Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on July 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Senate Panel Discusses Insurer Oversight, Federal Office


The idea that some financial institutions are too big to be allowed to fail should be rejected “entirely,” the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee said Tuesday, July 28.


Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, made the comment during a committee hearing on insurance regulatory modernization, during which a panel of outside experts discussed the Obama administration’s financial services regulatory reform plan as it would affect insurance.


In response to a question from Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, a proponent of optional federal charters for insurers, Hal Scott, Nomura professor of international financial systems at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said he didn’t think the administration’s proposal “goes far enough.”


Scott said insurers should be allowed to choose a federal charter, and some large insurers should be required to be regulated by federal authorities rather than state authorities.


The administration plan calls for establishing an Office of National Insurance within the Treasury Department, but says nothing about federal insurance charters. Scott also said that rather than be a part of the Treasury Department, the ONI should be an independent agency like the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The ONI “is a good first step,” Martin Grace, James S. Kemper professor of risk management at the Department of Risk Management and Insurance at Georgia State University in Atlanta, told the panel. “Let’s see how the first step goes,” he said.


After hearing the panelists’ comments, Dodd said that unlike the highly politicized debate over health care reform, discussions of financial services regulatory reform in his committee have been marked by a desire “to figure out what works.” He added that “we don’t want to miss the opportunity the crisis has posed.”


But in the discussion of systemic risk regulation, he said, “I want to get rid of this too-big-to-fail notion entirely,” referring to the rationale behind government intervention to save American International Group Inc. and some other institutions. His sentiment was shared by the committee’s top minority member, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama.


“The sky didn’t fall when Lehman Brothers went under,” Sen. Shelby said. “If we enshrine the too-big-to-fail doctrine, we’re going to have problems down the road.”


In a related development, a group of financial services industry organizations sent a letter Tuesday to Sens. Dodd and Shelby advocating a greater federal role in insurance regulation.


“Our coalition believes that to effectively address gaps in regulation of insurance in a way that would be most beneficial for insurers, reinsurers, producers and, most importantly, consumers, Congress should also establish an appropriately crafted functional federal regulator for insurance,” the Coalition for Insurance Modernization said in the letter. “While state insurance regulation should remain available for those who choose it, particularly agents who may only do business in a few states, a federal alternative regulator could help spur innovation and competition, increase choice, reduce costs, and provide meaningful and consistent consumer protections.”


Members of the coalition include the American Insurance Association, Agents for Change, the American Bankers Insurance Association, the American Council of Life Insurers, the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, the Financial Services Roundtable, the National Association of Independent Life Brokerage Agencies, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and the Reinsurance Association of America.



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

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

Posted on July 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Getting Ahead of the Market Compensation Issues for Pre-IPO Companies

A semblance of stock market stability and renewed optimism could lead more small private companies to consider going public. But these days they’ll need more than just a good story to tell investors, who remain relatively risk-averse. They’ll need to demonstrate organizational maturity and viability, particularly in retaining and motivating key employees.


When preparing for a public offering, therefore, companies should review their compensation programs to ensure they are consistent with public-company norms and practices. What works in a small, private company with limited staff is not likely to work in a midsize public company with hundreds of employees.


As an example of how pay is changing, a recent study by Presidio Pay Advisors revealed that compensation for founder CEOs in companies that went public in 2008 now more closely matches that of established public companies.


However, their pay mix has shifted. The study found median salaries are up by 24 percent from 2005 levels, while cash bonuses have fallen by 25 percent, leaving total cash compensation basically unchanged. Median founder CEO equity stakes dropped to 3 percent of shares outstanding at IPO, down significantly from more than 10 percent in 2002. Median nonfounder CEO equity stakes stayed consistent at around 1 percent of shares outstanding, according to Presidio Pay’s study.


These changes appear to be a result of a two- to three-year increase in the time between the founding of the business and the filing of an IPO. In addition, revenues, market capitalization and net income for companies going public are at their highest levels in years. Now more than ever when preparing for a public offering, companies need to ensure their compensation programs are consistent with public-company standards. Here are some key compensation issues companies should consider when planning to go public.


Base salary programs
Base salaries are the largest element of compensation for most employees and are a significant fixed expense for companies. Startup and early-stage companies typically have informal compensation practices. Salaries are based on what’s needed to recruit new hires, input from recruiters and personal experiences of managers and human resources staff. Salary increases are often informal as well, based on each manager’s assessment of employee performance with limited cross-company review.


An informal approach can work for small companies where most or all employees and managers know one another. As companies grow, however, more formal tools and processes for managing salaries are helpful and may be looked upon favorably by lenders and investors. Once companies have 100 to 200 employees, it’s usually time to develop and implement more formalized salary management practices. This will help ensure both internal equity and external competitiveness.


There are three basic tools that assist both HR staff and line managers with base salary management: salary structures, job families and salary increase matrices.


Salary structures: A salary structure is a combination of different salary ranges, each with a minimum, midpoint and maximum. A typical salary structure has 10 to 15 grades, with midpoints 10 to 20 percent greater for higher grades. The spread between the minimum and maximum of the salary range is narrower for lower grades (typically 35 to 50 percent) and increases in width for higher grades.


The lower third of a range is for employees new in their positions who are still mastering job skills. Pay in the middle third of the range is for employees fully proficient at their jobs. Pay in the upper third is for highly skilled employees consistently performing above standards for their positions. Salary midpoints are pegged to competitive market pay data gathered from published surveys of comparable positions in other companies.


By targeting salaries around salary-range midpoints for fully qualified employees, companies will deliver competitive pay. Assigning jobs with similar market rates to the same salary grade helps ensure internal equity. Salary ranges help managers set salaries for offers to new hires and minimize potential conflicts between newly hired employees earning significantly more than existing employees doing comparable work. They also help management identify employees who may be in the wrong position or eligible for a promotion.


Job families: These are collections of positions in the same functional area with increasing levels of skills and responsibilities (e.g., associate financial analyst, financial analyst and senior financial analyst). Outlining the career path for a job family helps both companies and employees understand the differences between position levels and the experience required for each level. Job families help improve the accuracy of job matching and assessing competitive pay levels. Job families should map into salary structures so pay opportunities increase as employees are promoted.


Salary increase matrices: A two-dimensional salary increase matrix is composed of performance levels (e.g., meets expectations, exceeds expectations, etc.) on one axis and position in salary range (e.g., lower third, middle third, upper third) on the second axis, with targeted salary increases in the grid. High performers paid low in range should receive the largest salary increases, while lower-level performers already paid at or above midpoint should receive smaller increases or no increases. This helps allocate salary increases to those employees who are most deserving and withhold increases from those already well-paid for their contributions.


Annual incentives
Small private companies often have informal, discretionary bonus plans that lack clear performance criteria, funding mechanisms or targeted levels of awards. As companies grow, more formalized plans can increase the effectiveness of incentive pay. Well-designed annual incentive plans link participants’ pay to the successful achievement of goals important to company success. They also incorporate targeted incentives with base salaries so that pay mix and total cash compensation levels can be assessed.


Effective incentive plans need performance criteria that drive shareholder value and are within the line of sight or control of participants. Common performance measures for plans covering executives and senior managers include earnings per share, earnings per share growth, net income, operating income, return on equity or return on assets. Performance targets need to balance achievability with a fair return to shareholders. Performance thresholds should eliminate incentives for low levels of performance. To reward exceptional performance, plans should provide the opportunity to earn incentives above target levels.


Equity compensation
Employees at early-stage startups and high-growth private companies can benefit by receiving equity compensation at low valuations because companies that successfully go public can expect significant increases in their valuations. Equity compensation allows employees to share in this value creation. Of course, employees must understand that there is risk. Many startup companies do not succeed and even successful companies may be unable to go public when markets go south.


Equity grants help conserve scarce cash and link the interests of investors and employees, which is why potential investors in IPOs want to see that key employees and executives have an ownership stake in the company and have an incentive to increase its value. It’s important, however, for key employees to have some unvested equity stakes so they must stay with the company for at least a year or two after the IPO and cannot just “take the money and run.” This reinforces the idea that an IPO is not about going public; it’s about being public.


A key issue for investors, whether in private or public companies, is the dilution of their ownership stake that results from equity grants. The challenge is to balance shareholder concerns about dilution with the need to motivate and retain key employees. Prior to going public, companies should get authorization for enough shares to cover projected grants for the two or three years that follow the IPO. As a rule of thumb, potential dilution from shares granted, plus those remaining for grant (also called overhang), should be between 10 and 20 percent of outstanding shares. That’s typically viewed as reasonable.


Preparing to go public is a major undertaking, and it may be tempting to view compensation as a low-priority concern. But getting compensation programs right will benefit all parties. There are tools available to help human resources staff (including some free downloads here). Getting started well in advance of an IPO makes the process more manageable and helps companies implement any necessary changes while still private.

Posted on July 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Employers Turn to Third-Party Administrators to Reduce Health Care Costs

The nation’s sour economy has added a new step to the tango of self-insured employers and third-party administrators handling their medical claims.


Employers still want a partner that provides first-rate claims administration and customer service, and many require TPAs to provide sophisticated data-mining tools and care management programs. But experts say employers’ efforts to stretch available dollars are keeping TPAs on their toes.


“All employers today, I think pretty much without exception, are trying to figure out ways to save money,” says James L. Rivetts, president of JLR & Associates. a health care insurance services firm in North Bend, Washington. Whatever they can do, whether it’s shifting more costs to their employees or assuming more risk, “that’s exactly what they’re going to do,” he says.


For self-funded employers, the business of medical claims administration is fairly competitive and the scope of services offered continues to expand to meet marketplace demands, experts say.


“I think that the TPA market offers a broad range of services … that can meet most employers’ expectations,” says Dan Priga, a principal in Pittsburgh for Mercer.


Self-funding health care benefits remains a popular option among large corporations, according to Mercer’s National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans.


For large employers with more than 500 employees, self-funded health care plans remain fairly stable, with 68 percent self-funding health care coverage in 2003 and 66 percent still doing so last year, according to Mercer.


Among small employers with 10 to 499 employees, the rate of self-insurance was 13 percent in 2003 and 12 percent last year, the survey found.


When shopping for administrative services, employers generally need to make a choice. They can go with administration services provided by one of the large national insurers or outsource claims processing and other administrative functions to a TPA.


“Most of the large self-funded employers are with carriers or with large national TPAs because the small TPAs just don’t have the breadth of services that they need or the networks that they need,” says Helmut Braun, chief operating officer of UMR, a unit of UnitedHealth Group’s United Healthcare. As a large TPA with an insurer relationship, UMR has access to United Healthcare products, including reinsurance and pharmacy benefit management services. UMR also works with outside providers.


Because of their significant market penetration, insurers that provide TPA services generally are able to offer deeper network discounts, experts say. While there are exceptions, “being smaller and having to rent a network is probably one of the negatives when we’re reviewing TPAs against the big players,” says Steve May, a senior benefits consultant with consultancy Milliman in Windsor, Connecticut.


Selecting a national, well-known provider also can be an advantage. “There’s comfort in employees seeing Blue, Cigna, Aetna … those kind of names, because they know who they are,” May says.


However, independent TPAs may have an edge over those connected to insurers—namely, greater flexibility in plan design—depending on a company’s needs, experts say.


CoreSource, a TPA subsidiary of Trustmark Mutual Holding, often wins business from employers that aren’t happy with services provided by their national insurer, says Robert Corrigan, vice president of product management and planning. “We have some unusual groups where the broker knows they have some very unusual needs, and they don’t even bother shopping it to a lot of other carriers,” he says.


Hospital systems, for example, often want to steer employees to their own facilities and doctors, and they want to decide what to pay those providers, Corrigan says. Local governments and school districts are another case in point because they often have complex eligibility requirements.


“The more rules they have, the harder it is for the carriers who have more of a standard approach … and it’s harder for them to fit in the box, so they come to a TPA,” he says.


Employers may feel more comfortable with a local or regional TPA because of the personalized service it offers and the ability to meet face to face to resolve issues, experts says.


Several years ago, CoreSource, which operates in nine U.S. cities, centralized its claims and customer service operations in an effort to improve efficiency and drive margins. The result? “It was horrible,” Corrigan says of the personal touch that the company lost. “What we realized is that we need those people out there that are local. … That’s who they bought.”


Since then, CoreSource has redeployed its customer service representatives in the field.


Most TPAs offer a similar array of administrative services, including eligibility verification, claims adjudication and processing, utilization review and case management. In recent years, many have added prevention, wellness and disease management—either through relationships with specialty providers or in-house capabilities—to boost their value to employers.


“I think TPAs believe that you have to be able to deal with cost by dealing with the cause of the cost,” says Steve Rasnick, president of Self Insured Plans., a Naples, Florida-based TPA.


Claims administrators also are responding to greater demand for data to help identify and manage cost drivers. Employers are mining that information to assess their populations’ health risks and determine, for instance, whether their wellness programs are yielding a return on the investment.


Having that data helped Collier Mosquito Control District in Naples, Florida. It found that some employees were using expensive prescription proton pump inhibitors to treat acid reflux instead of less-costly options. So it tweaked its pharmacy benefit design.


This year, in addition to free generics, over-the-counter medicines such as Prilosec also are free, says Stacy Welch, the district’s director of administration. While data on the free medications is not yet available, the district’s TPA, Self Insured Plans, estimates that steering participants to lower-cost generic proton pump inhibitors could reduce spending on that type of drug as much as 70 percent, depending on utilization.


National insurers already have data warehousing and mining capabilities, but it’s something employers need to make certain that local and regional TPAs have, Mercer’s Priga says.


“Often, the smaller third-party administrators don’t have the resources to be able to do that, so they will link up with partners to perform those services,” Priga says.


While a major consideration in choosing a medical claims administrator is price, and TPAs typically boast lesser costs than claims-handling operations of large insurers, experts say it would be a mistake to make a decision based on price alone.


Administrative expenses account for about 15 percent of an employer’s health care dollar, Milliman’s May says. Employers need to get a read on discounts the TPA’s provider network will achieve, he says.


Having the right network is the most critical part of the equation, UMR’s Braun says.


“There’s more savings opportunity by having the right network than any other thing they can do,” Braun says.

Posted on July 30, 2009June 27, 2018

Eight Tips to Cut Health Care Costs

Here are a few tried-and-true strategies to trim health care-related expenses without slashing benefits or shifting costs, experts say:


Compare reinsurance companies. Make sure your third-party administrator is working with well-regarded reinsurance providers, because spending on stop-loss coverage can run between 8 and 15 percent of total costs, says Helmut Braun, COO in the Lexington, Kentucky, office of UMR, a unit of UnitedHealth Group.


James L. Rivetts, president of JLR & Associates in North Bend, Washington, says he shops for stop-loss coverage every year on clients’ behalf. He recently priced stop-loss coverage for a 300-employee company and found that the prices from six companies had a roughly $50,000 spread from highest to lowest.


Consider assuming more risk. Rivetts says he also helped his client reduce fixed costs by $30,000 a year by increasing the stop-loss amount per individual to $55,000 from $50,000. Taking on that additional $5,000 of risk per man, woman and child is a gamble, Rivetts admitted, but a worthwhile one because the company would lose money only if it incurred six claims above $50,000 and below $55,000. In the time the company has been Rivetts’ client (roughly six to seven years), it never has had six claims exceeding $50,000, and it doesn’t have any claims that look like they will exceed $55,000, he says.


Switch providers. In several years of doing business with a local TPA, a West Coast refinery that asked not to be identified never received a dime from pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates. When the employer decided to switch to a different pharmacy benefit manager, the TPA claimed it couldn’t handle another provider.


“I was ready to take my business away from them if they didn’t allow me to switch PBMs,” the refinery’s human resources manager says. But she eventually persuaded the TPA to work with her chosen PBM—one she says has a very transparent policy for sharing drugmaker rebates. “It’s my money they are spending to pay bills,” she says. “[TPAs] don’t want to lose your business, so they’re going to talk to you.”

Posted on July 26, 2009June 27, 2018

Age as ‘But-For’ Cause Under ADEA

Jack Gross began working for FBL Financial Services in 1971. In 2003, at age 54, Gross was reassigned from a claims administration director position to a claims project coordinator. At that same time, FBL transferred many of Gross’ job responsibilities to a newly created position of claims administration manager. That position was given to someone Gross had previously supervised who was in her early 40s.


Gross filed suit, alleging that FBL demoted him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court instructed the jury to enter an award for Gross if he proved that he was demoted and his age was a “motivating factor” in the demotion decision. The jury returned a verdict for Gross. FBL appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis reversed and remanded the case to the district court, holding that the jury had been improperly instructed under the standard. It said this was a “mixed motive” case, meaning that Gross had alleged he suffered an adverse action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations.


The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit’s decision and remanded the case to the district court, finding that a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove that age was the “but for” cause of the adverse action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one “motivating factor” in that decision. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., U.S. No. 08-441.2009 (6/18/09).


Impact: Unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADEA does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor. Under Gross, an employer does not have to prove that it would have made the same decision regardless of age, even if the employee produces some evidence that age may have been a contributing factor in the decision.


Workforce Management, July 20, 2009, p. 10 — Subscribe Now!


The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Posted on July 26, 2009June 27, 2018

On the Road to Wellness, Beware of Legal Hurdles

Employers that wield financial incentives and penalties to nudge workers toward healthy behaviors had better think twice about whether those inducements pass legal muster.


If not, their wellness programs could land employers in court.


“My guess is that the vast majority of them have not dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s on the legal requirements,” said Jennifer Shaw, who counsels employers on wellness programs as a partner in the Sacramento, Calif.-based law firm Shaw Valenza LLP. “That I know because I get calls on this stuff all the time, and as soon as I start asking questions, there’s silence on the other end of the line.”


Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for example, wellness program rewards may not exceed 20% of the cost of coverage. That boundary is pretty clear.


But imagine an employer waiving deductibles or reducing premiums for workers who have a body mass index that the employer considers healthy. Unless the company also provides a reasonable alternative for obese or severely underweight employees to earn the reward, it may get into trouble with the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Tom Bixby, a partner in the health law practice group of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP in Chicago.


“There’s a lot of debate in the field whether wellness programs that pay for performance are even legal under the ADA,” he said.


Employers also need to heed state laws that prevent employer intrusion on activities outside of the workplace.


When The Scotts Co. LLC, Marysville, Ohio, fired Scott Rodrigues, a Sagamore Beach, Mass., employee, for testing positive for nicotine even though he smoked off the job, Mr. Rodrigues fired back. His lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, had charged his former employer in part with violating his rights under Massachusetts’ privacy statute. In January, federal court Judge George O’Toole, Jr., ruled that Mr. Rodrigues could pursue an invasion-of-privacy claim but dismissed claims alleging that his civil rights were violated and that he was wrongfully terminated.


“A number of state laws say you can’t penalize an employee for lawful conduct that they undertake outside the scope of work, and so if I want to smoke at home, that’s lawful conduct,” Mr. Bixby said.


And there’s another legal quagmire on the horizon. Under the employment provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which take effect in November 2009, employers that obtain genetic information from their employees—say, as part of a wellness program’s health risk assessment—must obtain proper consent.


Ms. Shaw advises employers to steer clear of medical inquiries because that information isn’t what’s needed for a wellness program. “We don’t need to know what people’s cholesterol level or blood pressure or weight or BMI are,” she said. “What we need to know is how many days do you get off your butt and walk?”


Crain’s Benefits Outlook Online, November 2008


Posted on July 24, 2009June 27, 2018

Michigan CEOs Believe State’s Economy Will Worsen, Survey Shows


Michigan CEOs are pessimistic about the state’s economy in the coming months but believe the national economy will hit bottom and begin to improve, according to a survey released Wednesday, July 22, by Detroit Renaissance Inc. and the Michigan Business Leadership Council.



The survey of 60 Michigan chief executives found approximately 90 percent forecasting the same or lower employment and Michigan capital investment during the next six months.



Sixty-eight percent said they expect the Michigan economy will worsen during the next six months, and 80 percent believe the U.S. economy will be the same or improve.



Looking ahead 18 months, 80 percent of those surveyed believe Michigan’s economy will stay the same or worsen, with 49 percent saying the economy will be the same and 31 percent expecting further decline.



However, 78 percent of CEOs believe the U.S. economy will be in recovery.



In a news release, Doug Rothwell, president of Detroit Renaissance and the leadership council, said the survey results should be informative to state policymakers.



The leadership council is a statewide group of corporate executives that meets throughout the year to discuss ways to improve the economy and make Michigan a more competitive place to do business.



“The results show two things: First, Michigan cannot expect to grow out of its fiscal crisis anytime soon so it must make structural budget reforms, and second, major changes are needed to stimulate economic growth in this state,” Rothwell said.



Filed by Amy Lane of Crain’s Detroit Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

Posted on July 24, 2009June 27, 2018

Panel Says Health Care Benefit Changes Needed

Fundamental changes in health care and employee benefit programs are needed to solve the problems of soaring costs, low care quality and access to health care services, a panel of experts said Friday, July 24.


Speaking at a Chicago forum on national health care reform and its effect on Illinois, the panelists outlined major problems in the health care system and suggested ways to address those issues.


“Employers’ house of benefits needs an extreme makeover,” said Larry Boress, president and CEO of the Midwest Business Group on Health, a Chicago-based coalition that hosted the forum with the National Coalition on Health Care.


He noted that increases in health care premiums are outpacing wages and consuming retirement savings. While employers spend billions of dollars on benefits, quality of care often remains low, Boress said.


“Why are employers involved in health care? Why do we offer benefits? It’s because we have to recruit and retain employees and keep them productive,” Boress said. Employers bear part of the responsibility for deterioration of quality because they “treat health care as an expense, not an investment” in their employees, he said.


In an ideal health care system, “patients can choose their doctors and hospitals, they are sensitive to cost and quality, and they are engaged in their own health,” he said. Similarly, “purchasers would encourage employees to make cost-effective decisions and pay for quality care.”


Joel Miller, senior vice president at the National Coalition on Health Care, cited a Kaiser Family Foundation survey showing that health insurance premiums increased 119 percent while workers’ earnings rose only 34 percent, slightly ahead of inflation, during the period of 1999-2008.


“By 2019, total health care coverage costs for employers could reach $900 billion a year,” Miller said. “Experts estimate that small businesses will pay $2.4 trillion for health insurance over the next 10 years. By 2018, 1.7 million workers will have job-lock; that means they won’t leave” employer-based health plans “for fear of losing their coverage.”


Dr. James Galloway, assistant U.S. surgeon general and acting regional director for the Department of Health and Human Services in the Midwest, said the only way he sees to reduce health care costs is “by reducing the chronic-disease burden” on families and businesses. “We must build and ignite a social movement” to address chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes, he said.


Dr. Mark Rosenberg, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on federal affairs, said a priority for national health care reform should be a program that covers all children. He said a key to health benefit packages for children should be early and periodic diagnostic screening.


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on July 24, 2009June 27, 2018

Senate Vote on Health Care Reform Bill Put Off Until After the Summer Recess

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the plug Thursday, July 23, on the full Senate taking up sweeping health care reform legislation before the August recess.


“It is better to get a product that’s based on quality and thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through,” Reid, D-Nevada, said at a news briefing.


While a blow to President Barack Obama, who pressed Congress to take up reform bills before the recess, the delay is not a surprise, Reid acknowledged.


While the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed a reform bill last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, has been working for weeks to develop a reform bill that would have support from at least a few Republican members on that panel.


The Senate committees share jurisdiction on health care reform legislation.


Even if there were a sudden agreement on a Finance Committee bill, there would not have been enough time for Senate leaders to come up with one bill that merged proposals from the two Senate committees and complete action before the recess, now scheduled for August 7.


Action on reform legislation also has been bogged down in the House.


While two panels—the Education and Labor and Ways and Means committees—have completed action, a third panel, the Energy and Commerce Committee, has not. Opposition from both Republicans and conservative Democrats—part of the so-called Blue Dog coalition—has forced Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-California, to delay scheduled votes on the bill several times this week.


While the Senate and House bills differ, both would move the nation close to universal health care coverage. More than 15 percent of the U.S. population now lacks health insurance coverage. Included in the bills are requirements that employers offer coverage or be assessed a fine, that individuals enroll in a health care plan and that the federal government provide premium subsidies to the low-income uninsured.


In addition, the measures call for establishing state insurance exchanges in which individuals and, later, employers could select plans offered by commercial insurers as well as some type of public plan.


The House bill also would impose a surtax on higher-income individuals to help fund the expansion of coverage.


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on July 24, 2009June 27, 2018

Ford’s UAW Workforce Down to 47,000 After Latest Buyout Offer

About 1,000 members of the United Auto Workers accepted Ford Motor Co. buyouts last quarter, and Ford says it doesn’t plan more.


The workers’ departure, scheduled to be completed “in the next few weeks,” will cut the number of active UAW employees to 47,000, Ford spokesman Mark Truby said in an e-mail. That’s down from 95,000 in 2003.


Participation in the recent buyout offer was in line with Ford’s expectations, CEO Alan Mulally said during a conference call Thursday, July 23. No more UAW buyouts are coming, he said.


“We’re about right,” Mulally said.


The deadline to sign up for that buyout had been June 26, which was an extension from the previous deadline of May 22.


Ford, which has not taken federal funding, on Thursday posted a second-quarter pretax operating loss of $424 million and a net profit of $2.3 billion. The profit stemmed from a gain related to recent debt reduction. The automaker also said it burned through $1 billion in operating cash, down from $3.7 billion in the first quarter and $7.2 billion in the final quarter of 2008.


Ford discussions with the UAW “continue like they always have,” Mulally said, referring to the automaker’s attempts to cut labor costs. GM and Chrysler received cost concessions from the union ahead of their recently ended bankruptcies.


Mulally was asked whether Ford would seek an agreement with the UAW to align the Ford terms with those of the new GM contract.


Mulally said, without offering explanation: “We will not be disadvantaged going forward.”


GM’s agreement with the UAW includes a suspension of bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments. It also gives GM greater flexibility for hiring lower-cost entry-level workers and permits the company to use equity instead of cash to fund most of a $20 billion health trust for retirees.


Ford also announced Thursday that it has modified its agreement with the UAW on funding its payment obligations to a trust fund for retiree health care.


An agreement earlier this year gave Ford the option to fund up to half the payments using Ford common stock at prices that were tied to Ford’s stock price at the time. The fixed prices were $2 per share in 2009, $2.10 in 2010 and $2.20 in 2011. However, Ford’s stock price has rebounded, closing Wednesday at $6.38.


The modified agreement will allow the automaker to fund up to half of its VEBA obligation with stock at market prices instead of the fixed prices. Ford must make payments of $610 million to the VEBA in each of the next three years, Truby said.


Filed by Amy Wilson and Chrissie Thompson of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 … 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