Category: Archive

In just one year, the percentage of employers who say that morale is either good or excellent in their organizations has dropped from 70 percent to 55 percent, according to the 2005 Employee Review, a study by Randstad.

This actually is good news, according to Randstad, one of the world’s largest staffing firms. That’s because, according to Randstad, employers have finally gotten religion about lagging workplace satisfaction and have a better understanding of what’s going on in the minds of employees. According to the report, “The reality is that morale is low, but significantly more employers understand this than in the past.”

Some other highlights from the study:

·    Fifty-nine percent of employees say they’re loyal to their companies. Twenty-six percent of employees say that their companies are loyal to them.

·    Employers are optimistic about future hiring. Only 9 percent say that they plan to decrease the size of their workforce in the future.

·    Generation X employees–people between the ages of 26 and 40–value flexible work hours more than any other generation. Generation Y employees between ages 19 and 25 value reward and recognition programs more than other employees.

In its report, Randstad, which placed about 48,500 employees weekly in 2004, offers the following advice:

Employers must find ways to generate loyalty and lift morale. They can reap better performance by recognizing employee efforts, especially for younger workers. It doesn’t have to be complicated, but it should be consistent and sincere. Employees can detect fraud like a 4-year-old can find a cookie jar.

The best news is that employers have weathered some of the worst years for business in decades. And your star performers have been a big part of that success. Now’s the time to reward and reinforce employee contributions–a really valuable strategy if the “might very well happen” worker shortage materializes.

The main message right now from all employees is that opportunities for advancement, flexibility, bonuses and other recognition programs are on their list. But your menu should be flexible and recognize the different values that different generations place on various benefits. The goal is to fulfill the employee needs that bond an employee to the company.

Harris Interactive studied 1,722 employees and 1,511 employers for Randstad. The interviews were conducted between May 31 and June 13, 2005.

— Todd Raphael

Below is the total compensation–salary and bonus pay combined–for 10 positions in the medical field. The low, median and high represent the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles.

Title	Lowest	Low	Median	Average	High	Highest	Number Surveyed
Chief of staff	$156,400	$198,183	$212,767	$246,582	$254,400	$435,960	6
Dermatologist	$149,838	$157,917	$253,500	$262,750	$257,000	$677,125	9
Emergency physician	$108,053	$173,123	$203,365	$205,993	$228,662	$309,700	49
Family practice physician	$96,838	$133,705	$148,593	$166,631	$171,157	$570,179	235
General practice physician	$122,336	$130,525	$143,081	$156,869	$165,816	$263,576	40
OB/gynecologist	$132,279	$181,775	$213,777	$222,838	$242,054	$480,000	82
Orthopedic surgeon	$132,211	$294,119	$409,757	$428,096	$549,415	$989,125	22
Pediatrician	$92,250	$122,800	$143,174	$150,396	$171,000	$295,833	131
Psychiatrist	$89,527	$137,642	$158,236	$161,396	$183,278	$301,092	163
General surgeon	$105,775	$212,367	$266,800	$281,395	$305,696	$752,909	60
Source: “Physician Salary Survey Report 2005,” Hospital & Healthcare Compensation Service

Job Title	Average Total Patient Visits Per Week
Dermatologist	157
Pediatrician	108.6
Family practice physician	94
General practice	87.7
Internal medicine	83.9
Orthopedic surgeon	70.3
Infectious disease	65.8
OB/gynecologist	65.6
Occupational medicine	63.3
Otolaryngologist	62.9
Hematologist/oncology	56.6
Emergency physician	51.5
Chief of staff/medical director	50.4
Pulmonary medicine	50
Psychiatrist	47.4
Gastroenterologist	45
Neurologist	45
General surgeon	42.8
Hospitalist	38.3
Physician assistant	36.6
Pathologist	36.2
Source: Physician Salary Survey Report 2005, Hospital & Healthcare Compensation Service.

The lines between traditional health care insurance products and consumer-driven health plans are beginning to blur as insurers look to include consumerist elements in all product lines.

    HMO, PPO and POS offerings are all being modified to incorporate features typically associated with consumer-driven health plan products.

    The changes follow significant moves into the consumer-driven health plan market by large insurers.

    In the past year, the two largest managed care insurers–UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint–have bought, respectively, Definity Health and Lumenos. Other major insurers such as Aetna have aggressively developed their own consumer-driven health divisions.

    The insurers are gambling on the notion that consumer-driven health plans will become a sizable source of health care delivery, with WellPoint estimating that they will encompass 10 percent to 15 percent of the marketplace within three years.

    But the entrance of the major managed care companies also has implications for all their policyholders as they attempt to make consumer-driven health plan tools available to members in their traditional plans.

    UnitedHealth, for example, will begin to offer Definity’s health statements to select employer-based populations beginning January 1, 2006, with the expectation that they will be more broadly offered throughout 2006. The health statements revamp traditional explanation-of-benefit statements into easier-to-read documents that resemble credit card statements and can include personal messages.

    The company’s strategy is to get individuals involved in making informed decisions about health spending, an approach that should not be limited to a particular plan design, says Meredith Baratz, vice president of market solutions for Definity Health. “The strategies and principles of consumer engagement should be driven across everything we do,” Baratz says.

    Aetna is also seeking to integrate a consumerist approach into its traditional products and has made its own consumer information Web site, known as the Aetna Navigator, available to all its members, regardless of the type of health insurance plans in which they are enrolled.

    “Consumerism is much bigger than CDHP products,” says Robin Downey, head of product development for Aetna. “The lines become much more blurred between these products.”

    Cigna, which began marketing its health reimbursement and health savings accounts to middle-market and national employers in 2002, also offers its Web-based consumer information tools to all its members. “It’s driving aspects of consumerism across 100 percent of our book of business,” says Tom Richards, senior vice president of product for Cigna.

    Richards notes that while Cigna does not view consumerism as being restricted to fund-based products, the financial inducements in consumer-driven health plan products makes those members more engaged than those members in traditional plans. That is because the cost of services comes directly from their accounts, he says.

    The use of Cigna’s Web-based tools is about 50 percent to 60 percent among members in Cigna’s consumer-driven health plans, compared with the low-20 percent range for members in traditional plans.

    “You can get consumerism through good plan design, good tools and good people resources on any product, but to really maximize it, a consumer-driven health plan is the way to go,” Richards says.

    While insurers are beginning by making consumer tools available to all members, the next step in spreading consumerism is the widespread adoption of financial incentives across all product lines, observers say.

    Cigna says a program that offers financial incentives–in the form of lower co-payments and co-insurance levels to consumers of all products who select specialists who meet or exceed certain health care quality and efficiency measures–will be expanded into several new geographical regions beginning January 1, 2006.

    Aetna has its own network of specialists who receive its “Aexcel” designation by meeting thresholds for clinical performance and cost efficiency. Employers with consumer-driven health plans and some traditional products, in certain markets, can offer employees financial incentives for choosing the Aexcel-designated specialists–and most of them do, says Don Liss, regional medical director based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

    Financial incentives for completing health risk assessments or participating in smoking cessation programs have been offered previously in traditional products, but the use of such incentives has increased because of the emphasis on consumer-directed health care, says Michael Taylor, a principal with Towers Perrin in Boston. That’s because such incentives “fit very neatly under the banner of consumerism,” Taylor says.

    Richards notes that a small but growing number of employers are already giving premium discounts and other incentives to employees in traditional plans for completing health risk assessments. “That is something that we would recommend: Employers provide an incentive to employees to take an HRA,” he says.

    Hartmarx, which offers traditional HMO and PPO plans, considered a plan to give premium discounts to employees who were nonsmokers but abandoned the idea after determining that it would be difficult to weed out smokers who claim to be nonsmokers to collect the discounts. “We considered it, but we just decided it wasn’t totally workable,” says Mike Pikelny, employee benefits manager for the Chicago-based clothing manufacturer.

    The increased focus on consumer-driven health plans by the major insurers has not affected the company’s ability to obtain PPO and HMO coverage, he says. Hartmarx has explored consumer-driven health plans but has not taken steps to adopt them, Pikelny says, because he wants to be convinced that employees will have the necessary tools to be good health care consumers.

    “I think some people don’t believe in the concept,” says Scott Keyes, senior consultant with Watson Wyatt.

From the August 15, 2005, issue of Business Insurance. Written by Gloria Gonzalez.

Dear Fearful:



Having employees who either do not want to be around or who feel they are being forced to stay could develop into a dispiriting situation. It lowers the morale both of employees who want to leave and newer employees who hear them repeatedly pining for retirement.

Yours is a singular situation inasmuch as the company clearly is carrying more employees and a higher payroll than it probably needs. So it would be in your company’s best interests to perform a cost analysis to figure out the most fiscally responsible actions to take next.

You also would help your workforce greatly by developing an exit strategy for senior employees who are eager to retire. However, this doesn’t mean shoving them out the door. Instead, you should direct their remaining energies to easing the inevitable transition within your company. For instance:

• Examine core competencies required for each position that will become vacant. Compare these to the talent already on hand, particularly your newer employees.
  
• Next, determine how much time is needed to get these folks functioning at full speed.
  
• Develop a process to realistically assess their performance. Include ways to improve productivity, effectiveness, etc.
  
• Use your senior employees as mentors. Provide them with training to equip their successors to capably do the jobs. Involve them in evaluations to mark the progress of their “pupils.” (Of course, you will need to get the buy-in of your more experienced workers for this to work.)
  
• Develop a plan for newcomers to assume their jobs within a designated time. Advise them how they will be trained and by whom. Namely, how the senior employees will serve as mentors. Evaluate their performance every 30 days to determine progress.
  
• Make sure performance appraisals are conducted thoroughly and on time. Again, make sure they include recommended strategies for boosting employees’ performance.
  

Once employees start rumbling about retirement, experience tells us that they have, in effect, already retired–especially when they start counting weeks and days. Letting them leave is best for all concerned, including those employees who remain behind.

SOURCE: Lonnie Harvey, Jr., SPHR, president,The JESCLON Group, Inc. Rock Hill, South Carolina, Oct. 28, 2004.

LEARN MORE:Irreplaceable You.

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

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

Nominations are now being accepted for the 2006 Eddy Awards, co-sponsored by Workforce Management and Pensions & Investments. The deadline for entries is October 14.

    The awards recognize corporate, public and union defined-contribution plan sponsors for the best and most effective investment education programs in five categories. The competition is open to all corporate, public and union participant-directed defined-contribution plans. Entries will be accepted from plan sponsors only, though the educational materials may have been developed with the help of outside suppliers. PowerPoint presentations are not accepted.

    Winners will be announced at Pensions & Investments’ 15th annual Defined Contribution/401(k) East Coast Conference, to be held February 26 to 28 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

    Entrants should complete a separate entry form and submit at least one example of the educational materials for each category.

    The materials submitted should have a close identification with the sponsoring company. More important, the materials should provide information and guidance for all plan participants, from new employees to high-balance midcareer participants.

    Awards will be presented in these categories:

• Train the trainer

  
  

• Printed materials — initial education

  
  

• Printed materials — ongoing education

  
  

• Special projects — print

  
  

    Other media, which includes videos and use of intranets, the Internet, e-mail and any other new technologies to communicate to plan participants information on initial investment education, enrollment information to introduce new employees to an ongoing plan or to boost participation, or ongoing investment education.

    For more information on the categories and for entry forms, visit www.pionline.com/eddy. There is no charge to enter.

Dear Questioning Sanity:



I am a firm believer in a pay-for-performance philosophy. That being said, most merit-increase programs fail to provide the level of differentiation needed to motivate employees. For example, you would need at least a 3 percent to 4 percent difference in the amount of increase received by your top performers vs. employees who merely meet expectations. Realistically, employees aren’t going to be motivated by less than that. But most companies with merit systems use only about a 2 percent average differential—which is insufficient.

Managers complain that merit discussions are painful and distracting. The problem gets worse if salary and wage structures are frozen or only sporadically adjusted. Employees who reach their maximum pay range may get minimal increases or none at all. Some companies provide lump sums (a one-time payment in lieu of a salary increase), but we find that these are no substitute for increased pay.

However, the reverse case is no more pleasant. Providing the same increase, or percentage increase, to all employees actually may de-motivate your high-performing employees. Many companies use step rates (automatic increases) to compensate employees for more experience, more time or better performance on the job. Wages are maxed out once employees reach the cap. Unless rates are adjusted upward annually, employees with longer service may wait years for their next increase.

Needless to say, this can lead to serious employee-relations problems. In addition, calling this general bump in wages a cost-of-living increase can create some definite headaches. First of all, cost of living is a very arbitrary number. Few agree on how to calculate it, much less how to apply it to any one individual. There is no such thing as a standard cost-of-living figure for a particular employee. The term, and whatever number you decide on, will be open to debate.

Fixed or general increases are used with great effectiveness by companies whose cultures emphasize teamwork. Even so, most companies adopt general increases for other reasons. Typically, they want to avoid the underlying issues around merit and simply provide the same increases to everyone. If your company decides to go that route, be sure to position it as an adjustment to meet competitive labor costs, not cost of living.

One final note: we recognize that some companies can absorb wage increases, while others are plagued by narrow margins and squeezed by both customers and suppliers. The best-performing companies involve their employees in developing solutions. Not surprisingly, these companies experience fewer issues relating to employee morale and unionization.

One option to seriously consider is an incentive plan, such as gain sharing, to help drive greater productivity and efficiency. Gain sharing is a lot like profit sharing, but it’s usually based on things like productivity or efficiency rather than profit. It may be a while before such plans take hold in your culture, but when combined with continual improvement efforts, they provide effective support for a company’s business strategy and culture.

SOURCE: Bob Fulton, managing director,The Chatfield Group, Glenview, Illinois, September 20, 2004.

LEARN MORE:Relocation: Dealing with Cost-of-Living Issues.

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

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

Dear Multiple Choices:



The most important question to ponder is this: How will employee training affect your bottom line? Will it boost sales/profit, reduce expenses or favorably influence other key organizational goals? Reflecting on these questions yields two benefits: It helps you prioritize course selection and also helps decide whether, and when, to outsource classes to vendors.

When deciding which classes to offer first, choose those that provide the biggest bang for your buck. Which seminars or courses will make a lasting impression on your group? Are there courses that would prompt your workforce to clamor for additional training? It’s one thing for you to pitch resources for training–you have a vested interest as a learning and development professional–but it’s quite another for business lines to insist on “that great seminar” they’ve attended or heard about from their employees. Again, try to gauge the impact that specific training classes have on your bottom line. Evensoft-skill seminars have a direct effect on profits and expenses.

Outsourcing decisions may be made on a handful of criteria, including budget, expertise and cost/benefit. Do you have the money to hire a vendor? Do your internal trainers have the expertise to develop and deliver the seminar? Answers to those questions may quickly point you in the right direction. If you’re going to spend money on vendors, you’ll definitely have to demonstrate how the expense is mitigated by improvements in productivity, cost-savings or other benefits.

Literally dozens of vendors offer development and training curricula. Find a vendor that can understand your culture and customize a curriculum for your workforce. Check out Workforce Management‘s paidlist of vendors. The American Society for Training & Development and the Society for Human Resource Management both have Web resources and publications that include lists of vendors. Always check references. The list may seem endless, so don’t hesitate to call on peers or colleagues in your network to recommend training vendors they have used.

SOURCE: Don Gaile, principal, dmg consulting company, New York, September 29, 2004.

LEARN MORE: What Should I Be Aware of When Analyzing Training Needs?

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

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

For the second year in a row, the House of Representatives last month approved a package of bills designed to make it easier to appeal citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Although the measures mostly benefit small employers, proponents say that the assault on bureaucracy is good for all business.

“We’ve overcome the mind-set that you can’t touch OSHA,” says John Stone, communications director for Georgia Republican Rep. Charles Norwood, chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

The four bills target OSHA enforcement and appeals processes rather than workplace safety rules. One would allow exceptions to the 15-day deadline for employers to respond to citations. Another would expand the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from three members to five, ostensibly making it easier for the body to achieve a quorum and adjudicate disputes. A third would allow businesses with less than $7 million in assets and 100 or fewer employees to recover attorneys’ fees if they successfully contest a citation. The fourth bill would give the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission authority to interpret the law and independently review citations.

Detractors say that the legislation establishing OSHA in 1970 remains virtually intact, hampering the agency’s effectiveness.

“For the most part, it has been untouched,” says Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Workplaces have changed dramatically over those years. There’s lots of room for further reform. These bills are a modest first step.”

The measures passed mostly with Republican backing, but the fact that some Democrats were on board for each one was hailed as a victory by OSHA reformers. Extending the appeals deadline and allowing recovery of attorneys’ fees received the most Democratic votes, 31 and 17, respectively. The outcome signaled a breakthrough on a typically contentious issue that polarizes labor and business interests.

But Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, decried what he called a Republican attack on OSHA. He cited a March explosion at a BP Amoco refinery in Texas that killed 15 workers as an example of the need for strong safety regulation.

“Rather than taking decisive action on behalf of hardworking employees–like increasing the minimum wage, stopping runaway pension terminations, or expanding access to health care–these bills do nothing more than jeopardize health and safety of employees on the job,” he said in a statement.

In 2004, the package died in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. This time it might get a boost from Sen. Johnny Isakson, a freshman Georgia Republican who worked with Norwood on the issue while he was in the House. Isakson chairs the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the Senate labor committee. Panel Republicans hope to introduce OSHA reform legislation in July that likely will include the Norwood proposals.

If the bills make it through the Senate, it will be a triumph for Norwood, a dentist who made OSHA reform part of his inaugural campaign in 1994 because he was irritated by workplace safety rules that affected his practice.

Although the Bush administration has attempted to foster more cooperation between OSHA and industry, the agency’s inspections still have teeth. “I would not say that the agency has rolled over and agreed to everything business … wanted,” Freedman says. “The employer community still thinks about OSHA as much as they ever did.”

—Mark Schoeff Jr