Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on April 19, 2007July 10, 2018

Discrimination Liability Case Off Supreme Court Docket


A closely watched discrimination case that the Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear April 18 has been withdrawn, leaving unresolved, for the moment, the question of whether a company can be held liable for discrimination by a subordinate supervisor, even if a higher-ranking official makes an employment decision unaware of the alleged bias.

BCI Coca-Cola Bottling v. EEOC was supposed to be argued before the high court last week. On April 12, however, BCI asked the court to dismiss the case, even though it has not reached an agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is suing BCI on behalf of an employee at the company’s Albuquerque, New Mex­ico, operation. The action will be re­manded to district court in New Mexico.


The employee, Stephen Peters, was dismissed in 2001 after failing to work on a special promotional weekend. His supervisor, Cesar Grado, told the human resources department in Phoenix that Peters had been insubordinate, but he did not recommend termination. Peters was fired by an HR manager after she reviewed Peters’ file.


Peters sued, alleging that Grado was racially biased. The HR office did not know that Peters was African American.


The trial court ruled against Peters on summary judgment, saying he didn’t prove that Grado’s alleged discrimination influenced an employment decision made at a higher level of the company. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found that Peters should get a trial. And now that the case has been removed from the Supreme Court’s docket, that’s what will happen.


“The withdrawal of this case represents a real loss to the employer community, the HR profession and to employees, because we missed an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify what has clearly been a debate amongst the appellate circuits around the country,” says Manesh Rath, a partner at Keller and Heckman in Washington.


Observers point out that there are two similar cases in the Supreme Court pipe­line, one involving a white professor being denied tenure at a historically black college.


“If they’re inclined to look at this issue of law, they can do it,” says Michael Foreman, deputy director of legal programs for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.


When the court weighs in on the controversy, it could have a profound impact on discrimination cases.


If the Supreme Court adopts the 10th Circuit stance, it will “short-circuit the plaintiff burden” because someone alleging discrimination would not have to prove that the person making the decision was biased, Rath says.


“That’s a change in what the plaintiff had to prove for 35 years,” he says.


If the Supreme Court takes a position similar to the one outlined in the summary judgment, it would allow employers to create “a structure of plausible deniability” to avoid complying with anti-discrimination statutes, Foreman says.


“It would dramatically undermine the purposes of Title VII,” he says.


Foreman asserts that if ra­cism contributes to adverse employment impact, it doesn’t matter where the bias occurs within the company hierarchy. The point is to eradicate it everywhere.


“We want it out of the employment decision,” Foreman says.


But Rath says those decisions can be made free of discrimination by someone in the HR office, who may not know that bias existed somewhere else in the organization.


“These things don’t come to light except through the microscopic scrutiny of litigation,” Rath says.


Mark Schoeff Jr., Workforce Management staff writer

Posted on April 18, 2007July 10, 2018

Florida Guns at Work Legislation May Mean Trouble for HR


Union support for a Florida bill that would allow employees to keep guns locked in their cars on company grounds may mean troubling times for employers.

At a Florida Senate committee hearing March 27, the Florida AFL-CIO came out in support of the bill, which is sponsored by the National Rifle Association.


The issue of firearms in workplace is likely to become a hot issue nationwide in light of the recent shootings at Virginia Tech. Among the 33 dead were at least seven university employees.


For the union, “guns are not the issue,” AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin says.


“This is about protecting workers’ rights. When you drive to work, your car still belongs to you. Your privacy doesn’t end when you get to work.”


SB 2356, which was introduced earlier this year, would let employees keep “any legal personal property” locked in their cars, even on company property. Employers or other entities could not prohibit them from having such items in their vehicles.


Similar bills are pending in Texas and Georgia as the NRA tries to pass legislation throughout the country, observers say.


And if the unions choose to support these measures in other parts of the country, employers will have to address the issue, says Mark Neuberger, a labor lawyer at Buchanan Ingersoll in Miami.


“Employers are already fighting this to protect the security of their workplaces,” he says. “But now this could become a bargaining issue with the union.”


So far there hasn’t been any indication that the AFL-CIO will support bills in other states, but it’s not out of the question, says Al McKenna, a partner in the Orlando office of employment law firm Ford & Harrison.


“It’s a way to cozy up to potential new members,” he says. However, he notes that the unions are busy right now with more pressing matters. “It could create pressure if the AFL-CIO decides to invest resources into the support of this law,” McKenna says, “but this isn’t like the Employee Free Choice Act,” the bill that would authorize a union when a majority of employees sign cards approving collective bargaining. The bill is a top priority of organized labor.


In Florida at least, the AFL-CIO’s support of the bill has caused employers some concern. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and others have strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it violates their property rights.


“Our principal concern is that this bill is somewhere between an attack on the employer/employee contract and on property rights overall,” says Mark Wilson, executive director of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.


Many were shocked to learn of the AFL-CIO’s support for the bill.


“As the first people in line to be shot in a workplace incident, it seems pretty ludicrous that a union organization would support arming workers,” says Brian Sie­bel, a senior attorney at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.


But Templin emphasizes that for the AFL-CIO, this is an issue of protecting workers’ rights.


“As soon as someone takes the gun out of their vehicle or makes a threat, the law addresses that,” he says. “This is about protecting workers’ rights to keep things in their cars.”


Templin notes that there have been incidents where members have been fired for having union materials in their cars, and this law would prevent such incidents.


To support the bill, the AFL-CIO in Florida is sending out e-mails to its 500,000 members encouraging them to call their senators in support of the bill, Templin says.


Wilson says he’s surprised that HR managers haven’t gotten more involved in the discussions about the bill. While the Society for Human Resource Management testified in front of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee against the bill and has sent information to their members, Wilson says that “we were hoping there would be more calls from HR managers.”


On April 10, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-3 to approve the bill, which is now pending vote on the chamber floor. The House is also considering a similar bill.


Jessica Marquez


Tools and Resources for Dealing with Workplace Violence


In light of Monday’s shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, Workforce Management has assembled the following list of resources related to workplace violence. The shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University killed 33 people, including at least seven university employees.


Useful Information on Workplace Violence and Strategies for Prevention and Response.


Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Policy


Points to Cover in a Workplace Violence Policy


10 Tips on Recognizing and Minimizing Violence


Develop a Workplace Violence Program for Every Site


Preventing Violence: An Organizational Self-Assessment


Emergency Planning and Crisis Management


What to Do in a Catastrophe


Crafting the Crisis Communication Message


Dear Workforce: We Have a Longtime Employee with a History of Belligerence. Is It Too Late to Reverse His Behavior?

Posted on April 17, 2007June 29, 2023

Photo Gallery of Workforce Management’s Talent Management Conference

Enjoy these photos from Workforce Management’s inaugural Talent Management Conference, featuring the 17th annual Optimas Awards held March 27, 2007 at the Millennium Broadway Hotel in New York. Click here for more information on our winners and the Workforce Management Optimas Awards.



 


FINANCIAL IMPACT WINNER
GM Service Technical College
Kevin Walter, Deputy Training Center Manager


  

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Edwards ifesciencesRobert Reindl, Corporate Vice President, Human Resources


  


ETHICAL PRACTICE
Putnam InvestmentsRichard Tibbetts, Chief of Human Resources
  

GLOBAL OUTLOOK
Infosys TechnologiesTandy Harris, Head of Human Resources, North America


  


INNOVATION
Best Buy/CultureRxJody Thompson and Cali Ressler, CultureRX Founders
  

MANAGING CHANGE
Luxottica RetailRobin Wilson, Senior Director, Human Resources
Workforce Management.


  


PARTNERSHIP
CVSSteve Wing, Director of Government Programs
  

SERVICE
U.S. Office of Personnel ManagementNorman Enger, Director, HR Line of Business


  


VISION
Sun Healthcare GroupKay Weiss, Workforce Development Manager
  

GENERAL EXCELLENCE
Goldman Sachs & Co.Carol Pledger, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs University
 


  


Dennis Donovan introducing himself to Robin Wilson, Luxottica Retail, Senior Director, Human Resources
  

Supporting Sponsor, Pat Rohe, Chairman, ASA


  


Dennis Donovan, Building a Winning Future on a Foundation of Change
  

Dave Ulrich, Partner and Co-Founder, The RBL Group; AuthorThe Talent Equation: Competence, Commitment and Contribution


  


Dave Ulrich
  

Beverly Kaye, Founder and CEO, Career Systems International; AuthorLove ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: The Leader’s Role in Retention and Engagement


  


Ken Carrig, Executive Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer, Sysco CorporationTalent Management Tales.


  

John Hollon, Editor, Workforce ManagementMaster of Ceremonies


  


From left to right back row:
Jason Asch, National Sales Manager, Workforce Management
John Hollon, Editor, Workforce Management
Todd Johnson, Publisher, Workforce Management
Tonya Adams, Marketing Manager, Workforce Management
Karin Kinnear, Assistant Circulation Manager, Workforce ManagementCarroll Lachnit, Executive Editor, Workforce Management
Bottom row:Kari Carlson, Southeastern Sales Manager, Workforce Management
Supporting Sponsor, Pat Rohe, Chairman, ASA
Bob Dortch, General Manager, Online, Workforce Management
Daniella Weinberg, Northeast Sales Manager, Workforce Management
  

A special thank you to our Supporting Sponsor, ASA


It’s an extraordinary day, and the best way to attend is to win! VisitWorkforce.com to learn more about the Awards, and how to nominate your company’s achievements!

Posted on April 17, 2007July 10, 2018

Senator Introduces Workplace Violence Plan


On the day after the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history at Virginia Tech University, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, introduced legislation that would address violence in another sometimes volatile location—the workplace.

Murray’s bill, the Survivors’ Empowerment and Economic Security Act, would allow 30 days of leave for victims of domestic violence in the workplace so that they can appear in court, seek legal assistance and secure their homes and families.


The measure also would give abuse victims access to unemployment insurance if they have to leave their jobs and prohibit employment and insurance discrimination based on a victim’s history of abuse.


Murray announced the bill at a Tuesday, April 17, hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. Murray, chairwoman of the panel, asserted that it was the first Senate hearing on domestic violence in the workplace in five years. It was scheduled in advance of the Virginia Tech shootings.


But the campus tragedy framed the Capitol Hill meeting.


“So many families will never be the same,” Murray said in her opening statement. “Their loss hangs over everything we’re doing in the Senate today and will for a very long time. We need to do everything we can here in Congress to save lives and prevent violence from reaching into our schools, homes and workplaces.”


Although each witness at the hearing agreed that office violence should be prevented, an employment lawyer representing the Society for Human Resource Management cautioned against assuming that employers are not doing enough to prevent workplace tragedies.


“Overall, I find employers extremely compassionate about these situations,” said Sue Willman, a lawyer with Spencer Fane Britt & Browne in Kansas City.


Willman, a victim of domestic violence and a certified HR professional, argued the leave mandate contained in previous versions of Murray’s bill might force companies to reduce the time off they already provide in order to comply with the law. Murray had not circulated her new legislation before the hearing.


In addition, Willman said that victim leave must be coordinated with the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and warned that, under Murray’s plan, employers might be forced to risk other employees’ safety to protect victims.


“Employers understand that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when domestic violence finds its way into the workplace,” Willman says.


Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia and ranking member of the subcommittee, shared Willman’s apprehension. He praised Murray for holding the hearing and introducing her bill.


But he has misgivings about unintended consequences of the legislation, such as increasing discrimination against abuse victims and fostering litigation. He says most employers are trying to prevent violence.


If the legislation is written assuming that employers are mostly at fault, it will go in a different direction from a bill that targets employers that have failed to protect victims.


“The presumptive basis of legislation is critical,” Isakson says. “For most companies that stay in business, the HR element is important and their concerns about employees are pre-eminent.”


One victim of domestic violence at work, however, told the panel her harrowing story—and asserted that her employer didn’t help her.


Yvette Cade’s estranged husband attacked her while she was working at a T-Mobile store in suburban Washington, D.C., on October 10, 2005. He doused her with gasoline, chased her from the facility to the parking lot, crushed her foot and set her on fire. The incident occurred a few weeks after a judge declined to place a restraining order on the man.


“I felt my skin dripping,” Cade testified. “I was just like a great ball of fire.”


Although Cade was a top saleswoman, she says the store management didn’t help her before the attack—and didn’t call the police when it occurred. A friend of hers dialed 911.


That was symbolic of the store’s previous blasé attitude.


“My problem was my manager not taking me seriously enough and acknowledging there was a problem,” Cade says. “I survived to tell the story of what happened to me in hopes that things could be different for other victims.”


An expert who testified before the committee argued that employers need to be prodded to develop anti-violence and victim-support policies. Kathy Rodgers, president of Legal Momentum, noted that only 4 percent of companies have programs in place.


She says that the “linchpins” of good policy are rules that prevent the firing of abuse victims, grant leave to them and provide unemployment if they have to relinquish their jobs because of their abuse.


“Very few [companies] have all the pieces in place,” Rodgers says. “They need to be thinking more about them and providing solutions.”


A voluntary program “leaves the burden with the victim to always come forward.”


Government intervention seems to be accepted in Maine, where a workplace domestic violence law was instituted two years ago. The measure provides unpaid leave for victims.


“We’ve had very few complaints from employers about enforcing this,” says Laura Fortman, commissioner of the Maine Department of Labor. Proposing and implementing the law “allowed a concentrated effort to bring this issue into the workplace. It allowed us to … really include employers in that conversation.”


Murray wants to broaden the dialogue beyond companies to schools and other dimensions of society.


“Do we still in this country see domestic violence as domestic violence and not as a community responsibility?” she asked the witness.



Mark Schoeff Jr.

Posted on April 16, 2007July 10, 2018

HSA Embezzling Case Is a Heads-Up for Employers


Barry Stokes, the self-styled “Consumer-Driven Guy” whose company reportedly administered 14,000 health savings accounts totaling $8.7 million, sits in jail awaiting the start of a criminal trial May 22 in which he is charged with embezzling money from his former clients.

In what is likely the first prosecution of HSA fraud, the case exemplifies the caution benefits administrators must exercise when hiring third-party administrators to manage health care assets.


Stokes’ firm, 1Point Solutions, was based in the Nashville, Tennessee, area before it went bankrupt last fall. It administered at least $24 million, mainly in 401(k) plans but also in HSAs, health reimbursement arrangements and flexible spending accounts for 35,000 plan participants, says John McLemore, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. McLemore has set up a blog that updates the progress of the bankruptcy and related court actions.


Until last fall, employers who had health care-related accounts with 1Point had little reason to be suspicious. Clients of 1Point say the administrator regularly sent statements to members who were contributing money from their paychecks to their various accounts. For the most part, customers who used debit cards to pay for medical services out of their flexible spending accounts had money in their accounts.


Susan Smith, the executive director of the TML Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool, which is the benefits administrator for approximately 600 cities and other local governments in Texas, met Stokes several years ago. She says he came across as a sincere, smooth-talking advocate of health care consumerism.


He had a Web site, consumerdrivenguy.com, and issued press releases commenting on what he called “the health care revolution.”


When Stokes won the business of TML’s 15,000 members, Smith believed Stokes when he said the assets would be deposited with Mellon Bank.


“We never really asked him to prove it to us,” Smith says. “We never had trouble accessing the funds. … When he said that’s how he had it set up, we just believed him. But obviously that did not happen.”


Smith says she saw few warning signs of a pending implosion except when a few members complained in September that checks they had written from their flexible spending accounts had bounced.


Around that time, an auto parts maker, Beck/Arnley Worldparts, based in Smyrna, Tennessee, decided to switch plan administrators for its 401(k) plans. When the company was unable to get its assets, it sued.


The auto parts maker got a phone call from Stokes’ attorney on September 8, saying the money in the plan was “gone and likely unrecoverable,” according to a complaint filed in September in U.S. District Court in Nashville.


A judge quickly declared the company bankrupt, and soon other clients began asking questions. A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee indicted Stokes in November for allegedly stealing more than $210,000 from the retirement funds he administered.


McLemore says Stokes was “robbing Peter to pay Paul. And it worked right up till the end.”


When the news came out, Smith’s phone “didn’t stop ringing. Everyone was in a tailspin.”


“People here were in panic mode calling each other and asking what was going to happen” to their money, she says.


TML lost half a million dollars, Smith says, and eventually paid its members back by dipping into its own funds. The group is now one of more than a thousand creditors seeking to get their money back from 1Point.


“It was definitely not a fun learning experience,” Smith says, “especially with health care costing so much today.”


Of the many lessons learned, one is that money left with third-party administrators is not protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.


A lot of people thought the plans themselves were FDIC protected. “That, of course, is a complete illusion,” McLemore says.


Unlike health reimbursement arrangements and flexible spending accounts, money for health savings accounts must be held by an FDIC-insured bank, thus giving account holders some security, says TML’s legal counsel, Scott Wilson. However, as TML found out, employers must make sure that funds are actually deposited in a bank.


Stokes may have used his clients’ money, in part, to purchase a vast collection of Japanese woodblock prints. Creditors hope those will fetch as much as $1 million on the auction block.


That payout, however, will do little to restore what is owed. At a November court meeting in Nashville, at which Stokes appeared in shackles, creditors were told they would probably see between 5 cents and 50 cents on each dollar owed.


TML is now administering its members’ assets and realizing that they are able to do it for roughly the same amount it cost the group to hire 1Point.


If they decide to work with a third-party administrator again, Wilson says they will be much more diligent. “We want to see everything from their lawyers.”


But, Smith adds, the group did meet with the company’s lawyers. “We met with everybody,” she says. “It happened like he promised until we woke up and he absconded with our money. Until then there were not a lot of signs that it wasn’t working right.”


Jeremy Smerd

Posted on April 16, 2007July 10, 2018

GM to UAW Let’s Cut Costs

General Motors’ Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant has become the test site for a companywide cost-cutting effort that could save hundreds of millions of dollars a year.


As part of an ambitious productivity strategy dubbed “True North,” GM is asking local United Auto Workers leaders at all plants to consider a variety of once-taboo efficiency measures.


In late February, GM opened negotiations with Lordstown’s union officials. GM wants the union to accept nonunion janitors, work 10-hour shifts without overtime pay, allow nonunion workers to replenish parts bins and let nonunion truckers deliver and unload parts shipments.


The unstated threat: If the workers reject GM’s proposals, production of the automaker’s 2009 Cobalt model might move to Mexico.


If the union allows it, True North could generate big savings. According to a source, the companywide use of nonunion janitors—who would earn about $12 per hour instead of $28 per hour—alone could save GM $300 million to $500 million a year.


Each UAW GM local would have to negotiate its own deal, but sources say the Lordstown talks could become an important precedent. Says a source close to GM, “The changes you see in Lordstown could foreshadow what you see in the rest of GM’s contracts.”


Traditionally, local union leaders negotiate each plant’s work rules in the same year the UAW bargains new labor contracts with GM, Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Group.


The national negotiations, which cover wages and benefits, get all the media attention. But local work rules have a big effect on each plant’s productivity. And this year Detroit’s Big 3 is demanding unprecedented concessions.


“There’s a lot of negotiating going on right now—not just at GM, but Ford and Chrysler as well,” says Laurie Harbour-Felax, a manufacturing consultant who is president of Harbour-Felax Group in suburban Detroit. “They need to get their … labor agreements to be as competitive as possible.”


A similar plant-by-plant cost-cutting program launched last year by Ford could generate more than $600 million in annual savings. An agreement signed last year at just one plant—Ford’s Rouge assembly plant in Dearborn, Michigan—will save $100 million a year.


A GM source confirmed True North’s existence, but declined to give an on-the-record interview. Lordstown appears to be a test site in part because it produces small cars—a product segment that has not been profitable for the Detroit automakers.


UAW Local 1112, which represents about 2,600 workers at the Lordstown assembly plant, already has accepted some changes on behalf of some members who make headliners for Lear Corp. The Lear workers accepted a five-year pay freeze and eased work rules, and agreed to $12 weekly benefit co-pays.


Those workers also agreed that skilled-trades workers would assume additional duties, such as sweeping the floors, without any change in pay.


But Rich Rankin, Local 1112’s Lear shop chairman, says he still is worried that Lordstown might lose the next-generation Cobalt.


“Everybody is very nervous and on edge,” Rankin says. “We’re just fed up. We keep giving and giving with no guarantees.”


Other plants face similar cuts. At the Fairfax assembly plant in Kansas City, Kansas, GM’s cost-cutting target is $54 million.


GM wants to shift about 20 percent of the work now performed by UAW members to outside contractors, says Jeff Manning, president of UAW Local 31. That would affect about 500 of the plant’s 2,500 union jobs, he said.


Outside workers would assemble doors, wheels and engines. Outsiders also would operate forklifts and handle janitorial jobs.


In exchange for the loss of those high-paying jobs, Fairfax would get a shot at a replacement vehicle when the plant stops producing the Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx and Saturn Aura in 2011.


Manning says the rank and file might not approve True North unless GM management shares the financial sacrifice. “It’s going to be tough,” he says. “It’d be far easier if management shared in the $54 million.”


GM has been cagey about its future plans for each assembly plant. Even if workers at Fairfax and Lordstown embrace True North, GM is not guaranteeing that those plants will stay open, union officials say.


GM has not threatened to shut Lordstown if the plant’s hourly workers refuse to budge. But UAW leaders know they’re in a predicament.


“They’re asking us to come up with these new work rules, but with no guarantee of a product,” says Dave Green, president of UAW 1714, which represents Lordstown’s stamping plant. “That’s one of the sticking points. Everybody is on pins and needles.”


Filed by Jamie LaReau and Dave Barkholz of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Posted on April 16, 2007July 10, 2018

‘Hot Spot’ Rules

During your career at work you will encounter situations when the inspiration is flowing. Colleagues chip in with great ideas. There is a real feeling of teamwork, a genuine spirit of collaboration and progress. I label such moments “Hot Spots.” They can happen momentarily when a group happens to be together around the coffee machine or they can take place for a prolonged period, even across an entire organization—think of the collaborative and industry Hot Spot created by open-source software development at Linux.


    Hot Spots come into being when our energy and excitement are inflamed through an igniting question or a vision of the future. They are times when positive relationships with work colleagues are a real source of deep satisfaction and a key reason why we decide to stay with a company. As such, they are hugely motivational. Would you work for an organization where there are no Hot Spots? And, they are incredibly productive. Hot Spots are where innovative and industry-shaping ideas are likely to originate.


    The trouble is that Hot Spots provide a challenge to the way we have managed and thought about organizations and the people within them over the past 100 years. From scientific management at the turn of the last century to the modern-day call center, much of our thinking about the role of management has centered on the rules of command and control. Supporting the emergence of Hot Spots requires a whole new set of rules and an entirely new way of approaching the challenge of getting the best out of people.


    To take a mechanistic approach to the emergence of Hot Spots is to miss the point of their development. Command and control doesn’t work with a Linux software developer working late into the evening for no financial reward. Nor would it work at Google or a whole host of other such companies.


    This does not mean that nothing can be done, but it takes a more subtle, more nuanced and I believe more sophisticated approach. It requires unlearning some of the old rules and learning a whole new set of rules. Executives who create a space where Hot Spots can emerge live by the nine rules of Hot Spots, and employees act and behave by them:


    Value creation. Value within companies is created by exploiting what is already known through strong bonds. Novelty and innovation emerge through exploration, facilitated by relationships and networks of relationships that cross boundaries. Be absolutely aware of what is appropriate and where, and design networks around this.


    Ignition and leadership. The energy which comes from the boundaryless cooperation characteristic of Hot Spots is ignited with a spark. It could be the spark of a compelling vision, the stimulus of a question, or the excitement of a complex and meaningful task. The responsibility of the leader is to ensure that this spark is created.


    Emergence. Hot Spots emerge; they cannot be ordered forth or directed. People choose freely to give of their human capital (intellectual, emotional, or social), or they volunteer.


    Rhythm and timelessness. A Hot Spot is marked by periods of intense activity that fuels its productive capacity. The creative output of a Hot Spot is fueled by times of reflection and timelessness. Without these moments, the Hot Spot burns out and the creative endeavor fizzles then fades.


    Signature processes. Much can be done to create an environment in which boundaryless cooperation will emerge. But importing best practices only gets you so far. It is important, but not sufficient. The new rule is to move beyond best practices to signature processes, ways of doing things which are unique and distinguished from the competition.


    Relationships. The value of Hot Spots is created in the space between people. Hot Spots are fundamentally relational, whether the relationship is between close friends or acquaintances. The focus of resources with regard to support and development needs to be on the individual and on the network of relationships.


    Boundary spanners. Hot Spots become moribund without boundary spanners, people who bring insights from outside the Hot Spot group. But the role is complex and at times distracting. Be committed to boundary spanners; nurture and cherish them.


    Commitments. Hot Spots are formed at the nexus of a network of commitments that establish what actions will be taken and by whom. The responsibility of Hot Spot participants is to make and keep the commitments public, voluntary and explicit.


    Purposeful conversation. Conversation is the source of igniting purpose. Leaders support and shape conversation with insightful data, an emphasis on values and space for reflection. Without purposeful conversation, commitment to Hot Spots is likely to be all talk.

Posted on April 13, 2007July 10, 2018

Novel Plans Are Aimed at Reducing Costs, Paying for Health Care in Retirement

CNH Case New Holland, an agricultural machine manufacturer, announced in 2000 that it would discontinue retiree health benefits for new employees, and those employees who were eligible for retiree health benefits would have to pay for 60 percent of cost increases beginning in 2006.


    Double-digit health increases and wasted money—more than 70 percent of employees were paying family premiums of more than $2,000 a year but spending $1,000 on actual health care—were the culprits.


    “We had to draw the line,” says Amy Kesler, a company spokeswoman. In fact the Racine, Wisconsin-based company had to overhaul its benefits not just to reduce costs but to prepare employees for the future.


    “The change was needed to help employees save for retirement,” Kesler says.


    The first thing CNH decided was that no matter what new plan it created, the company would pay the same amount for each of the four plans it offered, keeping its costs fixed among plan designs. It would be up to employees to decide what kind of coverage they wanted.


    Of the four plan designs CNH introduced in 2006, two would look familiar to any benefits-plan designer. A preferred provider organization network appeals to people who know they will use a lot of health care—those with chronic illnesses or planning an elective surgery. The PPO plan has the highest monthly premiums but the lowest deductible: a $92-a-month premium for salaried employees, a $300 deductible, and a 15 percent co-insurance up to an $1,800 out-of-pocket maximum for employees who earn less than $50,000 or a $2,300 out-of-pocket maximum for employees earning more than $50,000. Forty-three percent of participants enrolled in the PPO plan.


    The drawback is that in a world without retiree health benefits, the plan offers no option to save for retirement health care expenses.


    A second option is a high-deductible plan: $2,200 for single coverage, with a health savings account. The company did not fund the savings account, but with premiums of just $5 a month for salaried workers, 13 percent of them signed up. Whether individuals will take their savings and invest it in their accounts for future use remains to be seen. Experts say employees at companies that do not fund accounts generally don’t fund it themselves, either.


    “I’m not convinced that people are taking savings and putting it into health savings accounts,” says Chris Calvert, vice president and senior health consultant at Sibson Consulting. “Most are taking the extra $100 a month and at the end of the year buying a plasma TV.”


    CNH also created its Consumer Choice Plan and Consumer Choice Savings Plan, both of which are intended to take a portion of a person’s savings and siphon it into a health retirement account. The account is owned by the employee after five years of employment.


    The Consumer Choice Plan features two deductibles separated by a health reimbursement account, which is funded and owned by the company to pay for individual employee health expenses.


    For individuals, the first deductible is just $250. After that deductible is met, employees will use the $1,000 from the company-funded health reimbursement arrangement to pay for care. After that $1,000 is spent, employees must pay a second deductible of $750. Meanwhile, preventive care is covered 100 percent and prescriptions are covered at 70 percent of cost after a $50 deductible.


    Though the secondary deductible is itself a new way of looking at these plans, things get really interesting if money remains in the account at the end of the year. This is when the company automatically siphons a portion of the health reimbursement account into a company-owned retiree health account and then applies the rest to next year’s deductible. With a twist, of course.


    For individual plans, only $500 of the money left over at the end of each year can be used to pay for next year’s deductible. The rest goes into a health retirement account.
“If you don’t spend it you don’t lose it,” Coogan says. But, he adds, “Some of it has to go to pay for retiree medical.”


    For example, if none of the $1,000 CNH originally contributed is used, that rolls over to next year’s accounts. Of the $1,000, $500 is put toward next year’s $1,000 deductible and the rest is put into a health retirement account that earns interest and can be owned by the employee after five years.


    The reasons for designing the plan in this way are manifold. One is to counter an argument that is being heard with increasing frequency: Consumers are no longer price conscious once they build up an HSA that is larger than the deductible. Many say this is nonsense, since an HSA is real money owned by individuals. But at CNH, no matter what the savings habits of employees, each year they will have to pay out of pocket for a portion of their health care.


    “It keeps employees aware of the cost,” Coogan says. “Otherwise you are almost back to providing first-dollar coverage.”


    By tailoring the Consumer Choice Plan this way, the plan does not meet the federal guidelines for an HSA.


    The Consumer Choice Savings Plan, on the other hand, has a $2,200 deductible for single coverage, making it eligible by law for an HSA. The idea behind this plan is that employees who are near retirement can fund the HSA themselves and combine those savings with the leftover money in the company-funded HRA. This plan attracted 4 percent of participants. Forty percent of participants enrolled in the Consumer Choice Plan.


    The company is calling the changes a success. Its projected cost increase for 2007 is 3 percent. Critics have said these plans are overly complicated, but Kesler says constant communication with employees made the transition easy.


    “Communication is key in rolling this out,” she says. “And it will continue to be important.”

Workforce Management, April 9, 2007, p. 29 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on April 13, 2007July 10, 2018

Melding Managed Care and Health Care Consumerism

New York Life Insurance Co. is a good example of an employer that responded to the limitations of conventional high-deductible plans by tailoring a more customized health benefit that combines elements of managed care and consumer-driven plans.


    The company, based in New York, has a paternalistic streak, says Maria Mauceri, a vice president and actuary. In keeping with New York Life’s motto, “The company you keep,” its approximately 8,400 employees tend to work there for a lifetime and have come to expect the company to handle all of their health care needs.


    Facing 10.5 percent increases in health care costs, New York Life decided in 2005 to change its benefit design to make employees more sensitive to cost. With the help of consultancy Towers Perrin, New York Life created four plans that went into effect in January.


    The most familiar option to employees is a plan that uses a health maintenance organization and covers 90 percent of health care costs until the employee hits a $3,000 out-of-pocket maximum—after which health care is covered 100 percent. (The prescription drug plan is separate and requires co-pays.) On the other end of the spectrum is a high-deductible plan with a health savings account. The deductible is $1,150.


    In the middle are the two hybrid plans, one that uses an HMO and another that accesses a PPO network. Each has two deductibles separated by a health reimbursement account.


    “We chose HRAs to give us the kind of flexibility we needed,” Mauceri says.


    For the HMO plan, the first deductible is $100, followed by an HRA that pays for the next $1,000 in charges, after which the employee faces a second deductible. This one is $500. The PPO plan is similar, except the first deductible is $250, the health reimbursement covers the next $750, and the second deductible is $750. All the plans have $3,000 out-of-pocket maximums for individuals.


    Mauceri says the co-insurance and deductibles force employees to begin to think about how much they are spending on health care.


    “Certainly the idea of personal responsibility worked well with senior management,” she says. Programs like disease management and wellness programs were of little interest.


    A portion of the unspent reimbursement account can roll over into a retirement health care account. Some can be put toward next year’s deductible, but not all.


    “What we’re trying to avoid is someone who would have so much money in their HRA they wouldn’t have a deductible,” Mauceri says.


    A portion of savings that employees accumulate will eventually be available to pay for their part of retiree health benefits that New York Life employees receive if they are older than 55 and have 10 years of employment. If they don’t retire with the company, they don’t get a penny of their HRA retirement accounts. Given these restrictions, 40 percent of employees went with the HMO plan with no deductible. Thirty-eight percent of employees went with the HMO plan with an HRA.


    New York Life projects savings of as much as 8.5 percent. It’s not a huge drop, but Mauceri says the goal was to make people sensitive to cost.


    “We were looking for something we could put in place so we don’t have to change plans every year. This has staying power for multiple years.”


Workforce Management, April 9, 2007, p. 30 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on April 13, 2007July 10, 2018

Twists in the Road to True Consumer-Driven Health Care

The head of human resources at Wendy’s International earned $1.3 million last year and easily paid the $2,700 deductible on his health insurance without having to dip into his health savings account.


    A senior manager at American Express, on the other hand, whose income is more than $100,000, had an illness early last year that forced her to spend all of her health savings by midyear.


    And the director of a substance abuse program for Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, who makes slightly more than $50,000 a year, says he’s saved $2,400 in premiums in the 18 months since his employer switched to a high-deductible health plan. His savings on premiums, though, have not translated into much for his HSA. A diabetic, he tends to burn through his $2,200 deductible and has banked $600 in his HSA.


    Three different employees from three large employers; each has a unique story of what it’s like to be a health care consumer, how health care has changed in recent years, and how far the industry has to go before it is truly consumer-driven.


    They also are health care consumers who spend at least $1,100 of their own money before being covered by health insurance provided by their employers. Each employer has made a high-deductible health plan with an HSA a central feature of its benefits.


    The three employees are among the first of the estimated 4.5 million people who have high-deductible health plans that are eligible to open HSAs, according to a recent study by the American Association of Preferred Provider Organizations. The association estimates that about 5.5 million people have plans tied to health reimbursement arrangements, another kind of vehicle for health care saving.


    Congress and President Bush created HSAs in 2003 for people with high-deductible health plans, when health care costs were increasing 13 percent annually. The goal was to turn health care patients into health care consumers. Since then, consumerism has become a buzzword whose definition, like the plans themselves, has evolved to meet the changing demands of the health care marketplace and the shifting understanding of how people manage their health.


    At its inception, consumerism was a vision based on the belief that people faced with the choice of spending their own money or saving it in an interest-earning account would purchase health care more wisely. The result would be a health care market where consumers make rational decisions based on cost, quality and an incentive to save money. This would bring overall health costs down.


    The theory of consumerism, however, is coming up against the realities of a marketplace that has just started changing to meet the demands of health care consumers. Cost and quality information about medical providers exists piecemeal, but it is often based on estimates, not actual costs. Frustrated with the strictures of the federal law governing HSAs, some health benefits managers are designing their own health plans that combine elements of consumerism with coverage for services like prescription drugs and doctor visits.



If a patient has 30 minutes to manage their care, I think we want them to think about how to best manage their diabetes, not whether their health claim will get paid.”
–David Cochran, senior vice president of strategic development, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care


   “Two years ago, most people were selling the theory of consumerism,” says Chris Calvert, vice president and senior health consultant at Sib¬son Consulting. “Now people are willing to say, ‘This is a process and it’s hard for employees and hard for patients, but we’re evolving and learning together.’ “


‘I felt empowered’
   
The process of moving from theory to reality began for employees at Wendy’s International in 2005, when the Dublin, Ohio-based company switched 9,000 of its workers to high-deductible health plans with HSAs. Since then, Wendy’s premiums have been flat, says Jeff Cava, the company’s head of human resources. Nationally, health care premium increases are around 8.5 percent, more than twice the rate of inflation.


    But it wasn’t until last year that Cava had an opportunity to be a health care consumer and get a sense of what his employees were experiencing. Cava, 55, was vacationing at his second home in Winter Park, Colorado, bucking logs for firewood, when he ripped ligaments in his left shoulder while trying to lift a felled tree. Back home in Ohio he saw two specialists and, with the aid of a simple doctor ratings chart on UnitedHealth Group’s Web site, chose a doctor in his network. The company picked up 90 percent of the cost after he met the $2,700 deductible and until he reached a $4,000 out-of-pocket limit.


    Several weeks after the surgery, he received a bill explaining his benefits and what he owed.


    “I chose to pay out of my bank account rather than use my health savings account,” he says. “I have a lot of discretionary income, and at my age I’d rather let my HSA build up tax free and use it for retirement.”


   He sent his health insurer a check and that was the end of it.


    “I felt empowered [making health care decisions] because it was my money; I was writing the check,” Cava says.


    While acknowledging that cost was less of an issue because of his income, he says the company contributes to HSAs up to 60 percent of the deductible and that by the end of the year, most employees have saved money.


What’s the bill?
   Being a health care consumer was much more difficult for the American Express manager. She became sick early last year just after her company switched to a high-deductible health plan with an HSA. The marketing manager, who requested anonymity because she is not authorized to speak to the media, faced a number of health issues that forced her to visit several doctors and hospitals, as well as a blood lab.


    Among her unanticipated ailments was a pulmonary embolism that formed as a blood clot in her calf and migrated to her lung. In May 2006 she spent several days in the hospital, and by midyear she had exhausted her HSA for the year. Since she makes more than $100,000, dipping into her personal savings account would not have been a problem. What frustrated her, though, was the difficulty she had paying her bills from her HSA.


    “I have an American Express card that I use to make payments out of the account,” she says. “The challenge is, a lot of providers don’t take American Express right now.”


    Figuring out how much to pay for health care has never been easy. But since most doctors do nothing more than charge for co-pays, they are not equipped to tell patients exactly how much they owe at the time of a visit. Nearly all claims must first be adjudicated by a health insurer, which in turn dictates how much a consumer must pay. This makes it harder for people to pay with a health savings debit card at the point of service.


    “Real-time adjudication is quite a ways off,” Calvert says. Current systems, like those created by American Express and used by some doctors, can estimate the owed cost and then automatically deduct it when the claim gets adjudicated. Most doctors periodically settle their claims in large batches.


    “We’re working with an industry that is gradually evolving,” says Mark Keck, a vice president for new product development, health care, at American Express.


    The American Express manager eventually paid with the checks that came as part of her HSA. But it took about 10 hours on the phone—at one point she had to use a day off—to figure out exactly how much she owed and to whom. She often received bills that did not differentiate between what her costs totaled and how much she owed. She eventually received a letter saying an unpaid bill was going to a collection agency, which worried her.


    “Because it was my credit in my name, it became my issue,” she says. “If I hadn’t monitored those kinds of bills, I would have ended up getting a hit on my credit report, which would have been awful.”


    Turning patients into health care consumers inevitably forces them to think more about the cost of health care, especially since they are responsible for paying for it. But David Cochran, senior vice president of strategic development for Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, an insurer in Wellesley, Massachusetts, says navigating an insurer’s bureaucracy may leave consumers with no time to manage their health.



“I felt empowered [making health care decisions] because it was my money;
I was writing the check.”
–Jeff Cava, Wendy’s International

    “To make them more concerned because they are getting more forms they don’t know what to do with is not helping them make better [health care] choices,” he says. “It’s just confusing them.”


    Cochran, a doctor trained in internal medicine, uses the example of a diabetic to make his point. It’s vital, he says, that a diabetic understand how important it is to have low cholesterol, manage blood sugar levels and see a doctor regularly.


    “If a patient has 30 minutes to manage their care, I think we want them to think about how to best manage their diabetes, not whether their health claim will get paid,” he says.


    The financial worry that accompanies high-deductible plans is compounded when employees run out of money in their HSA. American Express, like other financial institutions, provides a credit line that turns health savings debit cards into credit cards. (Interest accrues after a claim is settled.) The credit line is intended to allow people to pay for medical services before they have a chance to build up savings in their accounts.


    “Offering credit is a way to ease that transition, especially in the early days when there is not a lot of money in the accounts,” Keck says.


    The American Express employee, however, is less enthusiastic.


    “I don’t really believe in paying interest on my health care,” she says.


Hybrid approach
   
What some employers have begun to realize is that they can design health plans that encourage people to make cost-effective health care decisions by blending elements of consumerism—high deductibles and financial accounts—with aspects of coverage that employees have used in the past. The transition can be easier, benefits managers say, and employees may be more enthusiastic about the change.


    For example, CNH Case New Holland and New York Life Insurance Co., with the help of human resources consulting firm Towers Perrin, redesigned their health benefit plans to include two deductibles: a low deductible followed by an employer-funded health reimbursement account that was then followed by a higher deductible. The goal is to expose employers to consumerism while also covering most of the first $1,000 of health care.


    For the past four years, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has been offering employees a high-deductible plan that covers doctor visits and prescription drugs. The idea is that superfluous charges are often incurred through unnecessary or redundant tests—MRIs, blood tests—whereas the most necessary and useful expenditures are on preventive medicine and regular visits to a doctor, Cochran says. Employees prefer this plan, and 45 percent have signed up for it, he says.


    The upshot of tailoring a plan to the needs of a particular employee population is that the plan might not meet the guidelines that make it eligible for an HSA. This may be one reason why the number of people who are eligible to open HSAs has not grown as quickly as some projected.


    Some health care experts argue that the federal law governing HSAs should be flexible enough so that treatment that is considered preventive is based on an individual’s personal health needs.


    Current law does allow certain types of preventive medicine to be covered before the deductible. For example, insurance can cover such drugs as cholesterol-lowering statins or ACE inhibitors, which are used to prevent the reoccurrence of a heart attack, before the deductible is met. These drugs, however, are not covered pre-deductible to treat an existing illness, injury or condition. (Employers and health insurers are allowed to cover preventive medicine under laws set up for HSAs, but are not required to do so.)


    Insurance companies and employers who fund their health insurance themselves are left to interpret Internal Revenue Service rulings to determine what they will cover. Some health plans for large employers—Aetna and Cigna, for example—cover diabetes medicines pre-deductible. Premera Blue Cross, which is based near Seattle, has determined, like other plans, that diabetes management medicines are not covered because they treat an existing illness.


    The result is that in many cases people do not have pre-deductible coverage for medicine they have been identified as needing, says Lonny Reisman, CEO of ActiveHealth Management, a disease management company owned by Aetna.


    “We have the capacity to identify what is essential at the individual member level, and those essential therapies ought to be offered by bypassing the deductible,” he says.


    Making such a change universal would go a long way toward countering the criticism that high-deductible plans with HSAs help the healthy and rich save for retirement, but not the sick and poor, who are more likely to use the money for current health care needs.


Struggling to save
   
If the therapies and doctor visits that are required to manage diabetes were covered pre-deductible, Al Meginniss, the director of a substance abuse program with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, would save about $1,100 every year. That’s about half his $2,200 family deductible. The social service organization, which employs about 2,000 people, switched to a high-deductible plan with an HSA in July 2005. Meginniss prefers having a deductible and saving on the premiums that get deducted from his paycheck.


    Even if Meginniss saved all he could under the current law, it still might not be enough to retire comfortably. If he saved the maximum amount annually—$2,850—and earned, for example, 7 percent interest, he would still save only $155,000 in 20 years.


    Estimates of how much employees will need to pay for retiree health care costs vary and depend largely on circumstance. Fidelity Investments estimates that a couple retiring today would need $215,000 to pay for health care not covered by Medicare. The Employee Benefits Research Institute puts that number higher, at $295,000. In twenty years, however, that number is likely to be much higher if health care costs continue to grow at twice the rate of inflation.


    Meginniss, 56, stoically accepts the fact that he will probably not be able to build up a big nest egg for retiree health care. “I think at this point in my life it’s more of a break-even proposition,” he says.


    Without the high-deductible health plan, Meginniss’ employer probably wouldn’t have been able to offer health benefits, he says. The switch has taught him to be a better health care consumer.


    Not long ago, he went to see a doctor for an ache in his knee. After spending thousands of dollars on doctor visits, tests and specialized injections, he got tired of wasting his money. When his doctor suggested physical therapy, Meginniss got a second opinion from a doctor who told him to try an over-the-counter pain medication. Ever since, he’s been taking Aleve, the nonprescription anti-
inflammatory pain medication.


    “Before I might have gone along with the ride and not even question it,” he says. “But since this is my money, it made me look at it and say, ‘What am I going to do here?’ ”


Workforce Management, April 9, 2007, p. 26-30 — Subscribe Now!

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 … 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