Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on May 14, 2007July 10, 2018

Ellsworth Enters Immigration Debate With Verification Bill

Democrats started their takeover of Congress on November 7 at about 6:30 p.m. Eastern time, when Brad Ellsworth was declared the victor in the race for Indiana’s 8th District seat.

Ellsworth decisively defeated incumbent Republican Rep. John Hostettler, who as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration was fiercely anti-immigration. In fact, Hostettler made his opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens his central campaign issue.

But Hostettler’s defeat didn’t result in a simple mathematical gain of one vote for comprehensive immigration reform. Ellsworth has to represent the same conservative southwest Indiana district that Hostettler did. And the former sheriff also has qualms about giving illegal immigrants a special path to legal status.

In his initial foray into the immigration issue, Ellsworth has focused on employers. Recently, he introduced the Legal Employee Verification Act, which would establish a mandatory electronic verification system administered by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. It would also double the minimum fines on companies that violate immigration laws.

Ellsworth didn’t say how his proposal might affect the government-run electronic verification system currently in place. Known as Basic Pilot, the Web-based system checks new-hire information against Social Security and DHS databases. Employers have criticized Basic Pilot for being inefficient, prone to error and powerless against identity theft.

The new congressman decided to introduce a verification bill after conducting town hall meetings in his district, where he was pressed on immigration.

“My voters and my constituents wanted me to go back [to Washington] and do something,” Ellsworth says. Verification “looked relatively inexpensive and not too intrusive on the employer.”

Eliminating job opportunities for undocumented workers is the key to shutting down illegal immigration, Ellsworth argues.

“That’s going to be the first spoke that needs to be fixed,” he says.

In Ellsworth’s view, companies have an important role to play once an electronic verification system is in place.

“They become an arm of border control,” he says. “It’s not too much to ask and not much more than they’re doing now” in the I-9 system.

That a new member of Congress would address employment verification demonstrates the resonance of the issue. Resolving it will influence how comprehensive reform unfolds.

“The linchpin to everything is to make sure employment can be verified,” Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, said at a recent House immigration hearing.

Flake and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, have introduced the first comprehensive immigration bill in the House. The measure eliminates Basic Pilot and replaces it with a system based on machine-readable, tamper-proof biometric cards.

As the legislative process continues, Ellsworth’s vote may be difficult to obtain for reform advocates.

“If comprehensive [reform] means granting amnesty to the people who are here [illegally], I’m against that,” he says. “If that is in the mix, I can’t support it, and lobbying by [House] leadership won’t do any good.”

Posted on May 11, 2007July 10, 2018

Diverse Pension Experts Outline Plan to Increase Coverage

Culminating four years of work, a diverse group of public policy experts on Friday, May 11, recommended several new pension plans designed to provide more secure retirement coverage to millions more American workers.


The goal of the initiative, dubbed the Conversation on Coverage, is to dramatically increase the number of people participating in retirement savings programs. Currently, about 52 million employees don’t have formal saving vehicles for their senior years.


The group proposed two new kinds of pension products that pay workers a set amount of their retirement each month. Under the Guaranteed Account Plan, each participant’s account is credited with an annual contribution equal to a percentage of his or her pay.


The plan would generate a guaranteed annual return, be insured by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and operate on funding rules that reduce the volatility in employers’ payments.


Another defined-contribution proposal is called the Plain Old Pension Plan. A simplified version of the traditional defined-benefit pension, advocates say that it would be easy for companies to administer because contributions would be based on published government tables.


In order to expand retirement coverage to workers whose employers don’t offer a plan or who aren’t eligible for their company’s plan, the group would establish an individual Retirement Investment Account. Under this proposal, all employees would automatically have a payroll deduction deposited in a central clearinghouse.


The clearinghouse would be a government entity but would contract with private-sector firms to invest the funds. Workers could carry the account with them from job to job.


The coverage coalition also proposed what it calls a Model T plan to help small businesses offer pensions through a multiple-employer payroll deduction.


The coalition is trying to make a strong statement about the importance of retirement savings by bringing together participants from across the political spectrum. The next step is to transform its proposals from policy ideas into concrete products.


They will try to do this in the next phase of the project, which involves advocating for legislation, setting up task forces and demonstration projects, and reaching out to employers.


Creating momentum might be a challenge because Congress passed landmark reform last year, the Pension Protection Act. Pension fatigue could be a problem on Capitol Hill.


But Karen Friedman, policy director of the Pension Rights Center and director of the initiative, isn’t daunted.


“We’re getting our ideas out in the marketplace,” she said following a news conference at the National Press Club. “They’re not going to be [relegated to] sitting on desks or shelves.”


The recommendations come at a time when defined-benefit plans are waning. A study of Fortune 100 companies released in mid-May by Watson Wyatt shows that 58 of them sponsored such plans, down from 63 in 2005 and 90 in 1985. The number of Fortune 100 companies offering defined-contribution vehicles has risen from 10 in 1985 to 42 last year.


Although the number of plans may be dropping, the funding status of the largest company pensions is strengthening, according to a recent study by Milliman. The consulting firm reported that the 100 plans it surveyed could cover nearly 100 percent of their obligations—a significant improvement from early in the decade, when the bursting of the high-tech bubble and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks caused an economic downturn that created huge pension deficits.


Companies continue to worry about the expense and volatility of maintaining defined-benefit plans. But initiative participants are confident that the private sector will be receptive to their recommendations.


“We’ve built into our discussions and the proceedings we’ve gone through the viewpoint of employers,” said John Kimpel, former senior vice president of Fidelity Investments.


They also tried to go beyond what Congress accomplished with the Pension Protection Act. That law provides a safe harbor for companies to set up automatic enrollment for 401(k) plans. A firm can decide whether it wants to implement a plan.


The initiative’s proposal on the individual retirement account, however, mandates an automatic payroll deduction.


“We’re creating a guaranteed savings infrastructure,” said Michael Calabrese, vice president of the New America Foundation.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


 


Posted on May 11, 2007July 10, 2018

New Regulations May Drain Senior Staff

Last year’s pension law was supposed to make dealing with complex retirement issues easier for companies, but in at least one instance, it might have the opposite effect.


 


One provision in the Pension Protection Act attempts to solve the problem of legal restrictions on providing distributions from pension plans to retirement-age employees who are still working. The problem is becoming acute because, with fewer young people due to enter the U.S. labor force in coming years, companies are expected to try to persuade older employees to work longer, if for fewer hours.


 


Under the law, employees who are still working at a company can start to receive a company pension at age 62.


 


But businesses are concerned that when the government issues regulations implementing the PPA measure, it might incorporate some of the burdensome rules that the IRS proposed in 2004.


 


The IRS’ proposal “was a pretty unworkable regime,” says Lynn Dudley, senior counsel for the American Benefits Council, which represents large companies on benefits issues. “It required counting of hours. It required you to have a normal retirement date that was consistent with your industry. It was a very complicated set of regulations.”


 


On the other hand, companies regret that the law set a starting age of 62, instead of the 59½ the IRS had proposed. In fact, some are pushing for letting active workers access pension assets at an even younger age: The American Benefits Council supports allowing workers to draw upon both defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans starting at 55.


 


“The actual retirement age in the U.S. has dropped significantly,” Dudley says. “It’s not that people don’t continue to work, but they desire a more flexible structure.”


 


Employers are concerned because they don’t want to lose valued employees, she says.


 


“A lot of people who can retire early, at age 55, leave and go work for somebody else. We’re trying to make it attractive for them to stay.”


 


Joel Rich, a senior vice president at Sibson Consulting, a division of human resources consulting firm the Segal Co., said companies will wait to see what the regulations implementing the PPA provision look like.


 


“If it turns out that it’s going to be administratively burdensome, it may not be worth the effort,” he says.


 


Despite a steady stream of articles and conferences about the aging workforce in the past few years, a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. companies by Manpower Inc. showed that just 28 percent have a strategy for retaining older employees.


 


Their strategies aren’t necessarily the phased retirement envisioned in the pension law, in which employees reduce their hours or responsibilities while starting to draw pension benefits. A 2006 Ernst & Young survey found that while 14.3 percent of companies had strategies in place to retain the “business wisdom” of older workers, just 2.6 percent had instituted phased-retirement programs. Eleven percent of the companies that had strategies cited flexible work scheduling, and 10.3 percent said they hired retirees as consultants or contractors.


 


The relatively slow pace at which companies are moving is not just about government regulation. Bill Arnone, practice leader for employee financial services at Ernst & Young, argued that human resources departments are “swamped” by a number of issues that take precedence over the aging workforce, like executive compensation, stock options and pension law changes.


 


The companies surveyed by Manpower cited cost and productivity as barriers to implementing strategies. Health benefits for older workers are more expensive than those for average employees, Arnone said. “A one-year increase in the average age of the workforce will lead to a 3 percent increase in health care costs.”


 


Rich noted a company’s level of interest in retaining older employees depends on the demographics of its workforce. And although the regulations for the PPA measure aren’t yet written, it’s possible they will make it hard for companies to offer phased retirement only to some employees rather than to all who are of retirement age.


 


If a company wants to persuade just a few employees to stay on, “it probably makes sense to do something else,” such as offering the targeted employees flexible hours or giving them a bonus for staying on, he said.


 


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

Posted on May 11, 2007July 10, 2018

SEC Considers Interactive 401(k)s

The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining disclosures for 401(k) plans and is looking at ways to provide such information using interactive software, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox told the mutual fund industry on Thursday, May 10.


“We’re interested in both the disclosures of the constituent investments in the 401(k) and the aggregate disclosures by the plan,” including overall expenses and performance of investments in the accounts, Cox told the 1,200 members of the fund industry gathered in Washington for the 49th general membership meeting of the Investment Company Institute.


Disclosures concerning 401(k) plans currently range widely from full prospectuses and shareholder reports to “one-page charts that contain extremely limited information,” Cox said.


The SEC is working with the Department of Labor on the project.


The SEC wants to make it easier for 401(k) participants to understand expenses as well as the after-tax, after-inflation returns that they are getting, compared to appropriate benchmark, Cox said.


“We’re confident that we can achieve a great deal in the coming months,” Cox said in his speech, in which he encouraged the mutual fund industry to voluntarily file fund information using interactive Extensible Business Reporting Language software that allows easy comparisons for fund data.


In addition to using “XBRL” software for mutual fund disclosures, Cox said, “there will be a significant future role for interactive data” for 401(k) information.


Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on May 9, 2007July 10, 2018

Employer Verification Highlighted in Advance of Senate Debate


As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that a major debate on immigration reform would begin on Monday, May 14, he emphasized the importance of employer verification policy.

At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, May 9, Reid said that he would launch Senate deliberation by reintroducing the comprehensive reform bill that the chamber approved a year ago.


 


Immediately, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and four other Republicans who voted for last year’s Senate bill urged Reid to delay the debate until new bipartisan legislation could be cobbled together. Negotiations, which also involve the White House, have been going on for weeks.


 


Reid, D-Nevada, asserted that he set the debate timetable two months ago and that last year’s Senate bill would provide a good foundation to begin deliberation. He expects a bipartisan substitute to be offered during the debate.


 


Last year’s measure would have strengthened border security, implemented a mandatory electronic employer verification system, significantly increased fines for companies employing illegal workers, increased the number of nonskilled and highly skilled immigrants allowed into the country annually, and created a path to legal residency for many of the country’s approximately 12 million illegal aliens.


 


In his opening statement, Reid stressed the need to improve work-site enforcement.


 


“We’re going to have something on employer sanctions that is not a Catch-22, which it is now,” he said.


 


Reid, according to an aide, was referring to the controversy surrounding a December raid at six Swift & Co. meat processing plants. The action resulted in the arrests of 1,282 alleged illegal workers.


 


Swift was a target despite the fact that it participates in a government-run electronic verification program called Basic Pilot. Swift, which says that the Department of Homeland Security rejected its offer to collaborate in addressing the problem, asserts that the disruption cost $30 million. The workers deceived Swift—and the government—through identity theft, which Basic Pilot can’t stop.


 


“What we want is a system where the rule of law is realistic and enforceable … so that employers and employees know what the law is [and] can follow it,” says Federico de Jesus, a Reid spokesman.


 


De Jesus said the details of employer verification policy will depend on how negotiations unfold. But he says that the use of tamper-proof identification should be part of the solution.


 


The HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce, a coalition of groups including the Society for Human Resource Management and the HR Policy Association, is lobbying for what it calls a secure electronic employment verification system that utilizes biometric information provided by private-sector companies.


 


Verification policy is just one of the myriad details composing the complex and emotional immigration issue. Some leading Republicans want Reid to delay the debate.


 


In a May 9 letter to Reid, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Mel Martinez, R-Florida, wrote, “We are united in our resolve to enact comprehensive immigration reform this year and will only support moving forward with legislation that is a product of the ongoing bipartisan discussions.”


 


All four voted for last year’s Senate bill.


 


But those negotiations may not result in a bill that satisfies House Republicans, a group of whom warned the Senate in a May 8 letter not to offer a bill that included “amnesty.”


 


“Amnesty occurs when an illegal immigrant is not deported as required by law, but is legalized and allowed to stay,” wrote Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, Steve King, R-Iowa, Peter King, R-New York, Brian Bilbray, R-California, and Ed Royce, R-California. “Amnesty rewards lawbreakers with the objective of their crime, and it grants them benefits we withhold from those who have played by the rules and are waiting their turn.”


 


Smith is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. King is the top Republican on the immigration subcommittee.


 


Smith asserts that stricter work-site compliance is a key to reform. “We could have a major attrition of the number of illegal immigrants in the country today,” he said. “There is widespread support for better enforcing employer sanctions.”


 


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posted on May 9, 2007July 10, 2018

Microsoft Buys Minority Stake in CareerBuilder


CareerBuilder.com agreed on Wednesday, May 9, to sell a 4 percent stake in its online job board to Microsoft Corp. while also extending a partnership to remain the exclusive job search engine for Microsoft’s MSN Careers site.



The partnership, worth up to $443 million over seven years, not only seals CareerBuilder’s exclusivity with Microsoft until 2013, but it also accelerates the job board’s global expansion plans.


 


“This is a big competitive coup for our company,” says Richard Castellini, vice president of consumer marketing at CareerBuilder’s Chicago headquarters.


 


Like the previous arrangement, the new agreement is performance-based, with payments driven by the amount of traffic MSN is able to deliver.


 


Financial details of the 4 percent equity deal were not disclosed, but it cuts the stake of the media companies owning CareerBuilder. Gannett Corp. and the Tribune Co. will now each own 40.8 percent of CareerBuilder, down from 42.5 percent, while McClatchy Co. will own 14.4 percent, down from 15 percent.


 


The price tag for the MSN exclusivity deal is hefty, but it may be worth it because it could produce some crucial strategic gains for the online job board. CareerBuilder’s base of monthly visitors grew by about 10 million unique visitors between 2003 and 2004—around the time when it joined forces with Microsoft. Today, CareerBuilder averages more than 21 million unique visitors per month.


 


Driving domestic traffic is not the only positive effect the exclusivity agreement may render. Castellini says CareerBuilder will also gain access to MSN’s established audiences overseas, facilitating its penetration into new markets. MSN attracts 465 million unique users per month worldwide, with localized versions in 42 markets and 21 languages.


 


CareerBuilder—along with rival job board Monster Worldwide—has aggressively pursued international opportunities to drive growth. The job board has launched career sites in the U.K., Canada and India. Most recently, the company purchased Jobbguiden in Sweden and JobbingMall in the Netherlands. Microsoft plans to integrate CareerBuilder into its MSN sites that primarily serve European countries by the middle of 2008.


 


Castellini says Europe is one of CareerBuilder’s first destinations in its global expansion plans. The company is also eyeing Asia. South Korea, Singapore and Japan are attractive business opportunities, given their high penetration of Internet use and developed labor force, Castellini explains.


 


He says the relationship between CareerBuilder and MSN will be a strategic one in which they share expertise in technology and market intelligence. The company will draw from MSN’s experience across the various markets where it has a presence in order to design a job board pertinent to the needs of local audiences.


 


“Every market has its own preferences,” Castellini says. “Our objective is to localize our offerings as much as possible.”


 


—Gina Ruiz

Posted on May 9, 2007July 10, 2018

Building an Intern Inventory

E nterprise Rent-A-Car has developed one of the most sophisticated college recruitment programs in the country, yielding thousands of hires each year. Not all companies, however, place the same level of emphasis on reaching out to this young audience. One of Enterprise’s key competitors, a rental car company of similar size, hired about five interns last year.

    “These two companies are in the same industry,” says Steve Rothberg, CEO of CollegeRecruiter.com, “yet their perception of college interns is 180 degrees different.”


    Employers that don’t yet understand the strategic value that Gen Yers play in the labor force could suffer talent shortages in the future. This group of individuals is a critical source of workforce inventory—the batch of interns recruited this season can be harvested for entry-level positions next year.


    “Companies need to think of interns not only as a source of educated yet inexpensive labor, but also as the next wave of leaders,” Rothberg says. There are about 4 million U.S. college students, of whom 1.5 million to 1.75 million are in their junior or senior year—the prime years for internship recruitment.


    The good news for employers is that there are far more students available than the number of internship openings. The bad news, however, is that the batch of high-potential candidates—those who rank high in their class or attend a brand-name college—is small, and the competition for them is fierce.


    “The best students have tons opportunities being thrown at them,” Rothberg says.


    Breaking through the noise, while challenging, is not an impossible task. The most important measure that recruiters can take, says workforce consultant and author Sylvia Henderson, is to find out as much as possible about Gen Yers—their likes, their pet peeves, where they hang out, etc. This type intelligence paves the way to more effective targeting strategies.


    The medium is the message
An employer that doesn’t use the appropriate tools to reach this finicky audience could be in for some big trouble, says Brian Krueger, president of CollegeGrad.com.


    “Students will be hesitant to work for a company that they think is out of sync with them or with the times,” he says. Employers that have a weak Internet presence are particularly susceptible to being overlooked or, even worse, snubbed by this segment.


    A recent survey from CollegeGrad.com underscores just how important the Internet is for students looking to get their first job. The report, which polled 500 respondents, highlights that the Internet is by far the most widely used job search tool. Some 60 percent of the respondents say it was the best source to get information on entry-level jobs.


    “There has been a fundamental shift in how college students conduct their job search,” Krueger says. “As recent as 10 years ago, the Internet was only a minimal factor in the entry-level job search. Now it is the dominant way that college students search for entry-level jobs.”


    Job fairs ranked second, with almost 20 percent of survey participants noting it was the best source for finding out career information. College career centers and classmates ranked third and fourth, respectively.


    Utilizing the appropriate media, however, won’t do the trick in attracting young talent unless the content is tailored to them, Henderson says. She recommends developing material, such as brochures or displays that specifically offers information about a company’s internship program. This is particularly important during career fairs, as it may not be overtly obvious that a company is also hunting for potential internship candidates in addition to full-timers.


Generating buzz
   The Internet, job fairs and career centers are all indispensable when it comes to reaching college students. But in order to build a consistent base of fans on campus and solidify a brand presence, employers are going to have to generate buzz as well.


    Companies can gain ground on this important front by sponsoring special events, according to Rothberg. He cites MasterCard as an example of a company that is adept at organizing high-profile events that give it a competitive edge during recruiting season.


    The company recently anchored its recruitment efforts around a special contest in which participants were required to write a story explaining who they were and why they want to work there. The event was marketed heavily on targeted Internet sites and on campuses, which helped to raise brand awareness.


    “They gained a lot of momentum from these efforts,” Rothberg says. But what he thought was exceptional about the marketing campaign was its pitch.


    “It made it appealing to work for the company,” he notes. “The students became the chasers instead of the other way around.”


    Although highly successful, MasterCard’s campaign was costly. Companies with tighter budgets can resort to several low-cost yet powerful tools that can be used to spread the word on campus, such as blogging or creating a profile on the social networking Web site Facebook, which draws millions of college students each day. Both of these methods are grossly underused, Rothberg says.


    Blogging is not only an inexpensive tool to create brand awareness, but it can also play a critical role in quelling what Rothberg refers to as Gen Y’s obsession with transparency. He encourages companies to allow existing interns keep a journal of their daily experiences and post them on a special section of the corporate Web site.


    Rothberg offers one note of caution: Don’t over-police the blogs. While the interns should be given certain guidelines for blogging, such as not disclosing sensitive information or the names of clients with whom they interact, they should be given a lot of freedom.


    “If the blogs aren’t going to offer an honest depiction of what it is like to work at a company, the chances for failure are pretty high,” Rothberg says. “These people are savvy and they place high value on transparency.”


Creating a positive experience
   Recruiting qualified talent is just one part of the equation in creating a successful internship program. “If you’re going to recruit at the same colleges next spring, you better make sure that the interns this year have a positive experience,” Henderson says. “Word will spread around campus about the type of employer that you are—good or bad.”


    She recommends applying the same sound workforce management practices that full-time employees receive.


    “Put yourself in their shoes,” she says. “Treat them the way you would like to be treated”


    Some measures include giving interns responsibilities that are meaningful. Chances are that fetching coffee and making copies won’t be yield a satisfactory experience, she explains. In addition, employers should be prepared to offer interns constructive feedback, both positive and negative.


    Interns need mentoring. Given their lack of experience in the workforce, they may need guidance on issues that are otherwise common knowledge among full-time workers. For instance, employers should not assume that interns are well-versed in the dress protocol of an office.


    “Guidance is a necessity,” Henderson notes. “But it should be applied with balance, otherwise you run the risk of being considered a micromanagement employer.”


Don’t wait until the last minute
   
Employers that wait to start looking at students until they are in their senior or junior year of college may have already missed the boat, Henderson explains. There are many innovative employers that begin establishing relationships with Gen Yers years before they even set foot on a college campus, and thus have the upper hand when it comes to attracting them.


    Employers can avoid having to play catch-up by being proactive and targeting students early on. High schools and organizations such as the Girl Scouts are good starting points, Henderson says.


    Companies can provide training or volunteer services within those institutions. They can also send a speaker or supply print materials, such as pamphlets, that provide tips on professionalism, dress code, business ethics, etc. “This measure doesn’t cost much, but you can get a lot in return,” she says. “You’ll be at the forefront of their mind when they look for their first internship or job.”

Posted on May 8, 2007July 10, 2018

With 401(k) Fees, Employers Better Get Ahead … or Fall Behind

Everywhere employers turn, they find controversy over 401(k) fees. On Capitol Hill, Congress is considering amending securities laws to make 401(k) plan fees more transparent for participants. The Department of Labor is considering new regulations that would require plan sponsors to improve the expense information they disclose in their Form 500 401(k) annual reports.


    Meanwhile, a St. Louis-based law firm has filed a slew of class-action lawsuits during the past several months, claiming that, among other things, employers violated pension laws by allowing 401(k) participants to be overcharged by the managers of the plans.


    The suits, filed by the firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, name ABB, Bechtel Group, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Caterpillar, Exelon, International Paper and Kraft Foods.


    The crux of the issue is that no one knows what 401(k) plan sponsors are paying in fees, says Don Stone, president of Plan Sponsor Advisors, a Chicago-based 401(k) consultant. It’s up to employers to get in front of the issue and act now to make sure they know what they are paying and why they are paying it, experts say.


    This entails working with independent third parties to get a sense of how their plan’s fees compare with other plans of their size, making sure they negotiate for the lowest fees possible and understanding all aspects of the fees that they and their 401(k) participants are paying to the companies administering their plans.


    “The problem with the industry is that the way revenue is generated for the vendors doesn’t relate to the costs of providing the services,” Stone says. “The cost to provide services has grown at a rate of 3 to 4 percent a year, while revenue for the vendors is 6 to 8 percent annually.”


    But 401(k) administrators often don’t even recognize this discrepancy because they don’t know what they are charging, or where their revenues are coming from, he says.


    This is particularly true with revenue-sharing agreements. In the agreements, investment managers in 401(k) plans share with the 401(k) plan administrator the money they make from investment management fees that are charged to participants.


    Stone recalls one instance where he spoke to a client’s 401(k) plan administrator who said that the company was receiving only five basis points in revenue sharing from an investment manager.


    The investment manager, however, told Stone that it was paying 40 basis points, which meant that participants were paying an extra 35 basis points and the record keeper wasn’t even aware of this.


    Such examples don’t mean that 401(k) plan administrators are intentionally trying to deceive plan sponsors, Stone says. Often these companies are so big and the fee arrangements so varied and complex that they simply can’t keep track of them.


    “And the problem for employers is that often they don’t know what questions to ask to get to the bottom of all of this,” he says.


Taking the right steps
    Once a plan sponsor figures out what fees it is paying, the question becomes whether those fees are reasonable, says David Wolfe, a partner in the benefits practice of Drinker Biddle & Reath.


    This requires companies to first figure out what services the fees cover, and then to figure out how the fees they are paying compare with other plans of the same size, structure and scope, he says.


    “Ultimately what you are trying to determine is whether you are getting a reasonable deal based on your asset size and level of service,” Wolfe says.


    Employers should monitor the fees they pay at least every year, he says. “A year ago I might have told employers to do this every two years, but the industry is changing so much now I think these discussions should happen annually,” Wolfe says.


    The National Futures Association, a Chicago-based organization for the futures industry with 249 employees and a $51 million 401(k) plan, reviews its fees semiannually, says Michael Crowley, the association’s associate general counsel.


    On top of this, the company has a third-party advisor, PFE Group, continuously monitor fees “to make sure nothing unusual happens,” Crowley says.


    PFE keeps track of all fees paid by the 401(k) participants as well as by the National Futures Association. These fees include investment management fees, distribution and marketing fees, record keeping fees and fees related to auditing and legal expenses, says Wayne Bogosian, president of PFE, which is based in Scarborough, Massachusetts.


    “Plan sponsors should have a list of fees being paid, with clarification of whether they are paying it or the participants are paying it,” Bogosian says.


Getting ready for regulation
    While the Department of Labor’s pending regulation will focus on plan sponsors disclosing to the agency the fees they pay, Congress is more concerned with employers disclosing these fees to 401(k) plan participants.


    But disclosing 401(k) fees has sparked controversy among certain industry groups because there is concern that by disclosing all of the fees, it might cause some employees not to participate in the plan.


    “We do not want a 401(k) participant to use fee disclosure as an excuse not to save in the plan,” says David Wray, president of the 401(k)/Profit Sharing Council of America.


    The National Futures Association discloses what the plan pays in expenses altogether, but does not provide a dollar amount of what the average participant pays, Crowley says.


    “I think the easiest thing to do is tell participants, ‘This is how much it costs to run the plan,’ ” he says.


    Disclosing what the average participant pays in a dollar amount could be misleading when seen out of context, Crowley says. For example, in 2006 the average participant paid $946 annually in 401(k) expenses. But the average account balance at the NFA is $132,000.


    “That context is important,” Crowley says.


    If the new regulations require employers to disclose in dollars what participants are paying in 401(k) expenses, the association will make sure to do a lot of education on what these expenses entail.


    For $946 a year, the association’s plan participants are not only getting a wide array of investment options, online tools and services, but they also have access to investment advice through Charles Schwab & Co.’s GuidedChoice platform, Crowley says.


    But before figuring out how plan sponsors will disclose fees to 401(k) participants, these companies need to start figuring out the fees they are paying, Stone says.


    “You can’t go wrong with disclosing information now to employees—unless you haven’t done your homework,” Stone says. “You may want to clean your house before you have people live in it.”

Posted on May 8, 2007July 10, 2018

What’s a Plan Sponsor to Do

Imagine being told that you can buy any car you want, as long as you understand not only the price of the car, but the individual price of the engine, chassis, emissions system, etc.


    That, in essence, is the challenge facing 401(k) plan sponsors as they determine what they are paying in record-keeping fees in light of recent fee litigation, upcoming Department of Labor regulations and potential legislation.


    When it comes to 401(k) fees, there is no doubt that transparency is important. Most people would agree that the consumer who knows a car’s Kelley Blue Book value is likely to get a better deal than the consumer who doesn’t. Simply put, greater transparency can lead to lower pricing.


    Yet the challenges of achieving such transparency can be significant, especially when it comes to 401(k) plan revenue-sharing arrangements. Revenue sharing is the practice of defraying some or all defined-contribution administration costs through a portion of the asset-based fees of mutual funds in the plan.


    For example, a mutual fund with an expense ratio of 0.65 percent might share 0.15 percent in revenue with the record keeper. That means that if a participant in the plan has $100,000 in that fund, that participant is paying $500 in investment management fees and $150 in administration fees per year for that fund.


    Revenue sharing can be fraught with ambiguities. Say the mutual fund described above is the XYZ Fund, and XYZ is also the record keeper. Does it really cost $150 (the amount of revenue sharing being accrued in this case) to administer the account? Perhaps it really costs $100. If that’s the case, the plan is overpaying for administration in the current revenue-sharing arrangement.


    Further, without knowing the true cost of administration, how does the plan sponsor know it is using the right share class of the XYZ Fund? Perhaps there is a share class with a 0.40 percent expense ratio, but that only shares 0.10 percent for record keeping.


    If the cost for administration is, in fact, $100 in the case above, the cheaper fund should be used. If not, perhaps the original share class can be deemed reasonable.


The definition of “reasonable”
   “Reasonableness” is the standard that plan fiduciaries are held to. The funds in the plan do not have to be the lowest-cost—just reasonably priced for the services being provided. But what does that mean? It may be argued that whatever the administration costs are, the important thing is that XYZ Fund’s overall expense ratio is reasonable.


    Others might contend that each individual expense must be reasonable: Even if the overall fund expense ratio seems reasonable, the plan should still not overpay for record keeping. This gets us back to the need for transparency.


An alternative
   Another way to pay plan administration expenses through revenue sharing is to either charge an explicit fee to participants or to invoice administration expenses directly to the plan sponsor. This approach involves incorporating institutional share classes of mutual funds in the plan (with no revenue sharing), collective trusts and/or separately managed accounts.


    Direct payment of administration expenses offers greater transparency, but it also offers its own set of challenges. Charging administration costs directly to plan participants causes a potential communication issue.


    Plan participants who are accustomed to having the administration costs of the plan embedded in fund expense ratios may mistakenly believe that the cost of administration of the plan has increased when they suddenly see an explicit dollar fee on their statements.


    Likewise, direct payment by the plan sponsors can be cost prohibitive: The plan sponsor may simply not have the budget to pay for plan administration. Just 35 percent of large plan sponsors pay for 401(k) record-keeping services today, according to a recent Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America survey.


    Still, a fully unbundled solution that results in little or no revenue sharing has merits beyond fee transparency. Structuring the plan so that each participant pays a certain amount for administration can be more equitable.


    In a recent defined-contribution survey by my organization, Callan Associates, just 26 percent of plan sponsors report that all plan assets contribute in terms of revenue sharing. That means that if Participant A is invested in funds that share revenue, and Participant B is in funds that do not, Participant A is effectively shouldering the administration costs for Participant B. However, both Participant A and Participant B are benefiting from the administration of the plan.


    Investment flexibility is another important consideration. In the Callan survey, 38 percent of plan sponsors say that revenue sharing had some impact on the selection of investment managers within their 401(k) plan.


    And, of course, it is also possible that the fee transparency gained through fully unbundled solutions with little or no revenue sharing can result in fee savings.


Overcoming the obstacles
   So what does a plan sponsor do? If the intention is to have participants pay an explicit charge for administration, plan sponsors may wish to start a communication campaign before the change that explains the dollar cost implied within an expense ratio.


    Once the newly unbundled plan is rolled out, the communication campaign can focus on how the fees are now shown on statements. Ideally, it can focus on reductions in cost as well.


    If the intention is to have the plan sponsor pay some or all of the administration costs, it may need to come as a result of reductions elsewhere, such as a reduction in the matching contribution. This, of course, also necessitates communication with employees. Again, the key will be to demonstrate how—economically—the change doesn’t reduce the benefit to employees; it only shifts how the benefit is being paid (e.g., through plan expenses, not through the match).


    Granted, both are difficult conversations to have with employees, especially in an environment where health care costs are increasing, retiree medical benefits are going away and many employees are losing access to defined-benefit plans. At the same time, upcoming regulations by the Department of Labor and potential legislation may soon make more comprehensive fee conversations mandatory.

Posted on May 4, 2007July 10, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Soften the Blow for Those Not Chosen for Promotions

Dear Sensitive:



A promotion represents an exciting opportunity for an employee. It is a chance to get recognized by the company and colleagues as a strong contributor. For those not promoted, it can be a painful reminder of their shortcomings, whether actual or imagined.

Regardless of the criteria used to determine who gets promoted, it’s important to effectively communicate the reasons for your decision to the people who weren’t selected. If this information is not communicated clearly, you miss an opportunity to provide feedback and direction to an important population of your workforce: those who are motivated and lack but a few skills to go from good to great. Below are some tips on how to have that tough conversation.

1. Thank the applicants. Be sure to thank each employee for applying for the position. Keep it brief as they likely know the “but…” is coming.

2. Communicate the criteria used in the decision-making process, specifically the key strengths you think will make an individual successful in that particular role. It is helpful for applicants to know how the winning candidates were judged and measured.

3. Allow time for reactions. Give the employee a chance to ask questions and articulate his or her feelings, disappointments, desires, etc.

4. Use this as an opportunity to explore areas for development. Be specific about each individual’s strengths and the traits they need to develop for that role, and why. Make recommendations for developing these new skills so the employee might become a stronger candidate during the next opportunity. Have the employee explore your recommended areas for development, and then help him make some commitments toward developing the necessary skills.

5. Highlight the positive. Even though the applicant did not get the position, this was a great exercise for polishing the individual’s résumé, practicing interviewing skills and reviewing long-term personal and development goals. More important, by throwing his name in the hat for promotion consideration, the employee is giving a clear message about his interest in growing with the company and taking on more responsibilities. Make sure you let the employee know that you, and the company, have heard him loud and clear.

SOURCE: Dr. Thuy Sindell and Milo Sindell, Hit the Ground Running, San Francisco, authors of Sink or Swim: New Job, New Boss, Twelve Weeks to Get It Right, June 30, 2006.

LEARN MORE: Please read a previously published article on how companies can plan curricula for employee development.

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

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 … 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