Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on May 4, 2007July 10, 2018

Sharing Talent, Recruiting From Other Industries

The nuclear industry’s workforce shortage is real, but independent consultant Chuck Goodnight doesn’t believe it’s either debilitating or critical to current plant operations. Nor does he think it will be a problem in the future.


    For the present, Goodnight sees other alternatives. Nuclear power plants can team up with other plants, either owned by the same utility or by other utilities, to share scarce human and material resources. “You can move people around if you own more than one plant,” he says. “If you’re only one operating plant, form an alliance with others.”


    Two such alliances have been formed: STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) and the Utilities Service Alliance. “The tactic is to act like or be a fleet,” Goodnight says.


    Another alternative is to recruit from other industries that have high concentrations of engineers. “Auto manufacturing and the airline industry are coming apart at the seams,” Goodnight says. “The refining industry is very volatile. There are highly skilled people [in these industries] who will be seeking employment.”


    Permitting a broader range of people to work in nuclear power plants is also an option, though rules that currently permit only U.S. citizens to take these jobs would have to change. “There were a lot of nuclear plants and vessels in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and there are a lot of ex-nuclear personnel from there who are available,” Goodnight says. “But we’d have to change the Homeland Security rules. After all, national security also requires a safe, independent energy supply.”


Workforce Management, April 23, 2007, p. 22 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 4, 2007July 10, 2018

An Industry Recharged

Commercial nuclear power in the U.S. got its start in 1957 when the first generating plant opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, and for a time, the future seemed bright for the nascent nuclear age.


    “In the 1960s, we saw a 7 percent increase in energy consumption every year,” says William H. Miller, professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri in Columbia. “New power plants were coming on line and being built as fast as possible.”


    Then came the 1970s, with the OPEC oil embargo, energy conservation, excess electric-generation plant capacity and, not least of all, Three Mile Island. Utilities canceled nuclear plant orders, and the industry adopted a status-quo attitude toward everything, including its workforce.


    “Plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were fully staffed at that time,” says Carol Berrigan, director of industry infrastructure at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington. “People were in their prime working years, and through the 1990s, there was no great need to hire.”


    Utilities also consolidated their nuclear plant fleets in the ’80s and ’90s, seeking operational economies. “[Plants] got more efficient, and that led to downsizing,” Berrigan says. “So there was less need for new hires.”


    With more experienced employees than it could use, the last thing the industry needed was new recruits. Thus, it quit supporting college and university nuclear education and research. “Universities run on research dollars, and that stopped,” Miller says. “Programs weren’t being supported anymore. The professors couldn’t get research money, and the number of students dropped.” The number of nuclear engineering programs dropped too, from 38 in 1980 to 25 in 1996. By the 1990s, nuclear power was a dying industry.


    Then came 1998, when the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant in Lusby, Maryland, near the Chesapeake Bay, applied for a license renewal. The plant was owned and operated at the time by Baltimore Gas and Electric and is now owned by Constellation Energy.


    “This had never happened before,” says industry consultant Chuck Goodnight. “It proved to other companies that they could extend their licenses, and it showed that the nuclear industry wasn’t dead.”


    September 11 added a frisson of urgency to the nuclear re-awakening, as the country was painfully reminded that much of its energy came from foreign and frequently unfriendly nations. So did government forecasts of a 40 percent rise in national electricity consumption from 2000 to 2020.


    Today, more than two-thirds of the 103 nuclear plants operating in the U.S. have requested license extensions, and four new plant proposals have been submitted. At least 25 more new plant proposals may be filed by 2013, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It’s a replay of the 1960s, except that in the 21st century, there’s no pre-existing cohort of millions of baby boomers fresh out of college and raring to find jobs in the Next Big Thing. This time around, the industry will have to build its workforce, one recruit at a time.


Workforce Management, April 23, 2007, p. 21 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 4, 2007July 10, 2018

Drug Testing May Not Violate Fourth Amendment

The city of Marion, Indiana had a collective bargaining agreement with American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local No. 3063 that permitted drug testing of workers. The city unilaterally adopted a new policy that required random drug testing for all employees performing duties related to the safe operation of city equipment, and instructed all sanitation department employees, except a secretary, to take a drug test. One employee, Robert Krieg, refused and was fired.

    Affirming the dismissal of Krieg’s legal challenge to that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago held that the city had a special need for random drug testing. While drug testing is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court held in Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (489 U.S. 656, 1989) that random testing is constitutionally permissible if it serves special governmental needs. Von Raab said that courts must balance individual privacy expectations against governmental interests and determine whether it would be impractical to require a search warrant or individualized suspicion before allowing random testing of a government employee.


    Under this test, random drug testing of employees in the rail, highway and motor transportation industries and for heavy equipment operators has been approved by the courts.


    Because Krieg’s job responsibilities involved driving large equipment on city streets, the court concluded that any reasonable jury would consider that his job duties contained a risk of injury to others. The 7th Circuit also concluded that Krieg’s expectation of privacy was diminished because he had been subjected to drug testing in the past. Krieg v. Seybold, 7th Cir. No. 06-2322 (March 21, 2007).



    Impact: Drug testing of government employees must be based on special governmental needs and balanced against individual privacy rights to avoid a Fourth Amendment violation.


 

Posted on May 4, 2007July 10, 2018

Big Relocation Perks Not Just for Bigwigs

When it comes to relocation, one size doesn’t fit all. Relocation programs vary from company to company and, within companies, are usually tiered to reflect different job levels ranging from basic moving assistance for lower-level new hires to premium packages geared toward high-level executives or employees with highly sought skills.


    The lines between tiers, though, frequently blur during a tight labor market as exists today. Companies eager to get a key employee to an important location are now willing to extend higher-level relocation assistance than they might have been a few years ago. Indeed, companies are now using relocation programs as an incentive when recruiting employees.


    “Employees are in the driver’s seat,” says Kathy Morris, director of global consulting for Prudential Relocation. She has seen companies offering home purchase assistance to renters asked to relocate. To help persuade workers to move to a location with a higher cost of living, companies are offering cost-of-living benefits for a period of time.

    “The cost-of-living programs are a hot topic right now,” says Wendy Richardson, vice president of client services at Primacy Relocation, which is based in Memphis, Tennessee.


    While the first stop in most relocation programs is usually a company human resources official, much of the actual work is typically outsourced to vendors like Primacy that offer specialized services. For example, Impact Group of St. Louis provides a package of relocation help that can include job counseling for a spouse, family emotional support and in-depth information about the new location, whether that’s domestic or international.


    LifeCare Inc., a “life management services” company, also works with companies to provide new location data to employees about to relocate. The custom-tailored reports cover everything from housing prices to school funding and test scores to local income levels.


    “We’ve had a number of people tell us they wouldn’t have taken the relocation without this,” says LifeCare CEO Peter G. Burki.


    When it comes to the actual move of belongings, relocation benefits can vary considerably, based not just on an employee’s job level but also on the type of company. Atlas Worldwide notes in a recent survey that manufacturing companies are more likely than service companies to pay to move cars, pack and unpack all items and move exercise equipment. Midwestern companies are most likely to move a boat. Northeastern companies are likely to pay to move pets.


    Once the relocation offer has been made, workers have to decide fairly quickly. About half of companies want a decision within two weeks, according to the Atlas survey. Serious procrastinators are out of luck. Only 8 percent of companies in the Atlas survey said they allow more than a month for a decision.

Posted on May 1, 2007July 10, 2018

The Workforce Management Podcast

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: San Francisco-based Workforce Management reporter Ed Frauenhein reports on SAP’ SAPPHIRE 2008 Conference.
(
min. 28 sec. Link opens a 2 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
USC-based management expert Edward Lawler talks with Workforce Management‘s New York bureau chief Jessica Marquez about the value of human capital and the ideas in his new book Talent. (Total running time 6 min. 4 sec. Link opens a 2.25 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
 Workforce Management‘s New York bureau chief Jessica Marquez discusses how some companies are handling talent management differently during the current economic downturn in ways that are different from past recessionary times. (Total running time 5 min. 3 sec. Link opens a 1.9 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
 Wharton business school professor Peter Cappelli talks with Workforce Management’s New York bureau chief Jessica Marquez about how companies can better manage the unpredictability of their talent needs in today’s world. (Total running time 6 min. 14 sec. Link opens a 2.3 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
 Shareholder activist Robert Monks talks with Workforce Management’s New York bureau chief Jessica Marquez about why sky-high executive pay and excessive dedication to profitability are harming America. (Total running time 11 min. 34 sec. Link opens a 4.3 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
 Tig Gilliam, CEO of Adecco, North America, spoke to Workforce Management staff writer Jeremy Smerd in New York City. In this podcast, Gilliam explains why he thinks companies, especially HR executives, need to place a greater emphasis on relational capital. (Total running time 13 min. 04 sec. Link opens an 4.8 MB MP3 file in a new browser window)

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: India’s New Bargain — Series overview. Workforce Managementreporter Jeremy Smerd outlines his reporting trip to India and discusses the country’s relationship with the U.S. workforce.


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:
India’s New Bargain Episode 1 — Prabhi Jha, head of human resources at Indian drug maker Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories discusses recruiting and retaining in one of the world’s tightest labor markets

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: India’s New Bargain Episode 2 — Rajan Bhandari, senior manager, iGate Global Solutions, and Ritu Aurora, a division head of learning and development, discuss Indian cultural etiquette


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:India’s New Bargain Episode 3 — Education: Ameet Nivsarker, vice president at Nasscom, the Indian software industry group, explains why outsourcing to India does not take away from American jobs


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: India’s New Bargain Episode 4 — The outsourcing boom has transformed HR in India. Ameet Nivsarker, vice president at Nasscom, the Indian software industry group, explains how this happened


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: India’s New Bargain Episode 5 — Indian firms involved in outsourcing often hire trainers to teach their employees speak English as it is spoken in the United States and the United Kingdom

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:GE’s Retiring HR Chief Bill Conaty Discusses Forced Ranking

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:The Myth of Employee Satisfaction: Understanding the “Halo Effect”

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:SHRM 2007 conference report: Rebranding HR

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST:Immigration Politics Alarms India’s High-Tech


>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast-cast
PODCAST:Safeway CEO Steven Burd talks about health care reform in this exclusive Workforce Management interview

>>>Click the link below to listen to the podcast
PODCAST: Interview with Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founder and president of the Center for Work-Life Policy
   


Posted on April 30, 2007July 10, 2018

Europeans Tout Zero Tolerance of Harassment in the Workplace

European trade groups are vowing to fight workplace violence and harassment in a recently signed agreement that calls for zero tolerance of such behavior.

The four European social partners committed themselves to implementing by 2010 a program that will “provide employers, workers and their representatives with a framework to identify, prevent and manage problems of harassment and violence at work,” according to the agreement they signed in late April in Brussels, Belgium.


The partners are the European Trade Union Confederation, the European Centre of Enterprises With Public Participation & Enterprises of General Economic Interest, the Confederation of European Businesses and the European Association of Craft, Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises.


The agreement condemns all forms of harassment and violence and points out the employer’s duty to protect workers. It calls for companies to set out procedures to follow when cases arise and stresses that complaints should be quickly investigated.


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

Posted on April 30, 2007July 10, 2018

A Step Ahead of Trouble

Few things are more important to senior leadership than anticipating and being ready for changes in the marketplace. CEOs call it “looking around corners” and they expect their organizations to be able to do it, because market leadership cannot be achieved or maintained simply by reacting to changing circumstances. Attaining and retaining market leadership requires that companies anticipate any upcoming challenges or opportunities and take immediate pre-emptive action to either reduce the potential impact or leverage the opportunity. Around the globe, few HR departments manage this way. But if they did, they could prevent or mitigate many of the people management problems that now overwhelm them.


   Reading leading indicators: The best way to accurately predict upcoming changes is to look at leading indicators. All around us, leading indictors are in use. Water management organizations routinely monitor snowpack to predict the availability of runoff water and water table movement, while firefighters predict future fires by looking at the amount of undergrowth and the humidity it contains. In business, lots of organizations manage according to leading indicators, including the Federal Reserve Bank, which offers its Beige Book eight times a year with information on leading economic indicators that predict the direction of the economy. Despite their prevalence in many other organizations that deliver essential services, leading indicators are seldom used by HR to drive management action.

    The use of leading indicators supports a model known as proactive HR. We all know that preventing fires is a superior approach in mitigating damage compared with fighting them once they erupt, but more often than not, HR departments get so caught up in fighting the daily fires of people management that they have no time left for forecasting.

    For organizations trapped in an endless cycle of damage containment, the notion of proactive HR might seem a stretch, but a few firms have already proved the transition is possible. The best example is Valero Energy, the winner of an Optimas Award from Workforce Management in 2006. At Valero, industry visionary Dan Hilbert has championed an effort to both identify the leading people indicators of critical incidents at the refining operations level and quantify the potential dollar impact on the company if corrective action is not taken. Imagine being able to predict a critical failure in your business based on human capital analytics such as vacancy rates, workforce demographics and overtime utilization. Adopting proactive HR is more critical than ever before as the rate of change in business makes even the slightest increase in organizational downtime more destructive.

    Finding your leading indicators: To get started, identify the key people management situations in which you could mitigate damage or prevent it altogether—if you just had an early warning signal. Typical problem areas (or opportunities, if you like) include mission-critical role vacancies, increased turnover, increased absenteeism, increased job-site injuries, decreased worker productivity, increased time to hire and increased contingent workforce utilization.

    In the second step, you use three to 10 years’ worth of data to identify when there was a significant spike or downturn in each of the identified people management measures prior to a critical incident. If a data trend consistently occurs before each similar incident, you have identified a leading indicator for the incident. An example of a precursor for rampant turnover might be a spike in internal transfer requests, or growing absenteeism. Some critical incidents can be correlated to internal measures, while others may be driven largely by external forces. Starbucks, for example, found that there was a direct relationship between the unemployment rate and the turnover in certain jobs, but not in all jobs. The final step is to work with the CFO to quantify the dollar impact of these problems so that senior managers understand the dollar consequences of not acting in time.

    At first, the idea of investing all the time and labor required to conduct this type of analysis may seem too intensive, but I assure you that accurately predicting just one critical incident in your organization will do more than generate a positive ROI. The impact of a manufacturing plant being taken offline for just a few days because of the defection or retirement of key workers can easily be millions of dollars—billions in some industries.

Workforce Management, Apri 23, 2007, p. 42 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on April 27, 2007July 10, 2018

Companies Call For EAPs to Assist in Identifying and Helping Domestic Violence Victims

Often when employers think about domestic violence issues affecting their employees, it’s in the context of workplace safety. They ask themselves what they would do if a violent partner showed up on company premises.


    But an increasing number of employers are realizing that domestic violence has broader implications for productivity, absenteeism and health care costs, not to mention the well-being—and even survival—of employees who are victims of domestic violence.


    A recent survey of 1,200 full-time employed adults conducted by the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, a Bloomington, Illinois-based coalition of employers and nonprofit organizations, found that 21 percent were victims of domestic violence.


    Each domestic violence incident results in $948 in health care costs for women and $387 for men, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lost-productivity costs as a result of domestic violence add up to $727.8 million annually, and 7.9 million paid workdays are lost a year, according to the CDC.


    As a result, the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence is discussing working with employee assistance programs to establish formal guidelines on how to identify and handle employees who are victims of domestic abuse.


    “Instead of each employer going to its EAP and asking how it handles domestic violence issues, we want to engage all EAPs in a broader sense,” says Kim Wells, the alliance’s executive director.


    Trained mental health professionals don’t necessarily have specific training on domestic violence issues, she says.


    “For example, someone might suggest couples counseling, and that’s not necessarily a good idea for someone in a domestic violence situation, who could be in danger,” Wells says.


    It’s essential that EAP staff and employers recognize the warning signs that an employee is a victim of domestic violence, says Dr. Brigid McCaw, medical director of the family prevention program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a member of the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence.


    From 1999 to 2003, three Kaiser employees were killed in domestic violence incidents. “The sadness and grief that their co-workers felt really led to our commitment to making this issue more visible,” McCaw says.


    Three years ago, Kaiser launched its Silent Witness display, a multi-panel exhibit of stories by employees who have dealt with domestic violence. The company also makes sure that its medical staff is properly trained to address potential domestic violence issues with members.


    McCaw says there are four pieces to this program: establishing partnerships with community advocacy groups; creating a supportive environment for members to talk about their fears; having on-site response from mental health professionals; and establishing a safety plan for victims.


    “This is very different than depression or chemical dependency,” McCaw says. “Professionals need to be able to assess the danger of the situation.”


    McCaw says that Kaiser’s EAPs are well-versed in these issues, but she has had discussions with employers who are concerned that their EAPs are not. “There are a lot of EAP clinicians for whom this is foreign and they aren’t sure what to do,” she says.


    Employers should also provide guidance to their own staff, as well as make sure their EAPs understand how to handle a domestic violence situation, says David Pawlowski, a clinician who handles domestic violence issues at ComPsych, a Chicago-based EAP.


    “Employers have to be proactive in terms of educating staff at all levels, from human resources to management,” he says. “Everyone at the company needs to be aware of the problem.”


    For its staff members who take calls from employees, ComPsych has specific training on how to identify and handle potential issues of domestic violence, Pawlowski says.


    “You need to ask if the caller feels like they are unsafe or if things ever get violent,” he says. “If you don’t ask, they won’t come forward with the information.”

Posted on April 25, 2007July 10, 2018

Fourth Annual World Health Care Congress

Fourth Annual World Health Care Congress


When: April 22-24 2007


Where: Washington (D.C.) Convention Center


What: The Fourth Annual World Health Care Congress, co-sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, is a meeting of chief and senior executives from all sectors of health care. The 2007 conference includes more than 1,800 CEOs, senior executives and government officials from the nation’s largest employers, hospitals, health systems, health plans, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and leading government agencies.


Conference info: www.worldcongress.com and www.worldhealthcareblog.org


Day 2—Monday, April 23, 2007


If I could have been everywhere at once, I would have checked out the following seminars, which you may be able to get online at www.whcc2007.com. David Gergen, editor-at-large of U.S. News and World Reports, and Peter Lee of the Pacific Business Group on Health spoke about efforts to make health care more transparent and various national efforts aimed at getting doctors and hospitals to report data about the quality and cost of care. The hope is to establish standards of medical care that can be used to determine how much employers pay doctors for health care—rather than having them pay a fixed amount for every health care service delivered. This is the effort to move from a “fee for service” system to a “pay for performance” model in health care.


Instead, I went to see Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, and Michael Critelli, chairman and CEO of Pitney Bowes, speak about their “call to action” for employers to become more involved in leading change in health care. Barrett and Critelli are particularly interested in providing digital “personal health records” that would give individuals portable, private and personal health records. These would contain all of their medical information, which they could then share with their doctors. In December, Intel and Pitney Bowes—along with Wal-Mart, BP and Applied Materials—announced the formation of Dossia, a group aimed at giving employees a way to manage their health care in a manner that would promote greater efficiency, lower costs and improved health. Barrett showed a flashy short film on the group and said the employees of the group would have a health record by the end of the year. But it is unclear whether employees will be able to access the record if they leave their companies.


Barrett, like other business leaders, bemoans the health care system’s inattention to the consumer. “Only in health care do you see concern with the internal operations of a company and not the consumer,” he said.


Barrett said he could find an ATM when he visited Easter Island, 2,000 miles off the coast of Chile, but he can’t get his health records easily transferred from a hospital in California to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.


Barrett also said that “every major corporation I know is looking at wellness programs,” including Intel.


Later in the morning, Steven Burd, CEO of Safeway and private-sector evangelist for health care reform, responded to that issue indirectly (since he was on the other side of the convention center from Barrett). “We have 300 million people in the country, and if we don’t solve the problem it’s going to be bad for companies and the American people.”


Burd, who has implemented a high-deductible health plan integrated with a wellness program for Safeway employees, has a five-point proposal for federal health care reform:


1. Market-base-driven health care. This means giving employees a financial stake in their health by turning them into consumers.


2. Universal coverage and individual responsibility. This means everyone gets health insurance because everyone MUST get health insurance, just as all automobile owners must buy collision coverage.


3. Financial assistance for low-income Americans.


4. Encouragement for people to foster healthy behaviors.


5. Equal tax treatment for individuals and employers, essentially ending the preferential tax treatment employers receive to provide health care.


Burd would like the “opportunity to redesign health plans for government employees and in particular for members of Congress.” He would base the plan on Safeway’s, which uses elements of consumerism, with high-deductible plans, and wellness programs that encourage employees to lead healthier lives.


Unfortunately, few doctors and hospital administrators heard what Burd and other CEOs had to say about how they want to reform the health care system. That’s because most doctors were attending seminars on how to fix the health care system from their end, as medical providers. Likewise, employers, focused on their own problems with health care costs, attend separate seminars that address their specific needs. In this way, the conference reflects the bifurcation of the health care system itself.

–Jeremy Smerd



Day 1—Sunday, April 22, 2007


Tucked inside the nation’s $2 trillion annual health care bill is a line item for conferences, of which the World Health Care Congress is among the most wide-ranging. Conference attendees represent the health care spectrum, from those who pay for medical care (employers, governments and health insurers) to those who get paid for health care (doctors and hospitals)—and all those in between (pharmacy benefit managers, disease management companies, medical product manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and all sorts of innovators in health care).


Last year’s keynotes included President Bush, on tape, via satellite from an undisclosed location. Other notable keynotes from last year included former UnitedHealth Group chairman and CEO William McGuire, who spoke on a day last April when The Wall Street Journal (one of the conferences sponsors, no less) came out with a front-page story on the millions of dollars McGuire earned by backdating stock options. McGuire was quickly ushered out of the conference hall before reporters could ask questions.


This year, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott will give the closing keynote at a time when his company is under scrutiny for allegedly recording conversations between employees and reporters, as well as private shareholder meetings. Other big-name speakers from the employer community include: Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel; Linda Dillman, executive vice president of risk management, benefits and sustainability at Wal-Mart; Michael Critelli, chairman and CEO of Pitney Bowes; and Adam Bosworth, vice president, Google.


On Sunday, one of the presentations was on the Care Focused Purchasing Initiative. Like some other sessions here, this one has been touring the conference circuit since at least last year. Care Focused Purchasing is an employer-sponsored effort to pool health insurance claims data from some of the country’s largest employers, such as Boeing and Lowe’s. Claims data shows how doctors bill health insurers and thus sheds a light on the kind of medicine that doctors practice.


As employers hire companies to help manage the medical care that is provided to employees, claims information—a.k.a. data—has emerged as a new buzzword. The purpose of using data is that it helps employers analyze and understand which doctors are among the most cost-efficient and medically effective. Critics, however, say the data is limited because it does not communicate what ultimately is most important: Did the doctor make the patient healthy? This debate and many other questions that are at the forefront of today’s health care debate will play out over the course of the next 48 hours, until Lee Scott closes the conference with a keynote address Tuesday at 4 p.m.
Speaker presentations and information can be viewed at www.whcc2007.com/community.


–Jeremy Smerd
 

Posted on April 25, 2007July 10, 2018

House Passes Bill to Ban Genetic Discrimination in the Workplace

A bill that would ban genetic discrimination is garnering the backing of hundreds of lawmakers even as the employer community warns that the details of the legislation may create problems for companies.



Individual companies may not be paying much attention anyway, because they don’t want to know an employee’s genetic makeup, according to an employment lawyer.



On Wednesday, April 25, the House approved a bill, 420-3, that would prohibit employment and insurance discrimination based on a person’s genetic predisposition to a disease. The broad support mustered in the House mirrors the margins garnered in Senate votes on the issue in previous years.



The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved a bill similar to the House version earlier this year. The Senate may decide to take up the House bill, speeding its journey toward bicameral approval. The Bush administration has signaled its support for the measure.





The business lobby, while expressing support for a ban on genetic discrimination, says that changes must be made to the bill. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Employment Coalition says that the legislation in its current form could cause administrative and legal headaches for employers.


In a letter to House leadership, the group asserts that the bill would subject companies to excessive punitive damages for paperwork mistakes. Another criticism is that the bill does not pre-empt state laws and “would force employers to comply with a burdensome patchwork of conflicting state standards.”


The coalition comprises six business groups, including the HR Policy Association, the ERISA Industry Committee and the Society for Human Resource Management.



Some misgivings about the bill were expressed by Republicans on the House floor, who nonetheless voted for the measure and said they hoped the problems would be resolved later in the legislative process.



They also praised what they called improvements in the bill, such as language that would prohibit the law from being used to force employers to cover genetic conditions.



The changes notwithstanding, “it’s still not a very helpful bill,” says Burton Fishman, an employment lawyer with Fortney Scott in Washington. “This continues to be a remedy in search of a problem.”



No genetic discrimination suits have been filed in the 32 states that have such laws. There has been only one federal case.



The vast majority of employers don’t care about genetic information, Fishman says. So, they may not be up in arms about the bill that is zipping through Congress.



“Most of my clients are worried about getting good employees,” Fishman says. “They’re not concerned about whether you have a trait for a disease that may or may not manifest during your employment.”



Proponents of the measure cited the scientific gains that can be achieved if more people sign up for genetic testing because they are assured that their DNA information is secure.



The bill “will do more than stamp out a new form of discrimination,” Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York and author of the legislation, said in a statement. It “will encourage Americans to seek out preventative health care and participate in clinical trials critical to finding cures for some of our most deadly genetic-based diseases.”



Slaughter has shepherded the legislation for 12 years. On April 25, it received its first House vote.



—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 … 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