Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on May 21, 2008June 27, 2018

American Airlines Slashes Capacity, Thousands of Jobs

American Airlines announced Wednesday, May 21, that it is cutting domestic capacity by up to 12 percent and will lay off thousands by the fourth quarter.


American Airlines executives say it’s too soon to tell how many employees will be laid off and where, and declined to reveal where flight capacity would be cut the most, saying only that unprofitable routes will be the first to go.


The sputtering U.S. economy and surging oil prices suggest the industry is once again headed for a rough ride, after enjoying the two best years of the decade in 2006 and 2007.


The capacity cuts did not surprise airline analysts.


“The industry has been chipping away at its schedule,” said Joe Schweiterman, a transportation expert and professor at DePaul University in Chicago. “There’s been a massive downward shift in supply. The airlines’ business model of operating a massive hub-and-spoke system is threatened by these kinds of spectacular oil prices.”


Oil prices topped $130 a barrel for the first time Wednesday and kept heading upward.


In a sign that nickel-and-diming in the industry just went from bad to worse, the carrier also announced a $15 charge for the first checked bag, starting with flights purchased June 15. It’s the first airline to charge such a fee—so far, most have been levying fees only on the second bag and beyond.


During the past two years, most U.S. airlines have cut capacity on less profitable domestic routes while introducing charges for checking bags to try to offset rising fuel costs and deal with intense competition.


In April, Delta Air Lines, the No. 3 U.S. carrier, and Northwest, the fifth largest, finally hammered out a merger agreement last week that would create the world’s largest airline. The other major airlines—American, United, Continental and USAir—are also likely looking for merger partners.


Delta Air Lines said in March that it will eliminate 2,000 jobs while reducing domestic capacity by 5 percent, in addition to a 5 percent cut that was already planned.



Filed by Hilary Potewitz of Crain’s New York Business, Lorene Yue of Crain’s Chicago Business and Andrew Osterland of Financial Week, sister publications of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on May 21, 2008June 27, 2018

House Approves FSA Funds for Reservists Called to Duty

Legislation approved Tuesday, May 20, by the House of Representatives would allow individuals called up from the reserves for active military service for at least six months to take unused balances in their health care flexible spending accounts as a taxable distribution.


The legislation, H.R. 6081, which was approved on a 403-0 vote, deals with the forfeiture of unused balances in FSAs when employees are called up for military service.


That can happen because the individuals and their families typically give up their employer coverage—including their FSA—and enroll in TriCare, a Department of Defense health care program that has very low cost-sharing requirements. Under the legislation, employees could receive a taxable distribution of their account balance.


“For those called to duty late in the year and who have not incurred many claims up until that point, this could be very beneficial to them since they would otherwise have to forfeit the funds,” said Scott Sims, a legal consultant in the Falls Church, Virginia, office of Hewitt Associates.


The Senate could take up the legislation, which includes other tax breaks for military personnel, later this week.


If passed, the FSA provision would apply to distributions taken after enactment.



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

Posted on May 21, 2008June 27, 2018

Massachusetts Refines Health Care Coverage Rules

Massachusetts regulators plan to clarify final rules soon on the design requirements of health plans state residents must be enrolled in to avoid financial penalties.


On January 1, 2009, under the state’s landmark health care reform law, most state residents will have to be covered in plans that meet minimum “creditable coverage criteria.”


Under rules finalized last June by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority—the state agency in charge in implementing key portions of the 2006 reform law—plans considered offering minimum coverage can’t, among other things, have annual deductibles greater than $2,000 for individual coverage or $4,000 for family coverage.


Additionally, in order for the enrollees to have creditable coverage, a plan cannot impose an overall annual benefit limit or a per illness annual maximum benefit for covered core services. The bulletin will provide more clarification of what are considered covered core services, a spokesman for the Connector Authority said.


The bulletin itself will be issued in about a week, said Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the Connector Authority, who spoke Monday at a briefing in Washington sponsored by the Alliance for Health Reform and the Kaiser Family Foundation.


Since enactment of the Massachusetts law, about 340,000 previously uninsured state residents have obtained coverage, with the largest number of the newly insured enrolled in a program whose premiums are heavily subsidized by the state.



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

Posted on May 20, 2008June 27, 2018

S&P 500 Firms Push Funding of Defined-Benefit Pension Plans

The defined-benefit pension plans of S&P 500 companies returned to overfunded status in 2007, according to Standard & Poor’s.


According to a new study, as a group, the defined-benefit plans of the companies in the index were overfunded by $63.4 billion for 2007, compared with an underfunded status of more than $40 billion in 2006. Funding improved to 104.4 percent in 2007, from 97.3 percent in 2006, but remained well below the 128.2 percent peak in 1999, at the end of the bull market.


The number of companies in the index that had fully funded pension plans rose to 127 in 2007, up significantly from 85 in 2006 and 47 in 2005. Last year was the first time since 2001 that the S&P 500 DB plans were overfunded as a group.


Good news, but other post-employment benefits, or OPEBs—primarily medical and drug plans—remain severely underfunded.


Within the S&P 500, the aggregate OPEB underfunding declined from $293.7 billion in 2006 to $269.1 billion in 2007. While the 26.2 percent funding level last year was an improvement, it pales in comparison to the 104.4 percent funding for pensions.


More worrisome, of the 310 companies in the S&P 500 that offer other post-employment benefits, only six have overfunded OPEB plans.


“The situation for OPEBs continues to be bleak as global pressures are forcing U.S. companies to scale back benefits to remain competitive in markets where many of their peers do not have these expenses,” explained Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at Standard & Poor’s and author of the report.


Standard & Poor’s expects the pullback in benefits to continue as companies increase co-payments and premiums, cover fewer employees and shift a greater portion of the expense to workers and retirees.


As for DB plans, several elements contributed to the overfunded pension position of the S&P 500 companies in 2007. Silverblatt pointed out that plan sponsors invested heavily in international markets, especially emerging markets, last year. Gains abroad helped offset a subpar year in the U.S. markets.


Liabilities also were kept in check because of higher discount rates, fewer covered employees and fewer payments to those who were covered.


Accounting rules played a role too, now that companies must show pension funding on their balance sheets. “Combining all of this with the desire of companies to add contributions to show improved numbers, you have an overfunded pension situation,” Silverblatt wrote.


For this year, Silverblatt indicated that pension funds are running more than $100 billion short of the 8 percent return they had projected for 2008. Cautious optimism has returned, however.


“Based on our projections, Standard & Poor’s expects to see 2008 pensions remaining fully funded on an aggregate level, with companies contributing a bit more than they are currently expecting to,” he said.


Filed by John Goff of Financial Week, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on May 20, 2008June 27, 2018

Terms of California’s Proposed Wellness Program Mandate

California’s A.B. 2360 would require that employers bidding on state contracts provide their employers with one or more wellness or fitness benefits, including, but not limited to, the following:


● A facility used exclusively for the purpose of promoting physical fitness of employees, including a gymnasium, weight training room, aerobics workout space, swimming pool, running track or any indoor or outdoor court, field or other site used for competitive sports events or games.


● Financial support to an amateur athletic team that is under the sponsorship of the prospective bidder, if the team consists entirely of its employees.


● Subsidies of employees’ membership in a health studio or health club.


● Classes or presentations on the employer’s premises by a qualified person or organization providing information and guidance on subjects relating to personal and family health and fitness.


Return to the main article

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

Posted on May 20, 2008June 27, 2018

States May Require Some Employers to Provide Wellness Programs

As if paying heed to the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, state legislators are looking at ways to encourage—or force—employers to offer work-site wellness programs to their employees.



While most of the measures gently encourage employers to promote wellness by offering financial incentives, at least two states are now considering taking a harder line: A California Assembly committee passed a bill this month that would require employers contracting with the state to offer one or more wellness programs to their employees. A bill introduced in Michigan would require that the state give preference to employers that offer wellness programs in awarding contracts.



California Assembly Bill 2360, introduced by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, in February, would apply to employers with 10 or more employees bidding on state contracts worth more than $1 million. Businesses could comply in a variety of ways, such as subsidizing memberships to fitness clubs, setting up their own fitness facilities, sponsoring amateur sports teams composed of employees, or providing employees with health information.



Levine’s bill was introduced after state legislators rejected a sweeping health care reform proposal by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that, among other things, would have provided incentives to plan members such as gym memberships; weight management programs; and reductions in health insurance premiums to promote prevention, wellness and healthy lifestyles.



A.B. 2360 has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it will be considered along with all other bills that could have a financial impact on the state, according to a spokesman for Assemblyman Levine.



Michigan’s wellness measure would require the state’s Department of Management and Budget to give preference to business entities that have wellness programs in place for their employees in awarding a contract for services and items needed by state agencies. The bill does not define wellness beyond “a health promotion program offered by an employer to his or her employees.”



A report by the Senate Fiscal Agency for the state of Michigan found that the bill, which was introduced in February 2007 by state Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Lansing, would have no fiscal impact on state or local government. The bill has been referred to the Michigan Senate Committee on Health Policy.



This wave of wellness-related state legislation is a relatively recent phenomenon, according to Amy Winterfeld, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.



It is apparently being driven by the need to address the growing burden that chronic disease is putting on state budgets, according to a June/July 2007 legislative brief published by the NCSL.


Chronic disease is now the principal cause of disability and use of health services, accounting for 78 percent of U.S. health expenditures, and state budgets are affected by these higher medical costs through additional costs borne by Medicare and Medicaid, the NCSL report says.



“There wasn’t much state legislation at all on this subject before two or three years ago,” Winterfeld said. Now, however, “there has been a noticeable increase in the number of bills promoting wellness.”



Some of the measures overrule bars on differential rating and allow employers to offer financial incentives to their employees to encourage participation in wellness and health promotion programs.



Others permit health insurers to offer premium rebates or discounts for enrollment in wellness programs. A measure enacted last year in Indiana provides tax credit to small businesses that offer wellness programs to their employees that are equal to 50 percent of the programs’ cost.



While most employers acknowledge the benefits of wellness and prevention programs, they are not keen on laws mandating that they provide them to their employees.



“We already have several wellness programs,” but “I don’t like to be mandated,” said Lea Gerber, director of risk management and benefits at Elixer Industries, a diverse manufacturer in Mission Viejo, California



Among other things, Elixer’s benefit plan covers bariatric surgery, provides incentives for plan members with chronic conditions to adhere to their medication regimens, and provides free car seats to pregnant women who enroll in a prenatal program, according to Gerber.



“Employers have to weigh what’s most important to them. If they can’t afford a health plan, and many small businesses can’t, they certainly can’t afford wellness,” she said.



Elixer currently doesn’t have any contracts with the state of California, Gerber said.



Benefit consultants shared Gerber’s sentiments.



“The intention of this bill is laudable,” said Kirby Bosley, a consultant with Watson Wyatt Worldwide in Los Angeles. “But it’s a very expensive proposition for employers, especially smaller ones.”



J.D. Piro, an attorney with Hewitt Associates Inc. in Norwalk, Connecticut, likened the California legislation to a 1996 San Francisco ordinance requiring city contractors to offer domestic partner benefits, which some members of the benefits community felt was intended to influence the benefit programs of all employers, not just state contractors.



“It certainly does fit in with what is becoming a pattern in California,” he said. “These are certain policies that the state wants employers to follow.”



Because the legislation raises awareness of wellness benefits, it could result in more employers providing them, just as more employers began offering domestic partner benefits following passage of San Francisco’s domestic partners ordinance, said Johan DeKeyzer, senior vice president in the health and benefits practice of Aon Consulting based in Irvine, California.



“It’s a very small step in the right direction,” he said.


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

Posted on May 19, 2008June 27, 2018

Recruitment Battle Plan

It’s unusual for corporations to benchmark against the best HR practices of government agencies, which are often risk averse and extremely conservative. But there is one glaring exception to that rule: the U.S. armed forces. Every corporation, from Google on down, can learn a lesson from the comprehensive and bold recruiting practices currently in use by the military. Regardless of your personal opinions about the military, you would be hurting your organization if you didn’t at least look at some of the things that they’re doing.


    Use of technology: The U.S. armed forces utilize recruiting technologies that most corporations have never even attempted. The most widely known and perhaps most successful of all has been the Army’s use of a video game as a primary recruiting channel. “America’s Army,” an interactive video war game, has been downloaded by 9 million people. Its most unusual feature is a “virtual” recruiting station that allows the gamer to enlist in the Army. The game will soon be on mobile phones and in video arcades—where primary recruiting targets hang out.


    Spreading the brand message isn’t done solely through video games. The military was one of the first to post live-action videos on sites like YouTube. The National Guard shows music video ads in movie theaters.


    The military also excels at using simulations to engage potential recruits. At public events, the Army offers a virtual ride in a Humvee, which is armed with lifelike machine guns that shake as would-be recruits fight an explosion-filled simulated battle. The Army has virtual helicopter rides. The Marines have a kiosk simulation known as “Strategic Corporal,” which allows players to test their ability to make tactical decisions. Not to be left out, the U.S. Navy has a motion simulator that excites and entertains by simulating a flight with the Blue Angels.


    The U.S. Navy is also leading the wave in using technology behind the scenes. It has implemented Siebel CRM, a customer relationship management tool, to help keep in touch with potential applicants and prospects stored in the Department of Defense’s controversial Joint Advertising, Marketing Research and Studies database, which contains demographic information on high school- and college-age youth who meet minimum military requirements. Data mining tools will help them identify and communicate with the most likely prospects.


    The Internet: Everyone knows that young adults are avid users of the Internet, so the military can be found on almost every plot of virtual real estate available. An excellent example is the GoArmy.com Web site. It contains features that many corporate Web sites don’t have, including downloadable podcasts, interactive forums and lots of video. Perhaps the most innovative feature is a virtual-reality soldier (Sgt. Star) that uses artificial intelligence software to instantly answer almost any question in a conversational format (example: “Is the Army a good place to meet girls?). The Army also utilizes blogs, social networks like MySpace and Facebook, and text messaging to personalize its communications with potential recruits.


    Referrals, bonuses and events: The military knows how effective referral programs are. The Army pays bonuses of up to $2,000 and leverages referrals by spouses, children and parents. The slogan “Every soldier a recruiter” shows that the Army understands the need for everyone to be involved in recruiting. The National Guard even has a G-RAP program designed to supplement full-time recruiters with thousands of volunteer soldier “talent scouts” making referrals.


    The military far surpasses any corporation in the use of sign-on bonuses. The amount can be up to $40,000 for recruits with just a high school education. That amount changes, based on the length of service and job applied for. The Army also uses highly effective “exploding bonuses,” which decrease in amount the longer a recruit delays entry into the service.


    The military takes its message to where its prospects are, recruiting at rodeos, NASCAR events, shopping malls and skydiving events. The Navy is even attracting college students on the beach in Florida during spring break with various strength challenges.


    And while you might not have a Humvee or a virtual Blue Angels team to attract candidates’ attention, you can still adapt some of the military’s approaches to help you build your own army of talent.


Workforce Management, May 19, 2008, p. 50 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 15, 2008June 27, 2018

Who Is the Employer

Joint employment is a legal doctrine that applies when two businesses exert some degree of control over the terms and conditions of an individual’s employment. Application of this doctrine to the relationship between temporary staffing agencies or outsourcing companies and their clients often results in a finding that both entities—the staffing agency or outsourcing company and its client—are joint employers for purposes of federal employment laws.


    Outsourcing in this context refers to companies—often those in IT services—that come onto the client’s premise and take over a certain function or process. Although some of the work may be offshored, employees of the client who had been involved in this function or process often become employees of the outsourcing company, and continue to work on the client’s premises.


    Joint employers are each subject to the laws governing the employment relationship, including wage-payment laws, anti-discrimination laws, industrial safety laws and the like. Generally, in the absence of contractual terms that provide otherwise, joint employers may share liability for each other’s actions toward their common employees. These common employees may be referred to as temporary employees, contingent workers and contract employees.


    Different laws set different standards to determine whether two entities are joint employers and to what extent each may be liable for the actions of the other. This article will describe those different laws and standards and offer tips on how to minimize the risk of liability under this legal doctrine.


Who is the employee’s employer?
   Government agencies and courts look at a number of factors to determine whether two (or more) businesses are joint employers of an employee, with the right to control being the most important factor. The staffing agency or outsourcing firm will nearly always be the workers’ employer; the more control the agency’s clients exert over the workers, the more likely the client will be considered a joint employer with the staffing agency—and the more likely the client will be held liable for violation of workplace laws.


    In general, a worker is the employee of the company that exercises control over his or her employment. In an agency/client relationship, the “employer” is the entity that, on balance, performs some or all of the following functions:


  • Determines job qualifications


  • Schedules work hours and assigns work


  • Supervises day-to-day activities


  • Has authority to hire, fire and discipline


  • Determines pay and benefits


  • Promulgates work rules and conditions of employment


  • Maintains employment records


    No one factor is decisive and it is not necessary even to satisfy a majority of factors. Rather, all the circumstances in the worker’s relationship with each of the businesses are considered to determine if either or both should be deemed the “employer.”


Different laws, different standards
   Various federal laws come to bear on the question of joint employment, each with its own nuances and scope:


The Fair Labor Standards Act
   The FLSA, the federal statute that governs overtime payments and minimum wage, broadly defines joint employment. Specifically, under regulations implementing the FLSA (29 CFR 791.2), a joint employment relationship may exist if employment by one employer is not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer or where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee. Joint employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the FLSA.


    With respect to temporary staffing and outsourcing companies, the Department of Labor takes the position that employees of a temporary staffing company are generally joint employees of the staffing company and the business for which they perform services. Each individual company is jointly responsible with the other for proper payment of overtime and minimum wages.


The Family and Medical Leave Act
   The joint employment test is different, and broader, under the FMLA. Pursuant to Labor Department regulations (29 CFR 825.106), two businesses that exercise some control over the worker or working conditions may be joint employers for purposes of the FMLA. Under these regulations, joint employment will ordinarily exist when a temporary staffing agency or outsourcing company supplies employees to its business client/employer.


    Of the two businesses, however, only the “primary” employer—the employer with the authority to hire and fire, assign, discipline and pay—is responsible for giving FMLA notice, providing FMLA leave, maintaining health benefits and providing job restoration. The staffing agency is typically the primary employer. The secondary employer, typically the staffing agency’s client, is responsible for accepting the employee returning from FMLA leave in place of the replacement employee if it continues to utilize an employee from the staffing agency. Both the primary and secondary employers must also refrain from interfering with or discriminating against an employee’s rights under the FMLA. Employees who are jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both employers, whether or not maintained on only one employer’s payroll, in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility under the FMLA.


Federal anti-discrimination laws
   Federal anti-discrimination laws protect individuals from employment discrimination based on protected categories, such as race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion and disability. Business entities with the requisite number of employees (20 for age discrimination, 15 for other types of prohibited discrimination) are deemed “employers” covered under these laws. The anti-discrimination statutes not only prohibit an employer from discriminating against its own employees, but also prohibit an employer from interfering with an individual’s employment opportunities with another employer. Courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, incorporate and apply joint employment liability when contingent workers bring discrimination claims.


    EEOC guidance is clear that both staffing and outsourcing firms and their clients share equal employment opportunity responsibilities toward workers. If both the staffing firm and its client have the right to control the worker, and if both are “employers” under the statutes, they are covered as “joint employers.” Even if the businesses are not “joint employers,” as where the client does not exert control over the staffing firm’s workers, the client may be held liable for discriminating against an individual who is not its employee, if it is found to have interfered with an individual’s employment opportunities with the staffing firm.


    In short, a staffing or outsourcing firm must hire and make job assignments in a nondiscriminatory manner. The staffing firm’s client must treat the staffing firm worker assigned to it in a nondiscriminatory manner. The staffing firm must take immediate and appropriate corrective action if it learns that the client has discriminated against one of its workers.


    Where the combined discriminatory actions of a staffing firm and its client result in harm to the worker, both entities are jointly and severally liable for back pay, front pay and compensatory damages, meaning that damages can be obtained from either one of the entities alone or from both combined. Punitive and liquidated damages, if applicable, are individually assessed against and borne by each entity in accordance with its respective degree of malicious or reckless misconduct.


Occupational Safety and Health Act
   Joint employer liability is more limited under OSHA, as staffing or outsourcing agencies will generally be cited only if necessary to correct a violation, or if the agency knew or should have known of the unsafe or hazardous condition and failed to take remedial action. The party in direct control of the workplace and actions of the employees is typically the sole entity responsible for record keeping and for keeping the workplace safe.


Tips to minimize liability
   Business entities that use temporary staffing employees or have outsourced certain business functions to contract workers can—and should—take steps to minimize their risk of liability. These steps are both contractual and functional.


    The contract between the client and its temporary staffing or outsourcing vendor should clearly articulate that the vendor is solely responsible for:


  • Managing all aspects of its employees’ employment, including: recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training, assigning, disciplining and firing employees; determining wages; evaluating performance; and handling employees’ complaints.


  • Payment of wages, benefits and taxes.


  • Legal compliance with all employment laws including, for example, laws pertaining to immigration, wages, discrimination and safety.


    The contract should also provide for indemnification, so that the staffing or outsourcing agency is responsible for legal fees and costs that may be incurred by the agency’s client in defense of cases stemming from the agency’s noncompliance. Further, the contract should allow for periodic audits to verify compliance.


    In the end, however, what the contract says will not matter if the actions taken are different from what’s on paper. Therefore, on a practical note, the staffing firm client should not treat contract employees exactly as it treats its own workers. For example, contract employees should not be provided with business cards referencing the client’s business and should not be allowed to sign letters or other documents on behalf of the client.


    In sum, temporary staffing agencies and outsourcing firms are an integral part of the modern workforce. However, the benefits of using staffing and outsourcing firms may be outweighed by the increased risk of legal liabilities if care is not taken to minimize and manage that risk.

Posted on May 15, 2008June 27, 2018

Health Coaches Tackle Both Risks and Goals

Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi once described winning coaches as the ones who “get inside their player and motivate.” That’s good advice for the gridiron, and it also works in the workplace, say providers of health coaching.


    The field has blossomed as employers grapple with the impact that preventable health conditions have on health care costs and productivity. Health coaching is becoming a mainstay of employer wellness initiatives, according to the companies that provide the services.


    “We become the little voice on your shoulder that’s saying, ‘Now, we know what we’re supposed to do. Let’s set some goals,’ ” says Roger Reed, executive vice president at Gordian Health Solutions Inc. in Franklin, Tennessee. “It’s almost a personal trainer approach.”


    IASIS Healthcare, an owner and operator of acute-care hospitals also headquartered in Franklin, joined the health coaching bandwagon when it hired Gordian to counsel its medical plan participants beginning in 2006.


    Russ Follis, the hospital system’s vice president of human resources, says the rationale was twofold. “If we can get less claims coming in by having healthier employees, it’ll end up saving us money in the long run in terms of our health plan benefit costs,” he says. Secondly, “we are a health care company, and promoting healthy lifestyles just seems the appropriate thing to do.”


    A growing number of employers are joining the fray. A joint National Business Group on Health/Watson Wyatt Worldwide annual survey of employer-sponsored health programs found that 60 percent of large U.S. employers offered health coaching in 2007, a 7 percent increase from 2006.


    “Employers are concentrating more on how to keep their healthy people healthy,” says Diane Murphy, senior health and productivity consultant in Watson Wyatt’s Minneapolis office.


    Health coaching has gained traction as employers tackle workers’ multiple health risks, including physical inactivity, stress, tobacco use and obesity. The concept builds on research led by Dee Eddington, director of the University of Michigan Health Management Research Center in Ann Arbor, and others linking reduction of health risks to reduced health care costs.


    “A lot of folks put their big toe in the pool of wellness” by starting a health risk assessment program, “and then they realize, ‘Oh, wait. All I’m doing is finding out how sick my employees are,’ ” says Michele Dodds, vice president of health and wellness at Chicago-based employee assistance program provider ComPsych, which offers health coaching.


    Many health care providers are adding coaching to their mix of services. New York-based WebMD added a health coaching capability when it purchased Indianapolis-based Summex in 2006. In June 2007, Humana, based in Lexington, Kentucky, launched a new wellness program, including a coaching component, through its Fort Worth, Texas-based Corphealth subsidiary. The British United Provident Association, a London-based provider of health care services, entered the coaching business with its acquisition in December 2007 of Boston-based Health Dialog.


    There is tremendous variability among health coaching programs. The better ones hire highly trained health professionals, such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, exercise physiologists and registered dieticians, wellness experts say. A health education or coaching credential often is required, since the coach’s main role is to help employees assess their risks and set achievable goals for improvement. The frequency of health coaching typically depends on the number and severity of a person’s health risks. A higher-risk individual may need monthly sessions.


    To create a seamless experience for employees, a health coaching company must coordinate with an employer’s health plan, disease management company and other wellness providers. It’s common for these companies to physically sit around a table and craft a plan to refer employees to the appropriate service.


    Coaching often is conducted over the phone to cater to an employee’s schedule. “It’s more convenient, more accessible and it’s actually less costly to provide the service via telephone,” says Dr. Neil Gordon, chief medical and science officer for Nationwide Better Health in Columbus, Ohio.


    In contrast, Marathon Health, a health services company based in Colchester, Vermont, has its coaches counsel employees face to face at the work site. Having a physical presence boosts employee engagement, with participation rates of 70 percent to 75 percent, says Chuck Reuter, the company’s president.


    Fees vary widely, depending on an employer’s size and the mix of health coaching services offered. ComPsych says its programs cost 65 cents to $1.25 per employee per month. Nationwide Better Health says an employer can spend an average of $100 to $250 per participant per year, or roughly $8 to $21 per employee per month. Marathon Health charges about $10 to $15 per employee per month.


    Companies that expect hard data on ROI, or on how well coaching works, will have to wait. There is limited data so far on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of health coaching, says Susan Butterworth, director of health management services of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, based on a comprehensive review of research to date.


    At Fiserv Inc., a large financial services company, the jury is still out on health coaching. In two small pilot projects—one that lasted 12 weeks and another that lasted five months—obese employees lost an average of just seven pounds in each test. Because of the weight loss, “I’m not going to say this wasn’t successful,” says Linda Schuessler, manager of wellness promotion in Brookfield, Wisconsin, for Fiserv. For now, though, the company is focusing on increasing opportunities for physical activity, she says.


    In the meantime, IASIS saw $1.1 million in health savings from reduced claims frequency and costs in 2007 over the prior year, largely because of the company’s Healthy Steps wellness program, along with health coaching, Follis says.


    “Anything you can do for the health of your employees is a win for everyone,” he says.

Posted on May 15, 2008June 27, 2018

Secrets of a Successful Job Share

Rebecca Hinkle and Karen Boda shared a job at Hewlett-Packard for more than 14 years, through multiple responsibilities, managers, promotions and physical locations, as well as five pregnancies and maternity leaves.


Over time they learned a lot about what makes job sharing successful, information they now use to teach Fortune 500 clients of Twinstar, the Atlanta consulting firm they started after leaving HP two years ago. The partners counsel companies to consider the following when deciding whether two employees would be a good job-sharing match:


Communication skills: Employees’ written and verbal communication skills need to be excellent “to keep the job share invisible to the outside world,” Boda says, but also so one person can update the other about what happened while they were off.


Organization: Being organized and planning ahead are critical when you’re splitting duties. The same goes for flexibility, Boda says. Partners have to accept that the other person may have a different way of doing something, and buy into the notion that because of it, the whole can be more than the sum of its parts, she says.


Work ethic: Job-sharing partners need a similar sense of commitment to the job. Are they both willing to take calls on days when they’re technically “off”? Would they both put in extra work? “You do have to match people who have the same styles. That’s as important as the actual qualifications,” Hinkle says.


Trust: Partners have to believe that the other person can do the job as well as they can, so much so that they’re willing to let their career depend on it, Boda says. If the partner on duty makes a mistake, they have to agree never to discuss it with anyone else until they have a chance to talk it over “behind closed doors,” Hinkle says.


Compatibility: Hinkle and Boda lasted in their shared job as long as they did because they had common career goals: to continue advancing but only work part time, and to take jobs that interested both of them. Sometimes managers suggested a promotion and sometimes they sought one out. Whenever anything came up, “We spent a good deal of time talking about it,” Boda says. “We weren’t so like-minded that the job was obvious. It was … a lot of negotiation.” In fact, it took two years of negotiating between themselves before they decided to quit and start their consulting firm.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 … Page 591 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