Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

Pension Assets Grow 12.4 Percent

Assets in the biggest corporate retirement plans swelled by 12.4 percent in 2007, with defined-contribution plans growing by 13.6 percent versus an 11.4 percent gain for traditional defined-benefit pensions, according to an annual survey of the 1,000 largest U.S. retirement plans by Workforce Management’s sister publications Financial Week and Pensions & Investments.


These corporate growth rates, however, are less impressive than the average increases seen at public plans, where cumulative retirement assets grew by 14.6 percent. That could have something to do with the risk appetites of corporate versus public plans. The average corporate defined-benefit plan had 29.6 percent of its assets in domestic and foreign fixed-income and cash holdings, while the average public defined-benefit plan’s bond and cash investments totaled just 25.4 percent of assets.


Overall, the 1,000 largest retirement plans’ assets increased by 13.5 percent during the 12 months ended September 30, 2007. That’s the largest one-year increase for P&I’s top 1,000 since a 21 percent increase recorded in 1997.


Still, the record isn’t much to brag about: Over the same 12 months, the S&P 500 returned more than 16.4 percent. Bonds also turned in decent returns, with the Lehman Bros. aggregate index up 5.1 percent.


Through the end of September, “you had all the markets performing well, real estate hadn’t gotten hammered yet, and the emerging markets did very well,” says Joseph E. Finn, principal and managing director at Punter Southall & Co.


Since the end of the third quarter, of course, U.S. stocks have tanked: The S&P 500 was down more than 12 percent as of late last week.


“None of my clients are sitting and patting themselves on the back,” says Steve Holmes, president of pension consulting firm Summit Strategies Group. “Now the theme is, ‘What can we do to protect these gains of the past three to five years.’ ”


Corporate plans are 65 percent bigger now than they were five years ago. With an annualized 11.2 percent increase, companies’ defined-contribution plans have grown at a faster clip than their defined-benefit brethren, which increased by an average 9.9 percent a year since 2002. From September 2002 through September 30, 2007, the S&P 500’s cumulative growth rate topped 15.5 percent a year, and the Lehman aggregate was up by an annual average of 4.5 percent.


“You’re in a five-year, major financial market increase,” Holmes says. “But I get the sense that everything that is going on is going to come to a halt. Many people are saying if we wind up flat [in 2008], we’d be happy.”


Not every corporate plan had a great showing in 2007.


Of the 599 companies for which year-over-year growth data are available, 71 had retirement plans whose total assets declined over the 12-month period. And 11 of those companies, including Halliburton (assets down 27.8 percent) and New York Life Insurance (down 16.4 percent), saw double-digit drops. The clear loser: Tyco, with a 56 percent asset decline.


The number of defined-benefit losers totaled 77, including Delta Air Lines (-21.5 percent), Hewlett-Packard (-19.9 percent) and Fortune Brands (-18 percent). Eighty-seven DC plans declined in size, including NCR (-18.4 percent), Pitney Bowes (-12.1 percent) and Macy’s (-11.9 percent).


On the flip side, many plans saw assets balloon last year. Total assets grew by more than 20 percent at 106 companies, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe (up 86.6 percent), Costco Wholesale Corp. (72.8 percent) and Cisco Systems (64.5 percent).


Defined-benefit plans at 36 companies expanded by more than a third, including those at Schlumberger (75.8 percent), FMR Corp. (58.4 percent) and Exxon Mobil (42.4 percent). And 50 defined-contribution plans surged by more than a third, including NYSE Group (129.2 percent), Ernst & Young (47.2 percent) and Pfizer (43.9 percent).


By Tara Kalwarsk of Financial Week and Jay Cooper of Pensions & Investments, sister publications of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

You Get What You Pay For

Townsend Wardlaw would rather write a salesman a $200,000 check on a $1 million deal than pay half of a $95,000 base salary over six months and have nothing to show for it. Wardlaw agrees it’s a lot of money, but he thinks it’s worth it.


    “Not only do we get what we’re paying for, but we get better results,” says Wardlaw, founder and CEO of Three Value Logic Sales in Denver.


    The method Wardlaw uses with his sales force is called activity-based compensation. It’s a form of variable pay where part of employees’ base pay hinges on specific goals. At Wardlaw’s sales outsourcing company, employees receive the cash rewards for their hard work on a quarterly basis.


    It’s a compensation strategy built right into an employee’s base pay that companies can use to achieve long-term goals by setting short-term objectives. Employees get paid when they deliver on the immediate needs of the company.


    About 10 percent of a salesperson’s base salary at this Denver company is tied to specific quarterly goals, including number of calls, meetings and landing new opportunities. Wardlaw says it’s his responsibility to set clear expectations, but each salesperson needs to hit those marks to earn their full base salary. Salespeople who meet those short-term goals have the potential to double their earnings through additional bonus pay.


    Activity-based compensation protects the company cash since the company isn’t paying an employee’s full salary without seeing results Wardlaw says.


    “It gives [employers] tangible value for their money,” he says, adding that the company has been paying its employees this way for about three years.


    Meanwhile, Affiliated Computer Services Inc. is working to incorporate activity-based compensation into the base salary of each of its 60,000 employees. ACS created its program from scratch about 10 years ago, and keeps the details closely guarded. Tom Blodgett, president of ACS’ Business Process Solutions Group, says the program improves productivity, work quality and employee satisfaction, and offers myriad other benefits.


    “It allows us to be more competitive, enough to make a difference in winning deals,” Blodgett says.


    ACS, a worldwide business process and information technology outsourcing company based in Dallas, gauges employee performance on the quality and quantity of work, in many cases. Blodgett says four or five measurements usually are set. If needed, the sophisticated program can change the criteria each pay period. Most employees on this pay schedule can check their performance daily. Paychecks can fluctuate depending upon how well employees meet or exceed the goals.


    To have a successful activity-based compensation program, employees need to understand the metrics and how they influence their results, as well as to see how they’re doing, says Steve Gross, global broad-based performance and rewards consulting leader with Mercer. Plus, employers should offer a minimum of 10 percent of the employee’s salary.


    “If you don’t put something on the table [an employee] can do something with, then you’re not going to motivate [the workforce],” Gross says.


    Employers also need to measure the right thing, observers agree. Generally, employees will do what they are told, Wardlaw says.


    “You need to do your job as a leader and define success, as opposed to waving a wand and expecting it to happen,” Wardlaw says. “Then you need to pay for that contribution to success.”


    If an organization measures something like an average handling time, Gross says, they need to be careful that specific measurement doesn’t encourage employees to skimp on delivering high-quality services.


    “It isn’t a bad metric, but you can send the wrong signal,” he adds.


    But once accurate goals are set, results should pour in.


    At ACS, one group that handles benefits for a client saved about 23 percent more than what was projected. Work quality rose five percentage points to 97 percent and productivity increased nearly 30 percent. While Blodgett would not divulge any more details on this group, he did say these results are typical of ACS employees on activity-based compensation.


    “We feel our workforce is the cream of the crop in terms of productivity,” Blodgett says.


    Another added benefit, many agree, is that most low-performing employees leave the job before the company needs to fire them. Because those employee aren’t making the money they expected, they usually go elsewhere.


    “On initial implementation, turnover is higher,” Blodgett says. “Not everyone can handle it.”


    Recently, ACS was in the news over a public confrontation between its chairman and certain board members. Five board members quit, and in early December, ACS chairman Darwin Deason agreed to amend his employment agreement, curbing his right to appoint specific officers and capping his voting power on his outstanding shares.


    While Blodgett admits it was a tumultuous episode, many ACS employees stayed on task. Sales “may have paused” he said, but new business is picking up significantly. The company is on track to grow revenue to $10 billion by 2010, he added.


    Although the company didn’t track the effect of this issue on its employees, those who are paid based on their productivity levels have historically been high performers whose efforts help improve the bottom line. The company’s annual report showed an 8 percent increase in total revenue in 2007, rising from $5.4 billion in 2006 to nearly $5.8 billion last year.


    “ABC is so effective and so fair, the more people we can get on it, the better,” Blodgett says.

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

Is There a Link Between ESOPs and Better Company Performance

Organizations often realize positive changes in employee morale and working behaviors after implementing an employee stock ownership plan. Those somewhat intangible benefits occur alongside measurable business results over similar firms without ESOPs. The developing body of research suggests that a key driver to exceptional business performance for ESOP firms is a change from the traditional hierarchal leadership model.

Due to lack of strong research or survey data, descriptions of the benefits of ESOPs have been largely based on case-by-case results or anecdotes. Part of the challenge is that management studies most often focus on publicly traded firms, while many ESOP organizations are privately held. Another is that private organizations are not required to disclose the same kinds of financial or performance information as do publicly traded companies.

The research base, however, is growing. This may be due to the increasing number of American employees with ownership rights, or an interest in the intriguing ESOP dynamic of workers sharing in the wealth they themselves help to create.

ESOP definition and history
   An ESOP operates through a trust that is funded by the company’s tax-deductible contributions to purchase company stock. The contributions are distributed to employees based on plan-specific criteria, making employees owners of stock in the company for which they work. ESOPs are unique employee benefits because they are required to invest primarily in the securities of the sponsoring employer, and can be very effective vehicles for transitioning company ownership from key shareholders, for raising capital, and for creating organizations that enjoy the benefits of an ownership culture.

Attorney and investment banker Louis Kelso’s vision in conceiving the employee stock ownership plan in the 1950s was a stronger capitalist system resulting from all workers benefiting from company ownership. This concept captured the attention of legislators in the early 1970s; they argued that the benefits of facilitating broad-based ownership included reducing disparities in wealth, easing workplace tensions and increasing corporate performance.

The number of ESOPs has ebbed and flowed, according to Form 5500 reporting. There were approximately 9,200 plans in 1993, declining to 7,700 in 2000 and climbing again to 9,700 in 2006. The dire fates of some public ESOP firms, which had to deal with legislative changes in the 1980s and the more recent front-page disasters of Enron and WorldCom, are rare. The most common reason for ESOP termination is that the stock transfer transaction was completed.

Thriving or surviving?
   The developing research suggests that employee-owned firms are profitable, productive and display better shareholder value. As these firms are thriving, and not just surviving, it is interesting to compare their growth and performance with that of traditional organizations.

Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse of Rutgers University began a groundbreaking study in 1988. These trailblazing researchers tracked privately held companies of the same size and industry until 1999. Of the 1,176 private ESOP organizations in the study group in 1988, almost 70 percent survived, as compared with approximately 55 percent of non-ESOP firms of the same size and in the same industries.

In 2000, these researchers studied all ESOP plans set up between 1988 and 1994 for which data was available. They reviewed sales, employment and sales per employee, and found that ESOP companies grew 2.3 percent to 2.4 percent faster than expected. They reported in 2003 that although a statistically valid link could not be established between the employee ownership and enhanced business results, employee ownership tends to match or exceed, on average, the performance of similar firms, perhaps by as much as 5 percent.

Survey results from 2006 corroborate the positive outcomes of ownership. According to the 15th Annual ESOP Economic Performance Survey, which reported the responses of 426 members of the ESOP Association:

  • 91 percent said that creating employee ownership via an ESOP was a “good business decision that has helped the company.”


  • 72 percent said that their organization outperformed three major stock indexes—the Dow Jones industrial average, the Nasdaq composite and the S&P 500.


  • Only 9 percent said the company fared worse than all three major indexes.


  • 68 percent said that the ESOP improved overall employee productivity.


  • 54 percent said the organization had created an employee participation program after establishing the ESOP.


Participative management may be key
   A key factor in ESOP organization success seems to be participative management.

In a 1987 study, the National Center for Employee Ownership, a nonprofit organization, analyzed 270 companies and found that those who combined employee ownership with participative management grew 8 percent to 11 percent faster annually than otherwise expected. This relationship was corroborated by later studies by the U.S. General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office), which noted that increased productivity was achieved only with higher levels of worker influence or increased voting rights.

Interestingly, research shows that higher worker satisfaction resulted when workers perceived participation and influence, or were simply provided opportunities to participate in decision-making. Satisfaction was not linked to ownership stake, or to the value of an ESOP account.

The relationship between ownership and participation is easy to understand—the element of ownership provides long-term perspective and incentive. Participation helps to empower workers to various degrees, and to support answers to the question “Why do I care?” by providing an avenue for shaping their futures and the future of their firm. In the best cases, it erodes or blurs any worker perception of leadership as “them” versus employees as “us,” and begins to build an ownership community.

Moving from a traditional hierarchal leadership model to an open-book management program for managing financial results is a significant cultural and practical change. Participative management requires:

  • Articulating a clear and compelling mission and vision.


  • Creating a vehicle for communication among all levels and areas of the organization.


  • Providing simple tools for employees to improve their work and affect the bottom line.


Crucial to success is training employees to connect the dots in the relationships between the impact of their day-to-day tasks to whatever key metrics are established, such as scrap rate or cost of sales, and how that in turn affects expense and firm profits.

Is it right for your organization?
   Evidence shows a causal relationship between ESOP implementation and favorable business results over like firms or expectations. It could be argued that participative management warrants attention not simply for the benefits accruing to employees, but for the possible dramatic returns on investment achieved through ownership and participation synergy. Studies to date provide an interesting view into this dynamic, and it is our hope that ESOP research continues to generate information and ideas for our education, consideration or action.

The start of a new year is a good time to review business and human capital objectives as they relate to your organization’s strategy for aligning business needs with human capital needs. If you have not already, it may be time to consider whether an ESOP supports your organization’s business objectives.

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

Microsofts Canadian Move a Swipe at Stiff U.S. Visa Policies

Microsoft rocked the business world in July 2007 when it announced it would open a new software development center in Vancouver, British Columbia.


    Microsoft’s explanation included a sharp warning that U.S. visa caps preclude the company from hiring the workers it needs at its U.S. locations. New hires recruited by Microsoft but denied H-1B visas can take positions in Vancouver; current Microsoft employees with expiring H-1B visas can relocate across the border in Canada.


    Microsoft’s Vancouver move underscores the untenable position companies face in trying to recruit top talent for their U.S. facilities.


    “It’s rare for any company to stand up and point to one factor that caused it to make a large business decision,” notes Bonnie Gibson, managing shareholder of Littler Mendelson’s global corporate migration law group in Phoenix. “But the immigration issue and the skilled labor availability problem is now a factor in business considerations at many companies.”


    Few companies can adopt Microsoft’s solution to the U.S. H-1B shortage, however.


    “Shifting facilities across borders is an expensive business move that is only suitable for large companies that need to have a physical team in place,” says Frieda Glucoft, partner and chair of the immigration and naturalization practice at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp in Los Angeles.


    She warns, however, that the U.S. may see more companies shifting work outside the borders.


    “How to plan for recruiting foreign workers in 2008 is the million-dollar question for employers,” Glucoft says. “H-1Bs will be a lottery again, and the number of applications will be even higher than in 2007. We are recommending various approaches, but they are expensive and some don’t work.”


    Glucoft and other immigration experts advise recruiters to look at specific techniques for maximizing the utility of H-1Bs and to explore alternative visas for skilled workers.


H-1B techniques
   When recruiters face shortages for skilled labor, they turn first to foreign-born MA and Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities, but the volatility of the immigration issue erases any distinction between students already living in the U.S. and foreign workers coming in from abroad.


    “Politically, there is no understanding that we are talking about employers’ ability to hire these graduates,” Gibson says.


    The H-1B problem flows into this issue because postgraduates are allowed only one year of employment under current law and then have to move to H-1B status.


    “There is legislative activity around this issue, but the current political environment in the United States is toxic,” Gibson notes.


    “Employers may find some relief in 2008 if the Department of Homeland Security looks at areas where it could make changes at the margins without statutory amendments,” Gibson says. “The one-year limit on employment for postgraduates is one possibility. The point is to take pressure off the H-1Bs. It is critical for companies to push for this.”


    Gibson advises HR executives and recruiters to develop a solid strategy that allows the company to identify which candidates the company will sponsor for H-1Bs early on. She also stresses the importance of looking at December graduates rather than May graduates because H-1B applications can only be flied after all the pre-requisites for graduation have been completed.


    Companies can hire May graduates for only one year, but can’t file for H-1Bs until the next April for work beginning in October, so May graduates are caught in a period when they are not authorized to work. December graduates can move from their F-1 status during their one year of employment to H-1B status without entering a period when they are not authorized to work.


    Also, recruiters can focus on lateral recruiting that targets current H-1B holders who are not counted against the cap.


    “Lateral recruiting is now extremely active,” Gibson says.


    Betsy Stelle Morgan, partner at Baker & McKenzie in Chicago, advises recruiters to analyze each skill set needed and consider rotating F-1 employees out to their home country or to Mexico or Canada with the hope that they can return in October under an H-1B. Alternatively, F-1 status employees caught in the gap period that occurs when their visa expires in May can pursue additional academic courses and continue their student status until H-1B status is achieved.


    “Each situation has to be analyzed on its own merits,” Morgan says. “There is no expectation for a H-1B cap increase, so recruiters must plan now, beginning with an audit of the workforce for F-1 status employees who may be eligible for H-1Bs.”


    A 2007 modification in the H-1B visa rules allows H-1B visa holders to retain their status after they leave the U.S. and creates a new opening for recruiters looking for foreign nationals.


    “This is a nice break for employers, but it has been underutilized because both employers and foreign nationals are often not aware of the 2007 change,” says Irina Plumlee, partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell, Dallas.


    Recruiters can now look overseas for workers who hold H-1B visas and did not exhaust their six-year limit. Before the 2007 change, workers with time remaining on their H-1B visas lost it as soon as they left the United States. If a new employer wanted to bring the worker back into the U.S., the employer would have to file for a new H-1B that would be subject to the cap.


    Under the 2007 revision, the H-1B visa number stays with the worker even if he or she leaves the U.S. and the worker can re-enter for a new job for the length of time remaining under the original visa.


    If an employee working under an H-1B visa for two years loses his job and returns home, for example, a new employer could request restoration of the H-1B and bring that worker into the U.S. for the four years remaining. Also, if a worker with an H-1B visa is no longer employed and returns to school in the U.S. under a student visa, a new employer can hire that worker under the original H-1B visa for the amount of time remaining on it without being subject to the cap.


    Glucoft also reminds employers that they can use H-1B extensions to keep the employee in the U.S. for up to eight years, but to move to a green card, the employer must file an application before the employee’s fifth anniversary date.


    “We are seeing employers rush to file these,” she says. “And we have seen and continue to see a lot of lateral recruiting.”


Alternatives
   “Traditionally, H-1B visas have been in the center of employers’ attention for skilled workforce needs,” Plumlee notes. “However, the current situation calls for a broader outlook and careful consideration of lesser-known work permits, such as the L, E, O and others.


    “With comprehensive immigration reform failing in 2007 and our economy strong enough to warrant interest in skilled foreign workers, U.S. employers continue to face significant challenges planning their labor needs and recruitment efforts.”


    Plumlee advises recruiters to look more closely at O visas for workers with extraordinary abilities. Recruiters and candidates may assume that the O visa is not available because of its language concerning “extraordinary” skills, but it has broader applicability.


    “O visas are an excellent alternative to the H-1B,” she says. Recruiters and foreign nationals should look carefully at this option and not discount it.


    “We look at all the options,” Glucoft says. “Recruiters have to work through every possible box, looking at every possible route.”


    If candidates in professional occupations can qualify for an E visa, recruiters should pursue that option. If the company has an affiliate outside the U.S., it can use inside transfers, which cost much less than filing for an H-1B. If not, employers will have to try for H-1Bs, unless they can qualify under one of the special NAFTA or individual country visas.


    “H-2B visas for seasonal workers are capped at 66,000 and closed within 48 hours,” Glucoft notes. “Companies in the hospitality industry and other industries that rely on seasonal workers have barraged Congress, so it’s possible that there may be some relief for H-2B visas and returning workers. It’s become a very emotional topic.”


    Glucoft also advises recruiters to look at J-1 visas for management trainees. “Sometimes recruiters can use these and companies can benefit,” she notes. “J-1 visas may have been underutilized and can be useful for positions that require collaboration.”


    For companies with foreign subsidiaries, Gibson advises recruiters to look at the talent pool and match up the most attractive candidates with the countries where they can get visas.


    “Recognize that some of the best candidates will not obtain H-1Bs and make these priority hires at foreign locations,” she says.


    Without national reform, the U.S. continues to drift away from the global move toward greater labor mobility. Other nations, including Canada and the United Kingdom, now use point systems designed to pull in the most talented workers without an existing job offer.


    The U.K. also automatically grants visas to MBA graduates from the world’s top 50 business schools, more than half of which are located in the United States. Unlike these merit-based systems, the U.S. H-1B process is a lottery that increasingly discourages the top candidates from looking for work in the U.S.


    “For recruiting skilled labor, there will be much more heavy sledding for H-1Bs and other visas in 2008,” Gibson notes. “The government won’t turn back the existing numbers, but it can continue to increase the filing fees. As it becomes more costly and difficult, the U.S. with lose its competitiveness and the best jobs will leave the country.”

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

The Wage and Hour Class-Action Epidemic

A surge of wage and hour class-action lawsuits has plagued employers across the country. Aside from the lucrative rewards for plaintiffs, these class-action cases have spread in scope and popularity because they are easier to marshal than traditional employment claims of discrimination and wrongful termination. With a singular focus on a particular job classification, a systematic process of case filings can be established. Even after resolving class-action cases, companies find ongoing liability with comparable litigation by different groups of workers alleging similar violations.

    California has set precedents in this area, and “copycat suits” have now followed in other parts of the country. This article explores a number of significant recent developments in California state and federal courts that affect employers with nationwide operations. This article also highlights a few key recent decisions and offers practical strategies to prevent future claims.


Existing and future exposure: updates in law
   Recent wage and hour class actions have included claims of off-the-clock work, failure to pay overtime, misclassification of exempt positions or of independent contractors, meal and rest break violations, failure to pay commissions or bonuses, paycheck stub violations, uniform violations and waiting-time penalties. We discuss some of these in greater detail below.


    State and federal regulations set forth specific factors to qualify for each exemption. For example, to be exempt from overtime pay under California law, employees must be “primarily engaged” in exempt duties, which means that more than 50 percent of their time should be devoted to exempt work. Further, the employee must meet minimum weekly salary requirements in order to qualify for the exemptions.


    Misclassification of employees: Two recent decisions shed light on the importance of properly classifying employees as exempt. In Harris v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles County, 154 Cal. App. 4th 164 (2007) (rev. granted), the court restrictively interpreted the administrative exemption when it highlighted the distinction between the administrative and production worker dichotomy. The court held that California claims adjusters did not qualify under the administrative exemption and that they were merely “production” workers since most of their work involved the daily functions of the employer’s business operations. The court reasoned that the primary type of work that the claims adjusters performed, which included investigating and estimating claims, setting coverage boundaries and negotiating settlements, was not carried out at the level of management policy or general operations and therefore such employees did not qualify under the exemption as performing duties “directly related to management policies or general business operations.” The California Supreme Court has granted review of Harris to make a final determination on this issue.


    Similarly, in Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc., 151 Cal. App 4th 1363 (2007), the court found the employee was improperly classified under the administrative exemption because he frequently engaged in the day-to-day business functions of his employer, including customer service and executing the employer’s software programs. The court again emphasized the distinction between administrative employees who “perform work directly related to management policies or general business operations” and production employees “whose primary duties are producing the commodities, whether goods or services, that the enterprise exists to produce.”


    Enforcing release of wage claims: As a solution to misclassification of employees, some employers have attempted to reclassify the job groups at risk and pay employees for the alleged unpaid overtime in exchange for signing a release. In 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in Dent v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., 502 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2007), did not find that the scope of the release was valid. The court held that a release of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, even when issued with supervision of the secretary of labor and produced on the Department of Labor’s approval form, did not release all claims prior to the date of the release.


    Off-the-clock work and “de minimis” activities: Another hotly litigated area concerns claims of off-the-clock work versus “de minimis” activity, which is not otherwise compensable. This can include activities employees engage in immediately prior to and after clocking in and out for work. In IBP v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), the Supreme Court agreed with the 9th Circuit and found that time spent walking to and from the production floor, as well as waiting to remove protective clothing, was compensable because the activities were a part of a “continuous workday.” However, the court reasoned that the time spent “waiting to don—time that elapses before the principal activity of donning integral and indispensable gear” is not compensable.


    In Gorman v. The Consolidated Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007), the court found that nuclear power plant employees were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for time spent going through security or “donning and doffing” personal protective gear, because the activity was not considered an “integral” part of their responsibility. In Anderson v. Cagle’s Inc., 488 F.3d 945 (11th Cir., 2007), the court also found that donning and doffing protective clothing was non-compensable activity because the items qualified within the definition of clothes under 29 U.S.C. section 203(o) and were excluded the by collective bargaining agreement.


    Meal and rest break violations: California employers are required to provide hourly employees with a 30-minute unpaid meal break and two 10-minute rest breaks. Under California Labor Code section 226.7, an employer incurs an hour of pay as violation for every meal or rest period it fails to timely provide an employee. With every missed meal break resulting in an additional hour of pay, the potential exposure can be significant.


    Late last year, the California Supreme Court in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007), held that the additional hour of pay was a “wage” and therefore subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Murphy also held that an employer could meet its burden to establish compliance by demonstrating they had not forced an employee to forgo a break or had not required an employee to work through break.


    In July 2007, in a decision that favored employers, White v. Starbucks, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48922, (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2007), similarly held that the employee must show he was “forced to forgo his meal breaks as opposed to merely showing that he did not take them regardless of the reason.” The court ruled employers are not required to ensure employees take their meal breaks, but rather only that they must offer them to employees. The court reasoned that forcing employers to actively ensure all employees took their breaks “would be impossible to implement for significant sectors [of industries] in which large employers may have hundreds or thousands of employees working multiple shifts.”


    Prior to the White v. Starbucks decision, Perez v. Safety-Kleen Systems, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48308 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2007), put the burden on the employer, finding that “an employer must do something affirmative to provide a meal period, and may not merely assume such breaks are taken.” Citing a state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement opinion letter, the court held that an employer’s obligation to provide employees with a proper meal period “is not satisfied by assuming that the meal periods were taken, because employers have ‘an affirmative obligation to ensure that workers are actually relieved of all duty.’ ”


    Class-action waivers in arbitration agreements: The California Supreme Court decided in Gentry v. Superior Court, 2007 Cal. LEXIS 93786 (Aug. 30, 2007), that class-action waivers may be deemed unenforceable. The court provided guidance for the trial court in determining whether such agreements can be enforceable, specifying that the following factors must be evaluated: the size of the potential individual recovery; the potential for retaliation against members of the class; whether absent members of the class may not be informed about their rights; and other “real world” obstacles to the vindication of class members’ right to overtime pay through individual arbitration.


    In October 2007, in Murphy v. Check ‘N Go of Cal. Inc., A114442 (Cal.Ct.App., 10/17/07), the court held a class-action waiver in an arbitration agreement signed by a retail manager of Check N’ Go of California Inc. was unconscionable. The court upheld the trial courts’ decision and found that the arbitration agreement as a whole was unenforceable as it “permeated with unlawful purpose.”


Simple solutions
   Implementing change and mitigating potential risks is crucial to limiting liability. Employers can use existing resources to quickly and efficiently identify exposure and mitigate damages. For example:


    1. Conduct an internal audit to determine areas of vulnerability. Because employers bear the burden of proof, they should carefully weigh the benefits and risks associated with the classification of their employees. Employers should frequently conduct audits of their payroll practices and update their classifications to ensure positions are properly classified.


    This process includes: becoming familiar with the regulations and updates; reviewing all exempt positions to determine if they are properly classified; monitoring work and relevant job descriptions for exempt employees to confirm exempt responsibilities and reclassifying positions if necessary.


    2. Implement changes by modifying and utilizing existing resources. Employers can use existing systems to better track hours of work. For example, existing resources such as computer systems and fob-keys can be used to mandate log-in and log-out procedures.


    3. Implement ongoing training and education to ensure the laws are understood by employees.


    4. Mitigate the potential for misclassification by clearly defining job duties and responsibilities. Clearly defining responsibilities with training and performance evaluations that reiterate the same message are simple ways of guarding against violation.


    5. Update record-keeping practices. The successful defense of any class-action lawsuit requires that employers maintain accurate and detailed records and documentation in the event that such records are later needed to refute alleged claims. The more accurate the record-keeping system is, the less chance of being presented with an exaggerated class-action claim for overtime and unpaid wages. Time clocks or other reliable electronic systems may be the best route for an employer wanting to ensure accurate records.


    6. Diversify practices. An easy way to defeat claims of class allegation is to demonstrate that your practices vary by individuals and location. You can demonstrate this by drafting job descriptions and performance evaluations that emphasize ability to use discretionary judgment. Additionally, providing local operations discretion to implement certain practices that are specific to that location also creates a record of diverse practices.


    This is a modified version of an article that previously appeared in the Daily Journal and is being posted with permission of the Daily Journal Corp.

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

IBM Channels Exiting Workers To Public Sector

Employee engagement doesn’t end when someone leaves the payroll, according to IBM. In fact, helping workers determine a direction before walking out the door increases their affinity for the company.


    A new program the technology giant will launch in July is designed to persuade employees and retirees to consider working for the Department of Treasury. The agency says it must fill 14,000 “mission critical” jobs during the next two years, including 7,950 at the Internal Revenue Service.


    The Treasury talent shortage reflects a government-wide trend. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that 500,000 federal positions could come open during the next five years as baby boomers retire.


    To fill the gap, the OPM is trying to persuade the private sector’s baby boomers to begin “encore careers” in the public sector.


    IBM is the first to sign on to FedExperience Transitions to Government, a pilot project sponsored by the Partnership for Public Service, an organization that promotes government hiring. AARP and Civic Ventures, both of which promote the work skills of older Americans, also are involved.


    Neither the Treasury Department nor IBM has set a target for the number of people they want to steer into jobs with the agency. Their primary goal is to establish a program with a low attrition rate.


    The initiative represents IBM’s second foray into the transition area. It already has set up a program to encourage employees and retirees to become teachers after they leave the company. About 100 IBM employees are participating.
The effort is part of IBM’s Global Citizen’s Portfolio, a $60 million program the company launched last summer. In addition to the $6 million to $8 million transition dimension, the initiative includes a 401(k)-style account that helps employees pay for education and training and $2.5 million in funding for the Corporate Service Corps, which consists of 600 employees that IBM will send to emerging markets to work on economic and social issues.


    The portfolio is IBM’s way to help employees thrive in the global economy. Even when they find a niche outside the company, IBM still benefits, according to Stanley Litow, vice president for corporate citizenship and corporate affairs.
“It builds a more effective workforce when the company helps people think through transitions in their life,” Litow said at a mid-January press conference in Washington.


    IBM generates good will from people who start a fulfilling career in teaching or government, said Litow, a former deputy chancellor for New York City schools.


    “It will improve people’s view of the brand,” he said. “It is good business to operate this way.”
The way IBM operates on a daily basis—stressing collaboration internally and with suppliers in a $48 billion procurement system—makes its 350,000 employees a good source of talent for government, Litow said.
Challenges in luring people from the private sector to the government include a lack of knowledge about federal openings and a bureaucratic hiring process.


    “There are a lot of things we can do better; we know that,” OPM director Linda Springer said. But she emphasized that federal agencies offer rich benefit packages and flexibility.


    “Whatever inefficiencies we have, there are a lot of other good things we’re doing,” she said.

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

HR Responsibility Stop Whining and Take Ownership of Your People Processes

I routinely hear complaints like this one (paraphrased only slightly):


    “Get real. HR can’t be held responsible for hiring, retention or development because managers actually do the managing of their team. Expecting HR to affect the bottom line is not fair because HR authority doesn’t equal HR responsibility. HR is the scapegoat.”


    My response is a visceral one. If I hear this series of excuses from the HR whiners one more time, I will gag.


    Professionals take responsibility. In business, those who manage a process are responsible for the process’s results. Period. For brand results, for example, product branding takes the heat, even though plenty of managers can do things that actually damage the brand. The same established connection between ownership of a process and accountability for its results must finally be accepted in HR.


    Process owners in every area of business routinely accept the fact that if you design a process and manage it, you own the results, and the associated blame or rewards. They also accept the reality that with that accountability, you will never have total control. Sales, for example, must sell or get no bonus, even though the sales organization might be provided with weak advertising, a bad brand and marginal products. Can anyone honestly argue that HR doesn’t design, modify and manage the processes of hiring, development, retention and, by the way, manager appraisal?


    Excuses, whining and finger-pointing don’t change this relationship. Just because you find it unfair really doesn’t matter. No other function attempts to cry that demanding results from process owners is unfair. Fairness and responsibility are not even measured in corporations. True fairness and authority that equals responsibility only occur in academic textbooks and, maybe, in the Land of Oz.


    The corollary to the “designers take the heat” rule is the “owners must influence” rule. This rule says that if you design and manage a process, you must find a way to successfully educate, convince or cajole everyone that has touch points in the execution of the process—even though they do not report to you.


    In fact, most process managers must flawlessly execute this maneuver again and again—despite the fact that they do not have the power to fire or severely punish. Accounting, purchasing, security, sales and, yes, even corporate counsel all have the relative authority of pussycats. They can’t force. They can only point out and then use the credibility that their expertise and their data carry to persuade those who often have a higher rank to change their behavior. Even lowly accounting has to produce results with no more power than the ability to send managers a threatening e-mail. Influencing others to do something your way also requires that you present it so that others see the direct value to them. If you don’t, you will never achieve great results, let alone be fully respected. Successful process owners must learn to persuade, not order, to produce results.


    Now, turning to HR’s business impact: People really are an organization’s most important asset. Jack Welch said it best: “What could possibly be more important than who gets hired, developed, promoted or moved out the door?” But HR rarely functions as it should. That’s an outrage. HR should be every company’s “killer application.” In sports, the connection isn’t even seriously challenged: Great players and managers produce wins and thus profits. To think or argue that it’s the shoes that made Michael Jordan great or the clubs that vaulted Tiger Woods to the top of the game would be laughable.


    In the business realm it’s the same: Most new product ideas, process innovations, marketing campaigns and customer service come from people, so it follows that business results must also result primarily from people. In the cases where software, machines or smart investments increase outputs and profits, people still make the decisions as to what software and equipment to buy or where to invest. Studies by Watson Wyatt, the Russell Investment Group and the Gevity Institute have already demonstrated a direct relationship between great HR and profit or stock value. So yes, people management does affect profits!


    To me, the reason we in HR don’t take full responsibility is clear: Too many in the profession lack the courage and influencing skills to guarantee results from the processes they own. It’s time for us to stand on the table and shout once and for all: “I own people results and I guarantee our firm will have the best people metrics and results in the industry—no exceptions, no more excuses. If I don’t meet our deal, consider me gone. Any questions?” 

Posted on January 30, 2008June 27, 2018

Bush Signs FMLA Military Expansion Bill

President Bush on Monday, January 28, signed into law legislation that expands Family and Medical Leave Act coverage for family members of employees called for military service.


The expansion, included in a broader Department of Defense spending measure, requires employers to offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to employees when a spouse, child or parent is on active duty or is called up for active duty. Leave could be for any “exigency” as defined by regulations to be drafted by the Labor Department.


Additionally, the new law allows employees who are the spouses, children, parents or next of kin of a service member to take up to 26 weeks of leave under the FMLA to care for the service member who has incurred an injury during military service when that injury results in the service member being unable to perform his or her duties.


The expansion is the first for the 1993 law, which requires employers to allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave after the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a sick child, parent or spouse, or when an employee has a serious illness.


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

Posted on January 29, 2008August 3, 2023

California Regulator Slams PacifiCare for Alleged Massive Claims Violations

California regulators have assessed a record $3.5 million fine and are seeking up to $1.3 billion in penalties against a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit for allegedly violating state regulations governing claims payments.


California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has launched an enforcement action against UnitedHealth’s PacifiCare unit in response to market conduct examinations that identified 130,000 alleged violations in the company’s handling of claims and provider data.


Each violation has a statutory penalty up to $5,000 for a non-willful violation and up to $10,000 for a willful violation—meaning that if all the violations are shown to be willful, the penalty could be as high as $1.3 billion.


The California Department of Managed Health Care assessed a $3.5 million fine, which it said is a state record, and outlined steps PacifiCare must take to correct the claims payment problems, including an independent monitor to oversee changes and additional staff.


PacifiCare is accused of numerous violations, including: wrongful denial of covered claims, incorrect payment of claims, lost documents including certificates of creditable coverage and medical records, failure to timely acknowledge receipt of claims, multiple requests for documentation that was previously provided, failure to address all issues and respond timely to member appeals and provider disputes, and failure to manage provider network contracts and resolve provider disputes.


The two regulatory organizations launched a joint investigation last year after receiving hundreds of consumer and provider complaints about claims payment problems by PacifiCare, particularly after its December 2005 acquisition by Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth.


In a statement, UnitedHealthcare said the issues were largely administrative- and provider-related and that most have no direct effect on PacifiCare members. The company also attributed some of the issues to a provider network transition that had to be completed six months earlier than anticipated due to the acquisition.


In addition, the company said it has largely resolved processing errors involving point-of-service claims, which were the primary focus on the DMHC examination, and is making good progress on ensuring the timely and accurate resolution of provider disputes.


The company also said it has resolved the majority of the claims payment issues identified by the California Department of Insurance and made systemic changes to help avoid them in the future. It also said it has hired additional staff, including a newly appointed vice president of transactions oversight, to oversee its performance.


Meanwhile, the CDI is considering similar broad reviews of other health insurers, although a spokesman declined to identify any insurers.


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

Posted on January 29, 2008June 27, 2018

California Health Care Reform Bill Rejected, Gov. Vows to Continue Effort

A California Senate panel voted 10-1 late Monday, January 28, to reject comprehensive health care reform crafted by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez. The panel action came just over a month after the Assembly approved a compromise bill hammered out by Schwarzenegger and Núñez.


Monday’s vote’s also canceled a companion ballot initiative that would have provided the funding for the reforms, including employer health care coverage spending requirements and an increase in the cigarette tax and fees paid by hospitals to support increases in provider reimbursement from the state’s Medicaid program.


Provisions in the compromise bill—aimed at bringing health insurance coverage to most of the state’s nearly 7 million uninsured—would require most state residents to obtain health insurance, while the state would subsidize premiums for lower-income state residents.


Employers would have to spend a specific percentage of payroll on health care for employees or pay into a pool that would be created to provide coverage for the uninsured.


The cost of the reforms was projected at more than $14 billion, roughly the size of the deficit the state faces this year. Before Monday’s vote on the bill, Núñez challenged the committee to come up with a better reform measure.


“I would challenge the members of the Senate to come up with a plan that’s doable, and that can withstand the same type of scrutiny [the proposal] was put through in this committee, the same kind of analysis by the Legislative Analyst, that is going to respond to the needs of those poor families who have absolutely no health care today,” Núñez said in testimony at the panel hearing Monday.


Meanwhile, Gov. Schwarzenegger is evaluating his next move, according to a spokeswoman.


“The fact that the Senate missed a golden opportunity to pass health care reform doesn’t change the governor’s commitment to fixing California’s health care system,” the spokeswoman said. “Keep in mind that in Massachusetts, it took Gov. Romney three years to push the concept of individual responsibility across the finish line.”


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

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 … 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