Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on June 7, 2007July 10, 2018

Socially Responsible Funds in 19 Percent of Defined-Contribution Plans

Socially responsible funds are offered in 19 percent of defined-contribution plans, according to a survey conducted by Mercer Investment Consulting for the Social Investment Forum. In addition, 41 percent of defined-contribution plan sponsors without socially responsible investing (SRI) options expect to offer them within three years.


Dave Stangis, director of corporate responsibility at Intel Corp., who participated in a recent teleconference on the survey, said Intel has offered two SRI funds in its 401(k) plan since 2000, a Calvert Social Equity and Calvert fixed-income fund. The two funds have $2 million and $6 million, respectively, of the plan’s $3.7 billion in assets. Stangis said Intel evaluates the SRI funds the same way it evaluates its other 68 investment options, including factors such as low cost and performance.


Craig Metrick, a consultant with Mercer Investment Consulting U.S., said a substantial amount of evidence from legal experts and regulators indicates that SRI funds are not in conflict with any fiduciary duty if put through the same due diligence as other funds.


Of 129 plan officials who responded to the survey, 50 percent were with publicly traded corporations; 23 percent, privately held companies; 7 percent, government; 10 percent, health care organizations; and 10 percent, other types of organizations, according to the report based on the survey.


Filed by Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on June 6, 2007July 10, 2018

Monster, HotJobs Announce C-Suite Moves


Two of the so-called Big Three job boards have announced major shifts in their corporate leadership.


Monster Worldwide CFO Lanny Baker is leaving the firm and will be replaced by Timothy Yates, according to a release issued Wednesday, June 6. Yates will oversee Monster’s accounting, tax, treasury, business development and investor relations operations. Baker is departing to pursue other career opportunities, a spokesman said.


Yahoo HotJobs is bidding farewell to general manager Dan Finnigan, it was announced Tuesday, June 5. Jeff Kinder will take his place as GM. Kinder will be based in the Sunnyvale, California, headquarters and takes over June 18, according to a company spokeswoman. He will report to Hilary Schneider, executive vice president for Yahoo’s local markets and commerce and publisher network divisions.


Finnigan is leaving HotJobs to pursue other interests, the spokeswoman noted.


Yates’ appointment isn’t the only C-suite news at Monster. The company has announced a major restructuring plan designed to simplify operations.


“This new operating structure will further realign the company and enable Monster to realize the growth opportunities before us,” said Sal Iannuzzi, chairman, CEO and president of Monster Worldwide. “We believe it will facilitate quality customer service while providing our associates with an environment that will encourage and foster success.”


A Monster spokesman declined to comment on whether the business play was initiated to make the company more appealing to potential suitors. Rumors have been rampant in recent weeks that a sale is imminent, with Google named among the potential buyers.


“We don’t comment on speculation,” the spokesman said.


The realignment consolidates key functions to bolster Monster’s ability to implement projects on a global platform. These areas include sales, technology, finance and human resources as well as product, marketing and customer services.


“The era of Sal Iannuzzi has begun,” the Monster spokesman said.


Some of the changes are:


• A new position has been created for Steve Pogorzelski, formerly group president, international. Pogorzelski is now executive vice president of global sales and customer development. He will oversee enterprise, field, telesales and e-business channels on a global basis.


• Brad Baker, former president of product, technology and service, is being appointed executive vice president of product, marketing and customer service. He will be responsible for product development and customer services as well as for overseeing the company’s marketing resources internationally.


• Darko Dejanovic, who recently joined the company as senior vice president, will be assuming Baker’s technology-related responsibilities. He was appointed executive vice president and global chief information officer.


Monster also has announced that Doug Klinger, president of Careers North America, will leave the company to pursue other opportunities. Monster will pay a combined $3 million in severance for the departures of Baker and Klinger.


—Gina Ruiz


Posted on June 6, 2007July 10, 2018

Early Dialogue May Get Retirees to Stick Around

Employers and HR consultants for years have pondered ways to retain aging workers as the retirement wave nears. But as companies start to tackle the issue, many are realizing that the solution is not just about coming up with new ways of working; it’s about creating a culture where employees close to retirement age feel comfortable discussing their plans with their managers.

By the time companies initiate conversations with older workers about what they can do to get those employees to stay, it’s often too late, said Bruce Monte, director of retirement plans at PepsiCo, during a presentation at the WorldatWork Total Rewards Conference this month in Orlando, Florida.


These employees already have a date in mind and have discussed their plans with friends and family, he said.


“We realized the need to establish a dialogue about retirement with these employees,” Monte said. “It’s not something people need to feel closeted about.”


To address the issue, PepsiCo recently conducted interviews with a dozen top corporate executives to see what their retirement plans were and what would keep them at the company. The company is based in Purchase, New York, and has more than 150,000 employees worldwide.


A number of the executives revealed they were burned out and wanted time to rejuvenate, but could work longer, said Samira Kaderali, a senior consultant at Towers Perrin who made the presentation with Monte and helped analyze results of the interviews.


PepsiCo is talking to a select number of executives who are approaching retirement about how the company could keep them on longer. For example, one company executive will be working part time for a few months and a few executives have been invited to participate in a global sustainability task force, Monte said.


While PepsiCo’s pilot program is in its early stages, the company believes there is potential for having such discussions on a more formal basis with select executives approaching retirement, Monte said.


And employees value the frank discussions, according to Bruce Barge, principal in human resource management at New York-based Buck Consultants.


During a separate WorldatWork presentation, Barge cited a recent study conducted by the Tennessee Valley Authority in which workers were asked about their retirement plans.


“They got a tremendous amount of data and employees really liked the fact that they were being asked,” he said.


It would behoove companies to be proactive in this area because once employees start planning and talking about retirement, it might be harder to get them back, says William Love, a financial advisor with the Marshall Financial Group, a Doylestown, Pennsylvania-based registered investment advisor.


Love, whose clients include top executives planning to retire, says that often they are burned out, and by the time he talks to them they are focused on their retirement accounts. They just want to know what “number they need to hit so that they can retire,” Love says.


“By the time I see them, they are set on that number,” he says. “It would be good if companies could get ahead of that.”



—Jessica Marquez


Read more about dealing with the aging workforce.


Click here to comment on this story.


Posted on June 5, 2007July 10, 2018

Group Seeks to Achieve Federal Health IT Legislation

Several large coalitions of special interest organizations and businesses have formed in recent months to promote universal coverage and other major changes to the U.S. health care system.


The latest group jumped into the fray on Tuesday, June 5, with a much more modest goal—persuading Congress to pass legislation that would facilitate the use of information technology in health care.


The initiative—called Health IT Now!—consists of 22 members, including Verizon, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and a variety of health care organizations.


Led by the National Association of Manufacturers, it is calling for federal legislation that would establish standards for interoperability, provide government grants to help doctors and hospitals adopt health information technology, encourage patients to use electronic health records, and set up a federal-state process to address privacy and security.


Privacy concerns have sunk legislation in the past. In November 2005, the Senate passed a $652 million health IT bill by unanimous consent. The House passed its own version in 2006, but the two measures were never reconciled because of disagreements about privacy regulations.


Shortly after the June 5 Capitol Hill press conference, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, announced he and a bipartisan group of senators would soon introduce a bill that would help health providers overcome financial and technical barriers to implementing health information technology.


One of the obstacles in the current session of Congress is that the Democratic majority has approved so-called pay-as-you-go rules for legislation. Any spending on health IT would have to be offset by cuts in the federal budget or by tax increases.


But former Sen. John Breaux, D-Louisiana and co-chair of the coalition, urged his former Capitol Hill colleagues to take action.


“Congress is going to have to find the money to provide the grants to get this started,” he said at the press conference. “The privacy issues can and will be solved.”


Proponents assert that deploying advanced technology to handle medical records and other administrative tasks would reduce health care costs, improve quality and ultimately save lives.


“This is an area where there should be no disagreement,” Breaux said. “It should be a win-win for everybody. It doesn’t have to be part of a bigger [health care] package.”


Verizon’s enthusiasm for the idea centers on its need to finance health care for 238,000 employees and about 200,000 retirees and their dependents. The company provides coverage for about 900,000 people total at an annual cost of $3.5 billion.


The company wants to lower its costs and improve health care for its employees, according to Peter Davidson, Verizon’s senior vice president for federal government relations.


“We think health IT is the best way to do that,” he says. “It’s like a low-hanging fruit.”


The company’s leadership on the issue was spurred by chairman and CEO Ivan Seidenberg, who served on a national commission a couple years ago that issued recommendations on health technology interoperability.


“Consumers should be driving the health care business, much as they [do] the cellular industry,” says Andy Mekelburg, Verizon’s vice president of federal government relations.


Before it puts them in a position to change the health care industry, people would first notice increased health technology in the waiting room. Instead of filling out forms about their medical history, their background would be stored electronically and be accessible to nurses and doctors.


But the impact could be more powerful.


At the press conference, Jennifer Queen related the story of her daughter, Courtney, a 10-year-old suffering from DiGeorge syndrome, which undermines several of her body’s systems. She has been hospitalized 24 times and has undergone 400 medical procedures. During one episode, doctors were delayed for hours as the hospital compiled mounds of health records and transported them in a wheelchair to the floor where Courtney was being treated.


“From a parent’s perspective, that can be extremely frustrating” and terrifying, Jennifer Queen said.


Although the latest medical technology is available in the intensive care unit when Courtney Queen is treated, that’s not the scene elsewhere in the health industry, asserts John Engler, NAM president.


“In the physician’s office, we’re stuck on paper,” he said. “Reams and reams and reams of paper—17th century technology.”


Engler also argues that improving health IT can address broader health care questions by providing a tool for rigorously assessing chronic care and disease management.


For now, Verizon is circumspect in the wider health care dialogue. It has not yet signed up with any coalitions that are advocating universal care. But, according to Mekelburg, it is talking with the group Better Health Care Together, which is led by Wal-Mart and the Service Employees International Union.


“No one’s come up with the right answers yet,” he says. “We don’t want solutions to increase [health care] costs. Solutions have to decrease the costs.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


 



Posted on June 5, 2007July 10, 2018

Discrimination Suit Against GE Might Expose Flaws in Ranking System

The recent lawsuit filed against General Electric may indicate that the company’s long-renowned ranking system isn’t quite as transparent as it seems.


The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed May 31 in U.S. District Court in Connecticut by Lorene Schaefer, general counsel for GE’s transportation division. It alleges that GE discriminates against women systematically.


According to the complaint, Schaefer relocated with her family to Erie, Pennsylvania, from Atlanta to accept the position after being promised that she would be promoted to the company’s senior executive band from the executive band.


The complaint notes that her two predecessors, both men, had been promoted to that rank either before or at the time of taking the general counsel position.


Five months after taking the position, however, Schaefer’s boss, Charlene Begley, CEO of GE Rail, left and was replaced by John Dineen, who created “an old boys network” at the company, consistently excluding Schaefer and three other female executives from meetings, Schaefer says.


Schaefer’s performance ranking dropped from being among the top 20 percent to being among the middle 70 percent, she says, but “in mid-2006, Dineen told her that if her performance continued to be strong, he would support her for promotion,” according to the complaint.


But in April, Greg Caputo, the HR manager for GE’s transportation division, informed Schaefer that she was going to be demoted because she was “not big enough” for her position and that Dineen wanted “a big-time GC,” or general counsel, according to the complaint.


Schaefer is seeking $500 million in damages for a class of 1,500 executive band female employees and attorneys.


Whether GE discriminated against Schaefer because of her gender, the fact that she was surprised by her demotion indicates a problem with GE’s performance appraisal process, observers say.


GE has long touted its performance appraisal program. In an unrelated interview with Workforce Management on May 29, two days before the suit was filed, Bill Conaty, senior vice president of human resources at GE, described why differentiation is important, saying: “It isn’t about putting a stamp on someone’s forehead or anything. It’s about constant communications and appraisal systems that have candor and honesty.”


But the fact that Schaefer was surprised to learn of her demotion is a sign that perhaps GE needs to make sure all managers are being candid about their staff’s performance, says Jan Rose, a principal at Capital H Group.


“If an employee is surprised about what they hear about their performance, then something is wrong with the performance appraisal process,” Rose says. “If it hasn’t already, GE may want to do an audit of its system to make sure it’s generating the results that it should.”


But GE maintains that “every decision regarding Ms. Schaefer was made on the merits.”


“We strongly deny the allegations made by Ms. Schaefer,” spokeswoman Archana Handa says. “We will defend against the claims in court.”


If the job requirements had changed under Dineen, it should have been communicated to Schaefer before the demotion, says Roz Courtney, managing director of Roslyn Courtney Consulting, a Scarsdale, New York-based consultant.


The lawsuit indicates how increasingly difficult it is getting for employers to manage employees’ expectations because job definitions change rapidly, says Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.


“It’s difficult to talk to employees about expectations because that requires employers to know what they are going to need a few years down the road, and most companies don’t know that,” he says. “You can’t promise employees anything today.”


—Jessica Marquez


Read more about forced ranking.


Click here to comment on this story.


 


Posted on June 4, 2007July 10, 2018

States and Feds Differ on Sharing Job Listings

Whether there’s a need for states to swap job listings or for a national labor exchange is subject to debate.


    The Wagner-Peyser Act, passed in 1933, established a nationwide system of public employment offices. And for years, states have sought to create a more efficient labor market by sharing job-opening information among themselves through America’s Job Bank, the public job Web site slated to close June 30.


    Federal law also calls for the secretary of labor to “assist in coordinating the state public employment services throughout the country and in increasing their usefulness by … promoting uniformity in their administrative and statistical procedure, furnishing and publishing information as to opportunities for employment and other information of value in the operation of the system, and maintaining a system for clearing labor between the states.”


    But in choosing to shut down AJB, the U.S. Department of Labor argued that the Internet has solved the problem of sharing job-opening data across state boundaries.


    “With the advent of the Internet, the need to ‘clear labor’ among the states, i.e., connect job seekers and employers across state lines, is no longer an issue,” the Labor Department said in a memo to state officials last year. “The Internet has enabled easy and universal access to job openings.”


    State officials, however, have taken a different view.


    “Termination of AJB services would leave the country without a national labor exchange specified in Wagner-Peyser that addresses a number of workforce needs,” a group of states and the Virgin Islands wrote in a letter last year to the Labor Department.


    The group, called America’s One-Stop Operating System Consortium, is responsible for a job-matching and case management software system for workforce development professionals. In its letter, the consortium argued that a central jobs bank makes for more efficient job searching at public employment offices. “Without the AJB application and database, users of the nation’s One-Stop Career Center public resource rooms will tie up limited public access workstations searching more web sites and conducting longer job searches.”


    Last September, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies passed a resolution that urged “the Congress and the United States Department of Labor to identify, invest [in] and implement a new technology to facilitate the sharing of interstate job matches.” The association, a group of state administrators of workforce programs and services, also called for continued operation of AJB until a new system is implemented.


    “These actions by the federal government to identify an effective interstate system would conserve millions of workforce system dollars that would otherwise be spent by individual states to replace AJB,” NASWA said in its resolution.


    Earlier this year, NASWA sent its resolution to members of Congress, with a request that $6 million in AJB funding be approved to keep the service alive for another year. But the plea so far has fallen on deaf ears.


    Even as it hoped Congress would save AJB, NASWA decided in March to endorse the JobCentral National Labor Exchange, one of the private-sector efforts to replace America’s Job Bank. The JobCentral exchange was launched by nonprofit group the DirectEmployers Association. NASWA officials, including president Ted Halley, have seats on an executive committee governing the JobCentral exchange.

Posted on June 4, 2007June 29, 2023

A Rocky Road to Shuttering of Americas Job Bank

To some critics, the Labor Department made a smooth shift away from America’s Job Bank all but impossible in its initial decision to shutter the free government job site.


    According to this view, given such factors as high job insecurity and an already weak economic safety net for workers as well as business concern about finding the right talent efficiently and effectively, closing America’s Job Bank amounts to a misguided move.


    AJB has not been a particularly expensive program, considering the scale of federal budgets. The cost of operating AJB has been as high as $27 million per year, the Labor Department said in a memo last year, “with a current operating budget for maintenance-only of $12 million per year.” The Labor Department’s discretionary funding for 2006 totaled $11.3 billion.


    Robert Reich, the former U.S. Labor Department secretary who helped establish AJB, is among those disturbed at the site’s demise. “Private-sector job banks are doing a good job and meeting an important need, but they can’t replace a free service on such a very large scale, which is available to all employers and job seekers free of charge,” Reich said in an e-mail interview. “It seems to me that the social benefits of efficiently and quickly matching employers and job seekers far exceed the government costs of providing this service.”


    Not so, says the Labor Department.


    “There is no evidence that AJB created an economic efficiency and quickly matched employers and job seekers. The private sector provides this service more efficiently, more effectively and in a more customer friendly manner,” the Department said in a statement. “Low-income workers who access electronic labor exchange services in One-Stop Career Centers are being directed to either state or private job sites in large measure, so even the publicly funded system recognizes the limited utility of AJB.”


    How well states, employers and job seekers manage in the days and months after the AJB’s June 30 closure will go a long way to determining whether people think retiring the job bank was the right thing to do.


    Bonnie Elsey, director of workforce services in Minnesota’s Department of Employment and Economic Development, is reserving judgment. She can imagine the private sector picking up AJB’s slack just fine, with market competition forcing would-be successors to keep their technology current. Echoing a Labor Department point, Elsey also says job seekers already must go to other sites besides AJB to get a comprehensive picture of the available job listings.


    But when asked if it is wise, therefore, to close America’s Job Bank, she hesitates.


    “I won’t be able to tell you a true answer to that until we see if the new partnership with the private sector works.”

Posted on June 1, 2007July 10, 2018

IRS Looks to Ease HSA Contribution Rules

Regulations proposed Thursday, May 31, by the Internal Revenue Service would allow employers that contribute to employees’ health savings accounts to accelerate contributions for employees whose medical care expenses are greater than what the employer has so far contributed to the HSA during the year.


Such an acceleration would enhance the appeal of HSAs by reducing employees’ concerns that their accounts could be exhausted if they incur big medical bills early in the year before employers make all of their contributions.


The proposed rule would apply to HSAs that are not part of Section 125 programs, in which employees make pretax contributions to their accounts. Benefit experts say such an acceleration of employer contributions to HSAs that are part of Section 125 programs already is permitted.


Read more about HSAs.


Click here to comment on this story.

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

Posted on June 1, 2007July 10, 2018

Evolution for Generalists

So John Sullivan wants to terminate all the hand-holding, silo-building, no-change-creating HR generalists? What am I supposed to do for a living? Self-help videos? Crisis counseling?


    Lucky for me, a career in HR has left me with thick skin and a tolerance for criticism. Rather than fade to the background in the face of Sullivan’s harsh assessment, I’ll learn what I can from his perspective and keep moving forward.


    I’m a VP of HR at a software company with a background as a field HR generalist for multiple Fortune 500 companies. Along the way I’ve had my shins kicked the requisite number of times by employee relations/legal issues, multiple unfilled positions, union drives, etc. In short, I am one of you. My definition of the HR generalist includes anyone in an exempt HR role (at all levels, corporate or field, at any size company) who handles any combination of HR disciplines—recruiting, employee relations, compensation, benefits, organizational development and more. My rule: If you deal with humanity across multiple areas related to human capital, you are a generalist.


    Sullivan’s column, which criticized termed generalists as “HR’s dinosaurs,” sounded like extreme talk radio to me—a shock jock taking an extreme position when the truth (as it always does) lies somewhere in the middle. Mirroring all other functional areas, we HR generalists are a diverse bunch. The Generalist Nation has within it change agents pushing the envelope on a daily basis (call us the velociraptors of the HR world), and we also have dinosaurs embedded in organizations, trying to hide from the meteor streaking across their sky. More important, we have a large segment in the middle capable and willing to add value but struggling to gain traction for a variety of reasons.


    I thought most of the comments submitted in response to Sullivan’s column were on the money. Being compared to an extinct animal with a brain the size of a walnut apparently doesn’t sit well with us—that’s a shocker! Rather than rant at Sullivan or generalize that we simply need to be more strategic, here’s my list of “smart plays” that are key to HR generalists creating results for the organizations they serve. Follow this roadmap, adding a couple of points to give it your unique style, and watch the critics fade into the background:


  • Become a talent agent: Want job security in the face of the baby boomers retiring? Prove to the groups you support that you understand how to source, attract and land the talent they need to succeed. And make it at least 30 percent of your job. I’m not talking about posting jobs or handling the approval process—that may be necessary, but that’s Dinosaurville. I’m talking about picking up the phone, talking to candidates and identifying players, then selling them on your company. Once that round is complete, provide qualified candidates to the hiring manager with a strong recommendation. Once they concur, help them close the deal. Be a headhunter.


  • Institutionalize coaching skills: Sullivan says that people issues should be handled by managers. He’s right, but guess what? Most managers aren’t capable or willing. You have to help them. Go ahead and keep handling the employee relations issues that look like they could set your building on fire, but in between those issues, start teaching and coaching your managers on how to engage employees on areas of concern before interviews involving a witness are necessary. A funny thing happens when you do this. Managers start coming to you for role-playing purposes, positioning you as the consultant you long to be, rather than the henchperson.


  • Be a performance/productivity consultant: To Sullivan’s point, of course you report when performance reviews are due. That’s part of your gig. But is that where you stop? Don’t reinforce the stereotype by stopping there. Being an “upstream” HR generalist—someone focused on minimizing the time spent on transactions and administration in order to focus on activity with higher potential value—means you understand the metrics that drive the departments you serve. Set up a performance management system that enables the organization to establish customized goals and objectives for each unique role. Once that’s complete, you have to be the expert in differentiating “meets vs. exceeds” performance, since these designations by managers drive rewards and results across your organization. Keep learning about the business in which you are embedded.


  • Get on stage and perform: This just in—your managers need training in how to be managers. Regardless of what your budget is or what your company provides, are you comfortable developing on-the-fly, no-budget training in areas like behavioral interviewing, coaching skills and performance management? Can you develop and lead the training? Can you provide ongoing feedback as an observer or coach in these areas? If you haven’t done this recently, stop waiting on others and give it a shot. You’ll be amazed at how much expertise you have soaked up while getting hammered by the issues of the day.


  • Hang out with finance and share your scoreboard: Spending time with the finance folks is good for us HR types. They live off numbers, and we need to be more metric-driven. If you don’t already have HR metrics in place, check out resources elsewhere at the Workforce Management site, along with a dozen selected tools related to this article. (insert hotlink here to toolkit carroll created)And here’s a selection to get an idea of what’s available and get a scoreboard started. Start with the obvious targets—time to fill, cost per fill, turnover by department, etc.—then grow it over time. Bootstrap the scoreboard (use the tools you have; don’t wait on the perfect solution that costs money) and start sending it out to all managers in your company or division. You’ll be surprised by the dialogue you get in return. Publish when times are good, publish when times are bad, and offer cause-and-effect explanations.


  • Automate your processes and openly share procedures: Whether you are in a Fortune 500 company or a startup, you likely have some opportunities to automate or at least distribute information or educate more efficiently. Get an intranet going, automate your forms and do whatever else you need to get out of the business of handling paper. Don’t wait on corporate. Don’t be the chokepoint for getting things done related to your HR practice. You’ll need the time to do other things.


  • Rinse and repeat: Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither is your HR practice. We have to work on it every day to ensure we evolve.


    Of course, you have to get to these value areas while balancing the thousand other items expected out of an HR generalist (benefits, compensation, policy, etc., etc.), but you wouldn’t love it if it were easy, right? There will be good days, bad days and boring days, but the message is clear: Find time to get upstream and develop your skills. Don’t be sidetracked by the critics.
How much do I believe in the role of the HR generalist? So much so that I’ve committed to writing about HR issues periodically for Workforce Management and daily atwww.hrcapitalist.com in my spare time. Keep using the smart resources available at Workforce.com to stay sharp and don’t quit. It doesn’t matter if some people think you’re extinct, as long as you know you’re evolving, and your company’s success is proof of that. Stay strong!

Posted on May 31, 2007July 10, 2018

Private Equity Firm Shells Out $5.3 billion for Ceridian

Ceridian Corp. has accepted a $5.3 billion buyout, making it the latest among a number of HRO providers to go private.


The buyout offer was made by private equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners and Fidelity National Financial, a Jacksonville, Florida-based insurance claim handler, and is expected to close in the fourth quarter.


The move may end the several-months battle between Minneapolis-based Ceridian and William Ackman, the founder of hedge fund Pershing Capital Management, who has come out publicly against Ceridian’s management style.


As a result, the company last fall named a new CEO, Kathryn Marinello. In February, Ceridian’s board of directors announced it had hired investment bankers to explore “strategic alternatives to enhance shareholder value,” according to a February 13 statement made by the board.


The $5.3 billion buyout represents a 17 percent premium over Ceridian’s stock level in February. It marks a 5 percent premium over Ceridian’s share price right before the deal was announced May 30.


Ceridian offers HRO services but has made a name for itself through its payroll processing. The company currently processes payments for more than 110,000 companies globally. Last year, Ceridian’s net income was $173.6 million, or $1.20 a share, on revenue of $1.57 billion.


Calls to Ackman and Fidelity were not returned. Peter Stoddart, a Ceridian spokesman, said it was premature to say what effect the acquisition would have on the company, but added that Marinello will remain in place. A spokeswoman for Thomas H. Lee Partners declined to comment.


Ceridian customers and prospective clients should be heartened by the move to go private, says Naomi Bloom, managing partner of outsourcing consultant Bloom & Wallace. Whether the investors fix up the company and sell it or make changes and keep it, Ceridian will be in a better position to invest in their delivery platform than it was under the scrutiny of shareholders, she says.


Ceridian customers should watch for which executives stay and which ones leave, Bloom says.


“I would pay attention to whether or not there is anyone left who understands HR BPO,” she says.


And it’s only a matter of time before more HRO providers follow suit. Affiliated Computer Services founder and chairman Darwin Deason has been working to take his company private.


In March, Kronos was acquired by private equity firm Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners for $1.8 billion.


“My immediate thought is, who is next?” says Neil McEwen, managing consultant at PA Consulting.


Read more about Ceridian.



Click here to comment on this story.


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 … 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