Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on May 30, 2006July 10, 2018

Time Is the Best Medicine in Making the Switch to Consumer-driven Health Coverage

In the summer of 2002 John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, took a long walk in the woods to clear his head. Among the issues foremost on his mind was his company’s rising health care costs.


    Four and a half months later, in October, Mackey completed the 2,175-mile Appalachian Trail; he also decided that beginning January 2003, Whole Foods would become one of the first large employers to switch exclusively to a high-deductible health plan. For Mackey, a libertarian who believes strongly in individual responsibility, the new plan represented the best way to force employees to be mindful, cost-conscious health care consumers.


    But the transition was not wrinkle-free. Despite a short but intensive campaign by Mackey to educate employees about the pending change and its rationale, the top-down decision ran counter to Whole Foods’ democratic culture, upsetting employees who regularly vote on company policy, from how to display produce to whether to hire someone in a store.


    “The change was going to happen anyway, which was a little challenging because that does not go with the Whole Foods Market philosophy of having a shared stake,” says Amy Schaefer, a company spokeswoman. “But because the plan had to be implemented so quickly, that’s the way it was.”


    The effort to change health plans provided an intense lesson for Whole Foods, which, along with Wendy’s International and Textron, was among the first companies to make high-deductible health plans their only health care offering: How a company transitions to a new plan is as important as making the change.


    Analysts say large employers have learned from the experience of others in recent years and, as a result, are taking longer between when they decide to drop all other health plans in favor of a high-deductible plan and actually implementing the change. A longer time frame may help change employees from passive consumers of medicine to active consumers of their health care.


    “For everybody, it’s a change from the traditional plan,” says Tom Billet, a senior benefits consultant with Watson Wyatt. “It’s not easy. For the employee, it requires more thought and research. But that’s the idea.”


    Enrollment in high-deductible plans is growing rapidly. UnitedHealth Group, for example, says it experienced an 80 percent year-over-year increase in the number of businesses offering consumer-directed health plans beginning in 2006, with 11 percent of its large employers making it their only health care plan.


    “We’re seeing that mostly the large companies, those with over 2,000 employees, are looking at a year of just education before throwing them into a full-blown CDH model,” says Amit Gupta, president of Fiserv Health CareGain, a technology company that helps design consumer-directed health care programs.


    Executives at Deere & Co., the company known for its John Deere farm equipment, told its 13,500 U.S.-based nonunionized employees last July that the company would be abandoning its current health plan in favor of high deductibles and health savings accounts partially funded by the company. The news was not a complete a surprise since the company’s CEO, Robert Lane, has been a staunch supporter of President Bush’s effort to expand the tax benefits of the accounts.


    What was noteworthy, however, was the company’s time frame for making the change: Rather than enrolling at the next opportunity, in January 2006, the company said it would make the wholesale switch in January 2007, 18 months after its initial announcement.


    “If you give them 60 days’ warning, they can’t possibly imagine how they’re going to survive,” says Duane Olson, Deere’s benefits manager. “Eighteen months—that’s a catalyst, isn’t it? Once it costs you money, what do you do? You try to figure out ‘What are my benefits?’ What is it going to cost me? What are my choices?’ Now people are asking doctors what their costs are.”


Reviving incentives
    The shift in time frames is due, in part, to disenchantment with high-deductible plans among employees, according to a survey published last year by McKinsey & Co. The survey found that 56 percent of employees whose companies had switched to a consumer-directed plan were less satisfied with their health insurance. Employers, meanwhile, have raved about the cost savings they’ve attained by making the switch.


    To bridge this satisfaction divide, large companies are bringing back wellness and preventive programs that may have failed in the past, Gupta says. “Getting people more engaged in incentives is growing because employers want to get people used to the idea of getting rewarded for healthy behavior.”


    Five years ago Deere canceled an employee assistance program because only six-tenths of 1 percent of employees used the free financial, counseling, and child and elder care services the company offered. As part of the transition to a high-deductible plan, the company brought back the program with expectations that 8 percent to 10 percent of employees would use it.


    “I’ve had more employees tell me that this new plan is the final catalyst: ‘If I keep smoking it’s going to cost me money,’ ” Olson says.


    Deere has supported these programs with online learning modules, newsletters and meetings open to workers and their spouses.


    Other common incentives, Gupta says, include deductions in premiums for nonsmokers or bonuses for those who sign up for wellness programs with the intent of encouraging people to use separate accounts to pay for health services. Such programs, like high-deductible health plans, encourage people to make use of free preventive medicine that could eventually help them keep their own health care costs to a minimum.


    Like other companies offering high-deductible plans, Deere will offer 100 percent coverage for all preventive health care, as defined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That includes screenings for common cancers, heart and vascular disease, a variety of infectious diseases, depression and drug abuse, diabetes and a host of other common diseases that are more costly to treat than prevent.


Getting unions aboard
    It is especially important for Deere to make the transition to high-deductible health care. The company would like to enroll its 8,700 unionized employees in the same health plan when their contracts are up for renewal in 2009. Union workers are currently enrolled in a plan with no premium and a small co-pay for visits to the doctor and prescription drugs.


    Bobby Garlan, a vice president of Local 74 of the United Auto Workers in Ottumwa, Iowa, says the possibility of a change in health plan has not yet been discussed, but that any change would be of great concern to his members. Though UAW officials say Deere has traditionally enjoyed good relations with its labor force, the stakes for a smooth change are nonetheless higher for companies with unionized employees. For both employee and employer, the change to a radical new health plan, Olson says, “can’t be a leap of faith. There’s too much at stake.”


    This was a point executives at Whole Foods quickly learned from their employees. After making the change to a high-deductible plan in January 2003, Mackey and his executives arranged for a companywide referendum on their entire benefits package, including whether to continue using a high-deductible plan.


    “The whole concept of working at Whole Foods is about empowerment,” says Amy Moore, the company’s benefits manager. “I think in this case they felt employees needed to have their input heard too.”


    Executives once again explained the rationale for the plan. It went something like this: Whole Foods had quickly grown to become the world’s largest natural foods supermarket chain, but its health care costs had grown faster.


    Four out of 10 employees chose to forgo the company’s health care plan, mainly because they were young (the average employee age at Whole Foods is 36) and healthy.


    This meant that those who regularly used health care signed up. That group included older employees or those with families, and, of course, employees with chronic illnesses. The result was that the healthy contributed little to the company’s health care pool of money, while the sick spent regardless of cost. The rising costs threatened other core company benefits, like deep discounts on food.


    In October 2003, employees passed the consumer-directed plan by a wide margin, Moore says. That year, medical-claim costs dropped 13 percent and about 90 percent of employees had money left over in their health reimbursement accounts. Hospital admissions dropped 22 percent. Since then, health care cost increases for the company have slowed to a pace below national rates, which show growth of 8 percent to10 percent annually. The slowed pace comes despite the company’s explosive expansion to 39,000 employees, up from 24,100 in 2002, Moore says.


    The company continues to tweak its plan to meet the needs of employees. This month, Whole Foods began to offer employees disease management programs for people with diabetes, cardiac issues and asthma. The programs are not unlike those that John Deere recently brought back.


    “If you want people to be smart consumers, you need to give them the tools and resources to do it,” Moore says.


    The change in plan, and the company’s response to its employees, seems to be working. Whole Foods employees recently voted to keep their consumer-directed plan as the plan of choice. They will vote again in 2009.


Workforce Management, May 22, 2006, p. 1, 33-34 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 30, 2006July 10, 2018

0606_Manpower R&S

Challenge


W


hen Visteon Corporation spun off from former parent Ford Motor Co. in 2000, the tier-one automotive engineering and systems provider had to decide how it wanted to handle employee recruiting.


At the time, Visteon had no specialized recruiting professionals and its cycle time for new hires averaged more than 70 days. The company’s options were to build a recruiting team from the ground up or outsource the non-core recruiting function.


Solution


Visteon partnered with Manpower’s Resource Consulting Group (now Manpower Business Solutions) to manage its professional employee recruitment process, including candidate sourcing, screening, hiring and on-boarding at approximately 25 U.S. locations. This solution, now known as Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO), was ahead of its time just six years ago.


One of the most important steps in achieving a successful RPO relationship is the integration of RPO processes into the existing business structure and culture. With that in mind, Manpower and Visteon set out to make RPO a seamless extension of the organization.


A team of 15 people was selected to reside at the Visteon corporate offices. The group included specialty recruiters in finance and engineering to source, identify and evaluate candidate talent; staffing consultants who interface with Visteon hiring managers and human resources professionals to handle candidate offers; and placement coordinators who manage new hire on-boarding.


Initially, the team was charged with managing direct hires for the product development group, which consisted mainly of engineers, and staff groups that included human resources and finance professionals. Within 18 months, hiring for manufacturing positions was added to the RPO program. At the three-year mark, growth continued with the addition of hourly and salaried hiring for new plant launches and management of the program that assists current Visteon employees seeking other positions within the organization. After four years, the program was extended again, and Manpower Business Solutions started working with Visteon to redeploy talent within Visteon when program launches came to an end or positions were eliminated.


Continued success and improvements resulted in further expansion for the program, including a targeted, pilot hiring program in Mexico as a means to possibly expand the level of U.S. services into that country. Today, the RPO team supports Visteon in virtually all hiring, including specialty recruiting needs, giving it a capacity of about 1,000 internal and external placements annually.


Until an employee’s first day, Manpower Business Solutions, through the RPO program, serves as the face of the automotive supplier by overseeing sourcing and talent reviews; scheduling interviews; managing offers; handling post-offer processing, and all other communication and interaction with candidates.


In addition to the hiring programs, Manpower Business Solutions continues to assist Visteon in redeploying talent within Visteon. Manpower Business Solutions also manages an employee voluntary resignation/retirement process that ensures smooth transitions from Visteon as well as recovering any company assets held by departing employees.


Results


With its innovative HR strategies and process management expertise, the RPO program has earned high praise from Visteon by delivering performance improvement, cost savings, workforce diversity and organizational flexibility.


Not only does Manpower Business Solutions score well on service evaluations from hiring managers, but metrics also show that the programs are good for Visteon’s business.


As an end-to-end program, RPO has:


  • Reduced cycle time-to-hire from 74 days to 27 days.
  • Built candidate retention at 90 days to more than 99 percent.
  • Hired nearly 5,000 people to date.
  • Consistently scored “exceeds expectations” on new hire and customer satisfaction surveys.

In May 2006, Manpower Business Solutions received the Visteon Important Partner award in recognition of its high level of supplier performance.


As the Visteon and Manpower Business Solutions partnership enters its sixth year, the RPO program continues to increase service offerings, streamline processes and achieve hard-dollar cost savings. Meanwhile, Visteon points to the RPO program as a benchmark for HR vendors providing outsourced services.

Posted on May 30, 2006July 10, 2018

Putnam Surveys Open Employee Dialogue

It takes guts for a CEO to conduct a first-ever employee survey just months after the company he’s just taken over has been named in SEC and state regulatory investigations.


    In May 2004, seven months after becoming CEO, that’s exactly what Charles “Ed” Haldeman did.


    Haldeman wants employees to feel comfortable providing feedback on what they like and don’t like. Too often companies conduct surveys for the sake of doing them, but Putnam’s approach shows what can come if companies use surveys as a starting point for dialogue with their employees.


    The online survey found that employees who didn’t directly interact with Haldeman didn’t feel there was the open culture that he was trying to create.


    Haldeman met with Putnam’s human resources team to discuss what to do.


    “Ed made it clear that he wanted the employees’ voices embedded into all of the human resources programs,” says Richard Tibbetts, a managing director and chief of human resources.


    For example, employees suggested creating an Employee Advisory Council. Set up in October 2004, the group of 12 employees meets with Haldeman four times a year.


    One issue that the council brought up was Putnam’s parental leave policy. The policy allowed for 12 weeks of paid time off for executives, but only six to eight weeks for the rest of Putnam’s employees. Putnam responded immediately to the issue, and by January 2005 the firm had changed the policy so that all employees now get 12 weeks off.



“We want to ensure that the employees’ voices are not just being heard, but being responded to.”
 –Richard Tibbetts,
chief of human resources

    Another concern that employees voiced was that Putnam wasn’t doing enough to create a diverse workforce. Haldeman met with a number of employees, including Thalia Meehan, managing director and team leader for tax-exempt research, and Richard Robie, chief administrative officer, to discuss this.


    Out of that meeting came the creation of the Diversity Advisory Council, a group of 30 people, including two members of Putnam’s executive board.


    Haldeman meets quarterly with the Diversity Advisory Council and with the Women’s Leadership Forum, a group of 12 female employees.


    Based on feedback from the council, Putnam offered its first diversity training session in November. The two-hour program focused on raising awareness of what employees can do to promote a culture welcoming of minorities and women. More than half of the firm’s 3,000 employees attended.


    Also, in response to a request from the council, Putnam published a new recruiting policy in the fall. In it, the company promised to make its best effort to look at a diverse set of candidates.


    Putnam is no longer recruiting only at Ivy League schools and top business programs, widening its scope to include several local schools, such as Boston University and Dean College.


    Over the past five years, the percentage of women and minorities in vice president and senior vice president positions has increased 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively.


    But the real test of how well the company is keeping its communication promises is being judged now. Putnam just completed its second all-employee survey and is reviewing the results.


    “We want to ensure that the employees’ voices are not just being heard, but being responded to,” Tibbetts says.


Workforce Management, May 22, 2006, p. 21 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 26, 2006July 10, 2018

2006 Workstream User Conference

Event: 2006 Workstream User Conference, May 23-24, San Francisco Hilton Financial District, San Francisco


Conference Info: For more information about Workstream, go to Workstream.com


Day 1: Tuesday, May 23, 2006


Say goodbye to software: Workstream, which specializes in software that manages what’s called the “employee lifecycle,” from recruiting through retirement, is one of several HR technology companies that delivers its product via the Web, using the “software as a service” model. And so it should come as no surprise that the conference’s keynote speaker, Tim Chou, is the author of the book The End of Software (2004). Chou, a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, was most recently president of Oracle on Demand, said to be the fastest-growing business inside the company.


In his book, and in his keynote, Chou argues that the cost of maintaining traditional software is sky high for end users and threatens to kill off a company’s ability to buy new products (and for software companies to sell them). He estimates that 75 percent of the corporate IT dollar is spent just managing software systems. Chou says that advances in technology over the past 30 years have driven the cost of computer hardware down by a factor of 1,000. That advance, he says, “has been limited by physics and manufacturing technology.” The shift to software-as-a-service technology “represents the same shift in software technology—only it’s not limited by physics. The tide is rising—the only debate is the rate.”


Take the “engagement IQ” quiz: In another session, Susan Haslett of Towers Perrin posed interesting questions about the level of employee engagement with their companies. See how you do:


1) Have U.S. employee engagement levels moved up or down since 2003?


2) There is a strong demonstrated link between employee engagement and:


  • Workforce retention
  • Workforce performance (quality, cost management, customer service)
  • Company financial performance

3) The No. 1 global driver of employee engagement in Towers Perrin’s 2005 study relates to which area?


  • Senior leadership and frontline manager effectiveness
  • Learning and development opportunities
  • Fairness in determining pay

4) Which country has the highest percentage of highly engaged employees? Which has the lowest?
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, U.K., U.S.

Ready for the answers?


  1. Down
  2. All of the above
  3. Learning and development opportunities
  4. Mexico=40 percent of employees highly engaged; Japan=2 percent of employees highly engaged.

By the way, Haslett said engagement for U.S. workers was somewhere in the middle of the pack, at 15 percent to 20 percent of U.S. workers being highly engaged.


–Carroll Lachnit





 

Posted on May 25, 2006November 8, 2022

HR’s New Opportunity Removing Barriers to Productivity

Every organization has barriers to productivity, but few organizations address them, despite an almost daily challenge to increase productivity. With intense international competition, everyone is facing the challenge of producing more, at a higher level of quality and at a lower cost. The human resources function has tried using compensation to motivate, offered new types of training and even tied hiring and internal transfers and promotions to competency profiles. But no matter what gets tried, little changes.

Enter a new approach, one that is gaining acceptance and one in which HR accepts responsibility for identifying and removing barriers to productivity. It’s a solution that produces real results almost immediately. And it makes HR look proactive, line managers look sincere and the organization compassionate.

State government leading the way? The seminal work and inspiration for this column came from what might seem an unexpected source: the North Carolina Office of State Personnel. It is doing something most citizens would applaud, but what many would consider impossible: building a performance culture within state government. Part of that “big hairy audacious goal,” as Built to Last put it, includes identifying and reducing barriers to employee productivity. Not only is the approach proving effective, it is doing so in an environment well known for conservatism and having a “that’ll never work here” attitude.

If you have read Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat, or any business magazine in the past six months, you should already be aware that globalization is forcing many organizations to find new ways to increase productivity just so that they can remain viable. Quite often internal brainstorming sessions focus on outsourcing manufacturing, re-engineering the supply chain or reorganizing product development. But these rarely consider what HR can do. No one seems to be asking, “What could have more impact than helping managers identify and then reduce barriers to employee productivity?” It’s an opportunity not only to cut costs, but also to reduce errors, increase customer satisfaction, cut time-to-market and, yes, increase profits.

This approach offers HR a unique opportunity to step up in the organization and take the lead in developing tools and capabilities to identify and strike down barriers that keep employees from doing their very best. From the employee standpoint, reducing productivity barriers has additional benefits: It helps cut frustration levels, builds morale and decreases the causes of turnover.

Identifying barriers to productivity: The Office of State Personnel in North Carolina, working with the North Carolina Office of Commissioner of Banks, proposed an innovative and simple way to identify things that keep employees from being as productive as they could be. They came right out and asked them.

The process started when the HR Design Team, a consulting group within the Office of State Personnel, devised an online survey that asked employees a series of questions that would help them list the barriers to their productivity, and any potential people-related problems that might prevent them and the organization from achieving their mission and business goals. Employees were promised anonymity, but the form did ask them to identify themselves so that the design team could identify whether or not a barrier was present across the whole organization, or only in specific units.

Those of you opting to try this approach might devise a form that does the following:

  • Makes a statement to the effect of “We need your help! Will you help us identify barriers to your productivity and job ‘frustrators’ that inhibit you, so that we can improve your work environment?”
  • Provides examples of what you mean by “barriers to productivity” on the form because employees are not used to being asked such questions and many will not grasp the concept right away.
  • Asks about barriers to increasing output volume that they face on a daily basis.
  • Asks about barriers to increasing quality.
  • Asks about barriers to innovation and continuous improvement.
  • Asks about how prevalent the barrier is and how the employee might recommend the organization remove it.

In North Carolina, the design team had the Commissioner of Banks write what can only be described as an impassioned letter, asking employees to be brutally honest. In addition, he offered to make himself and his leadership team available to help employees walk through their thinking. Within a week, more than 170 barriers and potential problems had been submitted. The team asked employees to identify the issue, describe it, rank it in terms of its impact and frequency of occurrence, and then to provide their view of the characteristics of an optimal solution. Barriers included such things as lack of communication, weak support for field staff and job profiles that saddled employees with activities not related to their core strengths.

This process did something unique, and something few HR programs do. It came at the problem from the employees’ perspective. When it comes to an organization’s ability to hire, develop, motivate and retain staff, managing to employee perception is critical. An organization, after all, makes decisions based on employees’ perceptions, not that of managers. In a very short period of time, this process centered on at least 170 things that employees identified as barrier to their increasing productivity. If the organization were to remove just a few of those stumbling blocks, it stands to reason that employees would have fewer excuses for not exceeding expectations. That alone makes this process worth it. But in North Carolina, this process also helped employees realize that they can take an active role in making the Office of the Commissioner of Banks a great place to work.

The real work–sitting down with line managers and devising approaches to remove the barriers–still lies in front of the design team. But the hardest part is over. Although managers will implement the solutions, HR will play a vital role in designing, developing and continually improving the response of management to productivity barriers.

A similar approach in the hotel industry: MGM Grand, the largest hotel/casino in the world, implemented a similar approach. Employees were invited to participate in focus groups to discuss the results of a previous survey. That instrument covered barriers related to the work environment, management practices, rewards and recognition, and career opportunities. During the focus groups, employees were asked probative questions to discover perceptions about organizational issues that limit MGM Grand’s efforts to become the best employer in Las Vegas. Following the focus groups, survey results and focus group comments were sorted into categories and organizational departments. Within months, a majority of the issues identified had been acted on and resolved or improved. The remaining issues require longer-term planning and capital allocations and are currently being addressed. Incidentally, the process was so successful that the CEO agreed that the entire process will be repeated each year.

Action steps you should take: The first action step is to get off the sidelines and announce that HR is accepting responsibility for identifying and resolving barriers to employee productivity. Then develop a process to identify barriers that fits the organization’s culture and provides employees with the confidence to come forward with what they see. Focus the process initially on things that can have immediate impact. That way, everyone from the CEO on down will see the immediate and measurable results and attribute the success to HR. There you have it: a chance to become a corporate hero.

Workforce Management, May 22, 2006, p. 42 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 25, 2006July 10, 2018

Under-reporting Hours Doesn’t Alter Exempt Status

Twenty-four salaried employees at Detroit Edison claimed that they were not paid on a salary basis and, hence, were eligible for overtime pay. Eventually, 383 employees signed the complaint. The plaintiffs identified more than 40 occasions over six and a half years when some exempt employees did not receive one-twenty-sixth of their annual salary during a particular biweekly pay period.

    Detroit Edison’s exempt employees were guaranteed to receive one-twenty-sixth of their set annual salary each biweekly pay period, provided that they input at least 40 hours per week into the payroll system. They were allowed to report hours in excess of the hours they actually worked in order to input sufficient hours to generate their full predetermined amount each pay period. However, employees could receive less than their full salary if they accidentally reported less than 40 hours per week. Detroit Edison also had a system for correcting such errors.


    The trial court decided, and the appellate court agreed, that as long as employees regularly received one-twenty-sixth of their annual salary each biweekly pay period, and no deductions were made other than those expressly permitted by law, tracking or accounting of actual hours worked by exempt employees did not violate the salary basis test. Docking employees for a time-entry error did not call into the question the company’s intention to pay them on a salary basis. Hence, no overtime was owed. Acs v. Detroit Edison Co., 6th Cir., No. 05-1042 (4/14/06).


    Impact: Employers should know that so long as salaried employees receive the appropriate portion of their salary each pay period, requiring the accounting of actual hours worked does not affect their exempt status.


Workforce Management, May 22, 2006, p. 11 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 24, 2006July 10, 2018

Work-site Raids Fail to Appease Conservatives

A high-profile effort by the Department of Homeland Security to crack down on businesses that employ undocumented workers has failed to mollify a House conservative who plays a role in immigration policy. And that response signals the potential difficulty Congress faces in passing reform this year.


From April 19 through May 9, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of DHS, arrested owners and executives of three companies across the country. In what ICE called the biggest raid in history, it arrested 1,187 illegal immigrant employees of IFCO Systems North America Inc., a Houston pallet manufacturer.


Those results don’t impress Rep. John Hostettler, R-Indiana, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims. Hostettler criticizes the Bush administration for failing to enforce existing immigration laws.


Hostettler’s position is emblematic of conservatives who were influential in gaining House approval of an immigration bill in December that focused strictly on border security.


In mid-May, the Senate began debate on comprehensive immigration legislation that would include a guest worker program and a pathway to legal status for undocumented workers. Leaders hoped to approve a bill by Memorial Day. The broader Senate approach is backed by President Bush and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of business organizations that argue a strong immigrant workforce is crucial to economic growth. In a national address last week, Bush proposed a new biometric identification card for legal foreign workers. Employers could then verify eligibility, leaving them “with no excuse for violating” immigration laws.


Melding the House and Senate bills into a final measure would require potentially volatile negotiations. The work-site enforcements are seen as a way for the Bush administration to mollify conservative critics who want to crack down on illegal immigrants.


That strategy is not working on Hostettler, who asserts that the immigration debate won’t be decided until voters go to the polls this fall and, he hopes, support candidates who favor tough immigration policies.


“The administration is not focused on workplace compliance,” Hostettler says. “They’re not getting it. They’re not going to get it. This issue is going to have to have an electoral solution.”


In the meantime, Hostettler backs an idea offered by the Center for Immigration Studies. In a new report, the think tank asserts that enforcing current immigration laws would reduce the number of illegal aliens by 1.5 million annually through “attrition.”


A linchpin is mandatory workplace verification. “If enough Wal-Marts and McDonald’s are continually confronted with enforcement of laws on the books today, these folks would comply with the law,” Hostettler says.


Employers ignore immigration laws because they’re rarely punished for breaking them, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.


One obstacle to establishing a new respect for immigration laws is mixed signals emanating from the Department of Homeland Security, Hostettler and Krikorian say. Hundreds of illegal workers detained in the IFCO raid have been released. A customs official says that the agency prioritizes the prosecution of employers.


“Congress has only appropriated enough beds for ICE to detain 20,800 illegal aliens at any given time,” says Dean Boyd, a customs spokesman. “In many areas of the country, our beds will be filled with illegal aliens who have committed heinous criminal violations.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Posted on May 24, 2006July 10, 2018

Senate Ends Debate, Adds Employer Sanctions; Showdown With House Looms

The Senate has voted to end debate on immigration legislation that now includes a provision for employer sanctions, while a leading House conservative plans this week to introduce a measure that would require the nearly 12 million undocumented people in the U.S. to “self-deport” and return legally as guest workers.


Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, hopes his proposal, which includes tough employer sanctions, will be a catalyst for compromise between Senate and House versions of immigration reform bills.


On Wednesday, May 24, the Senate voted to limit debate on its immigration reform bill, meaning that final passage is likely this week. The legislation will include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers.


The measure would slap fines of up to $20,000 on employers who hire illegal aliens and mandate that companies participate in the Electronic Employment Verification System.


The system would come online 18 months after the secretary of labor receives implementation funds. In the pilot verification program, employers are charged about 25 cents per initial query and up to 48 cents per additional verification.


The Senate bill also authorizes 2,200 additional work-site enforcement agents annually for five years for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


The House measure, approved in December, would make illegal aliens felons and enhance border security. It contains workplace provisions similar to those in the Senate bill.


The House and Senate are headed for contentious negotiations, with conservatives vowing to oppose “amnesty” for illegal aliens.


Pence calls his position “the real rational middle ground” on immigration reform. Without it, he believes, there will be no bicameral agreement.


“I feel like we’re headed for a train wreck,” he said in a May 23 speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Pence is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of 110 House conservatives.


House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, says Pence’s offering is “one of many things that will be floated in the coming weeks … as we attempt to forge a compromise. Trying to find a pathway that is acceptable to the House and Senate is going to be very difficult.”


Pence’s plan is based on an idea formulated by Helen Krieble, who hires 10 guest workers a year for her business, the Colorado Horse Park. Under the proposal, private worker placement agencies, called “Ellis Island Centers,” would be licensed by the federal government to match guest workers with jobs that businesses verify cannot be filled with American workers.


U.S. companies would apply for workers through the agencies. Presumably, placement firms like Manpower and Adecco would be utilized. Specific corporations cannot be named in federal legislation.


Self-deportation and return should take about a week, Pence says. Guest workers would receive a “W visa,” a wallet-size biometric card that can be swiped to verify employment eligibility.


Market demand would determine the number of visas allowed during the first three years of the program. After that, the Department of Labor would set limits. Workers could stay in the country for up to six years before returning home or applying for citizenship through a separate process.


Like the Senate bill, Pence’s proposal contains employer sanctions and requires that they utilize a national employment verification system. Pence didn’t have an estimate on the cost to companies.


“Employer enforcement is the key,” says Pence, whose grandfather is an Irish immigrant. “Once in place, jobs for illegal aliens will dry up. Why hire an illegal alien when you can hire a legal guest worker and eliminate the possibility of a big fine?”


A business organization that is advocating immigration reform has doubts about the Pence plan. It’s unrealistic that 12 million illegal aliens will self-deport, says John Gay, vice president for government affairs and public policy at the National Restaurant Association and co-chair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition.


Other issues that must be addressed are a lack of green cards—about 10,000 are available for low-skill workers each year—and the need to establish a flow of immigrant employees to maintain the U.S. economy.


“We’ve got a permanent need for these workers and it’s growing,” says Gay, whose organization supports the comprehensive approach to immigration that is emerging in the Senate.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Posted on May 23, 2006July 10, 2018

Toyota’s U.S. Chief Advocates Greater Role for Women in Auto Industry

With Toyota’s sexual harassment scandal still lingering, Jim Press, the company’s top American executive, stated the obvious during a speech in Detroit: Women should play a more prominent role in the auto industry.


“We need to do a lot more,” Press said during a recent luncheon speech to Inforum, a professional women’s group in Detroit. “We’re making progress.”


In his first public appearance since being named president of Toyota Motor North America Inc., Press says the automaker relies on women to make key decisions in many high-ranking posts. He noted that women make up almost 60 percent of its car (versus light-truck) customers.


Press took the new job at Toyota’s New York-based holding company, pending board approval, after Hideaki Otaka, CEO of Toyota Motor North America, resigned. Press was president of Toyota’s U.S. sales company. Otaka was accused by his executive assistant, Sayaka Kobayashi, of sexual harassment.


Press also says that the number of women buying vehicles is rising and currently stands at 46 percent of total industry-wide sales.


Toyota markets its hot-selling hybrids to women, whom Press says often place a higher priority on fuel efficiency and low emissions than men do.


In addition to buying cars, Press said women are potentially superior salespeople than men. Saleswomen are less likely to ignore female customers or question their financing methods than salesmen.


“There’s growing evidence that women are better than men at selling cars,” Press says.


He noted that although just 8 percent of dealerships in the United States are owned by women, women-owned dealerships sell vehicles at a higher rate than stores owned by men.


Press declined to comment on the New York harassment accusations, with the lawsuit pending. He says he had been chosen for the promotion a month ago and it was scheduled to be announced in June. It was advanced when the allegations came to light.


A comfortable work environment is a priority for Toyota, he says.


“We’re going to make sure that nobody in our workplace feels uncomfortable going to work.”



—Greg Migliore



Migliore is a reporter for Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

Posted on May 23, 2006July 10, 2018

Media Buyer Claims Age Discrimination

A McCann Erickson media executive has sued his longtime employer and its parent company, Interpublic Group of Cos., for age discrimination, alleging he was wrongfully dismissed in the struggling agency’s attempt to modernize itself.


The lawsuit, filed by George Hayes, a 30-year veteran of McCann’s media buying and planning operations, puts into relief what could turn out to be a major issue for the industry as large agencies refit themselves for a digital world. That process often requires stripping out layers of longtime employees in the search for an often younger breed of strategists and creatives who understand an increasingly complicated media environment.


In papers filed in New York State Supreme Court this month, Hayes, 54, alleges that since arriving last fall, Universal McCann’s new worldwide CEO, Nick Brien, has “value[d] youth instead of experience and desired younger persons in place of older persons and acted upon his discriminatory preference by terminating older persons, because of their age.”


Led by Brien, Universal McCann has been in the throes of a high-profile turnaround initiative following a couple years of client losses, including General Motors Corp. and Coca-Cola Co. Brien has named top executives in the U.S. and Europe and is working to improve the agency’s communication planning offering in an effort to offer clients better strategic guidance on how they should spend their marketing dollars.


Hayes claims that that effort is at the root of his dismissal. The lawsuit states: “The ultimate goal of McCann Erickson was to replace its older workers with younger employees, based not on performance, but on McCann Erickson’s discriminatory desire to create a more youthful image, which McCann Erickson felt it could achieve by ridding itself of it older employees and replacing them with younger employees.”


The lawsuit outlines a few meetings that, Hayes contends, demonstrate that preference. In one address to staffers at Universal McCann’s New York office, it is alleged that “Mr. Brien stated that the young people in the group ‘got it’ when it came to ‘new media’ of the digital age, that ‘things will be different around here.’ “


It also describes a November 18, 2005, meeting involving senior executives from the agency to which Hayes and “certain key executives of age” were not invited. The lawsuit does not specify which other executives were left out.


Hayes, an executive VP, learned December 13, 2005, that he was being dismissed, with the reason being “that Hayes did not have ‘the skill set’ needed to remain employed by McCann-Erickson,” the lawsuit says.


Hayes joined McCann in 1975 following a short stint at J. Walter Thompson. In 1996, he helped McCann launch Local Communications to handle spot buying for its client General Motors. Interpublic and Universal McCann lost GM’s media-buying business to Publicis Groupe’s GM Planworks unit last year, following a review.


Spokespeople for McCann Worldgroup, which houses McCann Erickson and Universal McCann, and Interpublic couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.


—Matthew Creamer


Creamer is a reporter for Advertising Age, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 … 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