per month.
 
Employment in education and health care rose by 17,000 jobs in July. That’s slower than the 12-month average change in employment of a gain of 32,000 jobs per month.
 
The college-level unemployment rate fell to 4.69 percent in July from 4.74 percent in June.


—Staffing Industry Analysts



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 July 27, 2009August 31, 2018

Compensation for Board Directors Decreased in 2008, Survey Finds


Compensation for directors of the 200 largest public companies dropped to an average of $244,899 in 2008, reflecting a 2.4 percent decline from $250,835 in 2007, according to a new study.


It was the first decline in five years, according to the study, released Thursday, July 23, by Steven Hall & Partners, a New York-based executive compensation consulting firm.


Still, compared with 2003, the directors’ pay packages in 2008 were up 38.6 percent.


That surpasses compensation for chief executives, which grew 17.4 percent over the same period.


“There is a lot of competition for the top talent who are considered experts,” said Michael Sherry, a consultant at Steven Hall & Partners.


“For example, every audit committee is required to have at least one director who is deemed a financial expert. These companies are looking for people who can bring something to the table, and they are willing to pay for it.”


Last year’s decline in compensation was a reflection of the troubled economy and decline in stock prices, Sherry said.


The use of board meeting fees, in which directors receive per-meeting fees for attendance, also declined: 37 percent of the companies surveyed paid such fees in 2008, down from 68 percent in 2003.


“With board meeting fees going out of vogue, companies have consciously shifted value into directors’ annual retainers, both cash and stock,” Steven Hall, managing director of Steven Hall & Partners, said in a statement.


More companies are paying directors a lump sum for the year, either annually or by monthly or quarterly installments, Sherry said.


“There are a lot of meetings now, especially with committees such as the audit committee and compensation committees,” he said.


“The companies found that they weren’t having attendance problems.”



Filed by Sue Asci 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

Posted on July 21, 2009August 3, 2023

Pay Raises in 2010: Would You Believe 3 Percent?

One great thing about the large management and HR consulting firms is that they do a lot of interesting surveys, and this recent one by Watson Wyatt is no exception.

Here’s what I’m talking about: “Raises for U.S. workers are expected to rebound in 2010, following a year in which many companies slashed raises in the wake of the recession,” according to the Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 U.S. Strategic Rewards survey report that was just released.

Like most surveys done by the big consultants, this one is broad, deep and timely. It covers 235 U.S.-based employers that span all industries and have a minimum of 1,000 employees each. And, the survey was done pretty recently–from April 6 to May 15.

The key survey finding is that “companies are projecting median merit increases of 3.0 percent for 2010”; that compares with the 3.5 percent merit increase that companies originally projected last year for 2009, before the onset of the recession. Of course, that original 3.5 percent increase went down the toilet with the economy, and as the Watson Wyatt report notes, “Now, companies say median merit pay increases will [only] be 2 percent in 2009.”

I’ll leave it to my favorite comspensation expert–Ann Bares of the Compensation Force and Compensation Cafe blogs–to make sense of this with her special insight and analysis, but what jumped out at me was something from a separate companion survey of nearly 900 companies conducted by Watson Wyatt Data Services. It found that “only 10 percent of companies are planning no pay raises for workers in 2010 compared to 25 percent this year.”

That really surprises me, because I thought that a lot more than just 25 percent of companies deep-sixed raises during the Big, Bad Recession of 2009. In fact, that 25 percent figure sounds absolutely incredible when you consider all you heard about furloughs, salary cuts, buyouts, layoffs and all manner of workforce cuts this year.

I’m also surprised by the notion of 3 percent raises for 2010, because as much as I wish it were so, I  question whether businesses will actually feel confident enough in the economy to go that far when they start their 2010 budget planning here soon. My feeling is companies will be a lot more conservative than that, especially since no one really knows if we have hit bottom on the downturn yet.

“This has been a very difficult year for both employers and their workers,” said Laura Sejen, global director of strategic rewards consulting at Watson Wyatt, in a gigantic understatement. “But there is some good news on the horizon. Employers plan to give larger raises next year, and many plan to reinstate previously cut pay raises as planning for an eventual economic recovery continues.”

Well, I really hope there is good news on the horizon, as Laura Sejen believes, but I’m not ready to jump on that bandwagon just yet. Color me skeptical that the economic recovery is as close at hand as she says it is.

Get my latest blog updates and workforce management news by following me on Twitter.

Posted on February 18, 2009July 22, 2019

Sources: UAW to Give Up Cost-of-Living Allowances, Bonuses

More details emerged Wednesday, February 18, on the concessions made by the United Auto Workers to the Detroit Three automakers in advance of Tuesday’s viability-plan filings by General Motors and Chrysler.

The new agreements call on workers to give up lump-sum bonuses over the next two years and their cost-of-living allowances, said two UAW sources familiar with the talks. The contracts also limit overtime pay and supplemental unemployment, the sources said.

At Chrysler, workers also will forfeit a $600 Christmas bonus, the sources said. Automotive News first reported the concessions on bonuses, overtime and supplemental unemployment Tuesday.

Detroit Three and UAW officials are keeping mum on the agreements until workers have an opportunity to vote on the provisions. Details about the concessions were not released when GM and Chrysler revealed the viability plans to the U.S. Treasury Department.

UAW vice president Bob King and GM manufacturing and labor chief Gary Cowger declined to comment when asked about the changes at an event Wednesday in suburban Detroit.

Still left to be negotiated is future funding of retiree health care trusts. Loan provisions require the union to take carmaker equity in lieu of cash for half the remaining money owed the multibillion-dollar voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations.

In the case of GM, the UAW is being asked to take GM equity for half of the $20 billion that the carmaker owes the VEBAs.

Nevertheless, the UAW engaged Detroit Three negotiators in marathon bargaining over the past week to meet the filing deadline for the viability plan. As a requirement of $17.4 billion in federal rescue loans, GM and Chrysler must bring their work rules and labor costs in line with their Japanese counterparts in the U.S.

Although Ford isn’t getting loans, it may ask for a $9 billion line of credit and wanted to be a part of a contract pattern to stay competitive with Chrysler and GM. Ford said the UAW agreement would help it avoid asking for financial assistance.

In the plans released Tuesday, GM and Chrysler said they would need up to $21.6 billion to weather the current dismal sales climate.

The Detroit Three got the UAW to move on several fronts, one of the sources said. Instead of paying overtime for work beyond eight hours, they will pay overtime only for work beyond 40 hours during a week, the source said.

The union gave up two of the four lump-sum bonuses due workers during the four-year contract, the sources said.

Supplemental unemployment benefits, or SUB, also have been limited.

Idled workers with more than 20 years of service can collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay, the source said. Workers with less than 20 years get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks, the source said.

Those SUB provisions are all that UAW members can get now that the Jobs Bank has been eliminated. The Jobs Bank was a program that guaranteed idled workers 95 percent of pay and full benefits indefinitely if no other job could be found for them.

Chrysler and GM were required by the 2007 contract to pay up to $4 billion for the Jobs Bank and SUB pay during the four-year agreement.

Details of total cost savings have not been made public.

Filed by David Barkholz of Automotive 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.

 

Posted on July 15, 2005January 15, 2019

Dear Workforce: What Is Standard Practice for Paying Out Commissions to Terminated Salespeople?

Q: What should we do when a salesperson is terminated involuntarily or the company is sold/acquired? Is there a standard practice regarding how commission is paid? We have salespeople who earn two kinds of commission: one on the sale of products and services, and another for subscription services billed monthly. What should we do when a salesperson is terminated involuntarily or the company is sold/acquired? Is there a standard practice regarding how commission is paid?

— New Start in Sales, controller, software/systems, Costa Mesa, California

Dear New Start:

This is an area where the maxim “you get what you pay for” truly applies. Your sales-incentive program should directly and effectively support business goals and sales strategy. Design the plan so it is easy to understand. Communicating with the sales force about the intent and operation of the plan also proves a great help.
Your plan should detail the administrative rules on how payments get distributed. However, if you do not have a plan document, here are some questions to research before deciding how to proceed.

  • What has the company’s practice been? This doesn’t necessarily govern your decision, but you may find upon examination that sales administration or payroll does things that the human resources folks are unaware of.
  • How do competitors handle this? Ask your counterparts in companies against which you compete for sales and labor.
  • If an employee leaves, when does another salesperson take over the customer accounts? This is probably the most important question, as you will not want to pay a double commission, nor will salespeople be willing to work on accounts for which they receive no pay.
  • What can your company afford?

In our experience, most companies do not pay commissions to employees who are involuntarily terminated unless there are extenuating circumstances (reduction in force, significant number of layoffs, job eliminations, etc.). Certainly, when employees are let go because of poor performance or incompetence, incentives stop immediately. Remaining monthly commissions are transferred to the employee who assumes responsibility for managing those accounts for the duration of the contract.
The terminated employee may be paid commissions earned for the month of termination and not beyond. Plans that we design specify that an employee must be active and on payroll at the end of each performance period (in some cases a pro-rated amount is provided for partial periods). If the employee leaves voluntarily, he or she typically forfeits the right to additional monthly commission.
Acquisitions or changes in control of the company do not have an immediate impact on sales compensation or commission payments. However, the change enables new management to examine whether existing compensation systems meet corporate goals. It also offers a chance to change previous incentive programs if they don’t live up to expectations.
One final note: consult an attorney about state wage and hour laws that apply to you. Legal expertise also can help ensure that you are complying with federal and state FLSA regulations, particularly those that apply to inside sales reps.
SOURCE: Bob Fulton, managing director,The Chatfield Group, Glenview, Illinois, Sept. 15, 2004.
LEARN MORE: Termination Checklist
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

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 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