Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

Delaplane Auto IRAs High on Obama’s To-Do List

President Barack Obama has his eye on automatic enrollment in individual retirement accounts and an expansion of the Saver’s Credit Act as a way to encourage Americans to prepare for retirement, according to a retirement policy expert.


“As the year unfolds, the president will pick a signature issue … such as the auto [IRAs], while Congress will drive a range of issues, such as 401(k) fee disclosure and scrutiny of plan investments,” said James M. Delaplane Jr., a partner at Davis & Harman in Washington.


Delaplane hosted a presentation, “Retirement Policy Update: What the Financial Crisis and the New Administration and Congress Mean for America’s Retirement System,” on Tuesday, March 31, at Investment News’ third annual Retirement Income Summit in New York.


“The administration really cares about this auto IRA, and there are conversations between the White House and Capitol Hill about making this an early win for the Obama administration. The odds of it happening are way, way up,” Delaplane said.


Amid the crisis and depleted retirement accounts, there is suddenly a new focus on the shift of risk to participants, resulting in heightened attention to investment issues and the extent of equity exposure, he said.


Delaplane anticipates greater legislative and regulatory attention on investment oversight, with particular scrutiny on target-date funds.


The equity exposure varied wildly in funds with a target of 2010. Some had equity exposure as low as 8 percent, while others were as high as 62 percent.


“One 2010 fund was down 40 percent, and this is for someone on the doorstep of retirement,” Delaplane said. “Those statistics get lawmakers fired up.”


As for the investment advice provision in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Delaplane said he expects that Obama will tighten regulations.


“Think about where you were pre-PPA and the constraints you had in that environment. We could be going back to pre-PPA,” Delaplane said.


“The crisis has changed the environment, raised the odds for reform on big issues and increased voter retirement anxiety, but it also opens discussion on fundamental reforms and changes the retirement policy priority list.”


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


 


Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

Federal Insurance Regulation Bill to Be Introduced

Two members of the House of Representatives said they plan to introduce legislation on Thursday, April 2, that would establish a system of federal regulation for insurers.


In a joint statement Wednesday, Reps. Melissa Bean, D-Illinois, and Ed Royce, R-California, said the National Insurance Consumer Protection Act “would create a robust federal regulator for insurance to act as an alternative to the antiquated, non-uniform system of state insurance regulators currently in operation.


”The statement, however, provided no further detail regarding the proposal.An earlier outline of the bill called for setting up an office of national insurance, which would set guidelines for national insurers and oversee their financial and market conduct.


In addition, that outline said the legislation would establish a national guaranty corporation for national insurers if a state guaranty association does not provide policyholders a level of protection equivalent to the model standards of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.The outline also included establishing a systemic risk regulator to monitor insurers


The joint statement cited the “meltdown” of American International Group Inc. and the crisis in the financial system as a whole “as proof of the vital need for regulatory reform of the insurance sector.”In the last Congress, Reps. Bean and Royce introduced legislation that would have set up a system of optional federal charters for insurers.

When the outline of the latest bill became public in February, some critics expressed concern that federal regulation might not be optional but mandatory for some large insurers.


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on April 2, 2009August 3, 2023

Saving for Retirement Back in Vogue, AARP Says

There is a silver lining in these dismal economic times, according to AARP: a resurgence in savings, particularly for retirement.


“For those just entering the workforce, and even for boomers getting closer to retirement, the notion of saving for retirement is back in fashion for all age groups,” the Washington-based seniors group said in a study issued Wednesday, April 1.


The AARP telephone survey of 1,035 Americans, conducted February 27 through March 8, found that nearly eight in 10 adults have either started to cut back spending or have started to save more money in the past year for emergencies and their retirement.


Of those, almost three in four are doing so to save more for retirement.


However, while saving has taken on a new priority in most households, almost two-thirds plan to spend at least some of the 2009 stimulus benefit.


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

House Panel Seeks Confidential AIG Reports

The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the panel’s top Republican have asked federal authorities to provide the committee with confidential reports prepared by a lawyer who was hired by American International Group Inc. to monitor the insurer and provide periodic reports to federal regulators.


Letters requesting the documents were sent Tuesday, March 31, to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-New York, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California.


“With taxpayers now having an 80 percent stake in AIG, we believe that review of these reports is critical for Congress to better understand how AIG became financially crippled and in assessing whether taxpayer dollars are being properly used for the stabilization of this once-prosperous company,” Reps. Towns and Issa wrote.


The request involves a November 2004 deferred-prosecution agreement under which AIG was required to install an independent monitor to oversee business practices at the company, the congressmen said.


They said AIG hired James Cole, a partner in the Washington office of law firm Bryan Cave, in early 2005 and that his responsibilities broadened in November 2006 after a separate settlement required that he monitor and examine AIG’s financial reporting as well as provide oversight of corporate governance.


“Under the provisions of these settlements, Cole evidently had routine access to the highest levels of the company and participated as an observer at AIG board meetings,” the congressmen wrote. “In effect, Cole had a seat at the table as the company decided to oust two CEOs, developed its strategy in the midst of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse, and made critical decisions concerning AIG Financial Products, allocating retention payments, generating options to produce liquidity, and ultimately requesting taxpayer capital injections from the Federal Reserve and Treasury now amounting to $180 billion.”


The committee is scheduled to hold the first in a series of hearings into the AIG situation on Thursday, April 2, with former AIG chairman and CEO Maurice R. Greenberg slated to testify.


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


 

Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

Dismissal for Not Calling In Doesn’t Violate FMLA

In summer 2003, Melondy Bacon, a janitor at the Hennepin County Medical Center, began to break out in hives while at work. After suffering an outbreak of hives in July 2004, Bacon obtained a doctor note stating that she had a serious health condition and that she would need to take intermittent leave each time she had an outbreak. Bacon submitted the requisite Family and Medical Leave Act forms to her supervisor.

Following the July 2004 outbreak, Bacon called in to work, reporting that she would be absent. The hospital’s employee handbook requires employees who are on indefinite sick leave to call in absences every workday. The policy states that employees need not call in every day if the expected length of the absence is documented. Starting August 5, Bacon stopped calling in her absences, and on August 11 the hospital sent her a letter notifying her that it deemed her to have resigned.

In June 2006, Bacon sued the hospital in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming she had been fired in violation of the FMLA. The court found in favor of the hospital, finding that it was entitled to fire her for violating its call-in policy. Bacon appealed.

Affirming the court’s decision, the Minneapolis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that the hospital’s call-in policy was permissible under applicable regulations; that Bacon signed an acknowledgment that the hospital’s policies apply to employees absences; and that although Bacon’s discharge interfered with her FMLA rights, Bacon was terminated to for failing to comply with the call-in policy, and that she would have been terminated for doing so irrespective of whether these absences were related to FMLA leave. Bacon v. Hennepin County Medical Center, 8th Cir., No. 08-1168, (12/22/08).

Impact: Employers should be cautious when considering applying leave-of-absence procedures and policies to employees approved for FMLA leave.

Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

Dismissal for Not Calling In Doesn’t Violate FMLA

In summer 2003, Melondy Bacon, a janitor at the Hennepin County Medical Center, began to break out in hives while at work. After suffering an outbreak of hives in July 2004, Bacon obtained a doctor note stating that she had a serious health condition and that she would need to take intermittent leave each time she had an outbreak. Bacon submitted the requisite Family and Medical Leave Act forms to her supervisor.

Following the July 2004 outbreak, Bacon called in to work, reporting that she would be absent. The hospital’s employee handbook requires employees who are on indefinite sick leave to call in absences every workday. The policy states that employees need not call in every day if the expected length of the absence is documented. Starting August 5, Bacon stopped calling in her absences, and on August 11 the hospital sent her a letter notifying her that it deemed her to have resigned.

In June 2006, Bacon sued the hospital in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming she had been fired in violation of the FMLA. The court found in favor of the hospital, finding that it was entitled to fire her for violating its call-in policy. Bacon appealed.

Affirming the court’s decision, the Minneapolis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that the hospital’s call-in policy was permissible under applicable regulations; that Bacon signed an acknowledgment that the hospital’s policies apply to employees absences; and that although Bacon’s discharge interfered with her FMLA rights, Bacon was terminated to for failing to comply with the call-in policy, and that she would have been terminated for doing so irrespective of whether these absences were related to FMLA leave. Bacon v. Hennepin County Medical Center, 8th Cir., No. 08-1168, (12/22/08).

Impact: Employers should be cautious when considering applying leave-of-absence procedures and policies to employees approved for FMLA leave.

Posted on April 1, 2009June 27, 2018

Firms Weigh Impact of Obesity on Comp

As the link between obesity and health problems becomes clearer, employers and workers’ compensation vendors are increasingly assessing the impact that the rising prevalence of obesity is having on workers’ comp claims and safety efforts.


That effort comes as new preliminary research suggests that workers’ comp claims involving obese claimants are more costly than those involving healthier individuals.


“As the claims industry [and employers] begin analysis of their data and adverse claims, they are beginning to realize that you can’t ignore [issues] that historically have been ignored,” including obesity, says Tammy Bradly, director of case management product development for Intracorp in Birmingham, Alabama.


Historically, several factors have hampered collection of workers’ comp data on obesity.


The workers’ comp industry traditionally focuses on treating specific injured body parts while overlooking so-called co-morbidity factors, such as obesity, that increase claims duration and costs, observers said.


In addition, concerns that inquiries into obesity could spur lawsuits alleging privacy violations have slowed workers’ comp claims research, says Joe Picone, national director of regional operations in the strategic outcomes practice for Willis HRH in Glen Allen, Virginia. Because of litigation fears, some predictive models for workers’ comp claims omitted obesity data, Picone says.


The stigma associated with obesity has also been a roadblock.


“It’s a very sensitive issue [for consultants] to have to tell employers their workforce is overweight,” Picone says.


Indeed, embarrassment issues have stifled safety efforts that prevent claims, says Linda Tapp, president of Crown Safety, a safety consulting firm in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Workers and employers avoid mentioning when larger-size personal-protection equipment is needed to function properly or larger office chairs are needed for an appropriate ergonomic fit, she says.


“They don’t want to say, ‘That might not fit you because you are too large,’ ” says Tapp, who is also a member of the Des Plaines, Illinois-based American Society of Safety Engineers.


When it comes to medical treatment, addressing obesity often has been pushed onto employers’ health care plans or wellness programs, even though it may also affect workers’ comp claims, says Jacqueline Cox, president and CEO of Reno, Nevada-based Specialty Health McO Inc.


But that is starting to change, observers say.


Already, workers’ comp nurse case managers incorporate an injured employee’s obesity into case planning and look for resources to help them address the problem, especially when it affects return-to-work outcomes.


Claims managers are increasingly looking to address obesity, says Martin Wolf, an economist with NCCI Holdings Inc. in Hoboken, New Jersey.


“One thing we have been seeing a little bit is that when a claim is filed, insurers are gathering additional information on body mass index and weight and height to see if people who show up as obese need additional medical treatment to more effectively address their injury,” Wolf says.


In addition, some employers even have begun collecting obesity data to help fend off future claims that may not be work-related, particularly those involving police and firefighters who must take pre-employment physicals and whose heart attacks and other ailments often are presumed to be work-related, says Glenn Backus, senior VP for Alternative Service Concepts, a Reno, Nevada-based claims administrator.


Claims and obesity
In a recent newsletter, NCCI said preliminary findings from a study that it will release next year show that workers’ comp medical claims open for a year cost three times more when claimants are obese.


In addition, the Boca Raton, Florida-based rate-making and data organization found that obese individuals’ claims that are open for five years are five times more expensive than claims by non-obese individuals. For some “smaller claims,” added treatments related to obesity can balloon cost differences 30 times or more.


The NCCI said its study relied on claims filed over a nine-year period in 36 states. Additional NCCI findings fall in line with a 2007 study by Duke University researchers who examined the records of nearly 12,000 employees of the university.


They found that workers who are morbidly obese, defined as having a BMI of 40 or above, filed 45 percent more claims, missed eight times the number of workdays and experienced medical costs that were more than five times higher when compared with those of nonobese workers. They also incurred indemnity costs that were eight times greater, researchers concluded.


Workers classified as overweight in the Duke study—those with a BMI of 25 to 29.9—filed 9 percent more claims and missed 3.5 times as many workdays, and their medical claims costs were 1.5 times those of their counterparts with “normal” weight, a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9. They also incurred nearly twice the indemnity costs.


The study by NCCI will help underwriters more precisely understand how much obesity is increasing workers’ comp costs, says Joe Treacy, assistant vice president of workers’ comp product development for Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.


“We know it’s a problem, but how big a problem?” Treacy says. “Is it increasing cost by 10 percent or is it increasing cost by 15 percent? That is the work NCCI is doing on our behalf so we can understand better.”

Posted on April 1, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Should We Fill Vacancies From Within or With External Candidates?

Dear Looking Inside and Out:

This is a great question, yet one that too few hiring managers and HR professionals take the time to ask. There are of course the obvious pros to internal recruiting:

  • Communicates that career opportunities exist within the organization
  • Usually less costly and faster than an external search

And the obvious pros to hiring externally:

  • A chance to introduce new ideas and fresh perspectives into the organization
  • An opportunity to enhance diversity

Looking deeper, we find research that shows hiring from within also contributes to shareholder value. Another overlooked advantage is the enhanced ability to assess internal candidates, since more information is readily available from internal sources (i.e., performance management system, people who have worked with the candidate). These people also are already familiar with the company culture and “ways of getting things done” and “staying out of trouble.”

The often-overlooked advantage of hiring externally includes finding a qualified person that is fully trained, experienced and ready to contribute immediately upon being hired.

Each recruiting option also has some drawbacks. Internal hiring may lead to:

  • Narrow thinking and stale ideas (inbreeding)
  • Possible discontent of rejected applicants
  • Diversity goals becoming more difficult to achieve

Some of the primary disadvantages of external recruiting:

  • Takes longer and costs more
  • Too often, little reliable information exists about candidate’s ability to fit with rest of organization
  • Could destroy incentive of present employees to strive for promotion
  • Takes longer for an outsider to become familiar with current systems
  • Current organization members may fight new ideas

SOURCE: Richard Greenberg, president, The BreakThru Alliance, Marina del Rey, California, March 30, 2010.

LEARN MORE: An organization that tries to fill available positions from within should define the scope of the internal hiring policy and hold managers responsible for identifying staffing 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
Posted on April 1, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce When Does the Income Limitation on a COBRA Subsidy Apply Before or After Termination

Dear Bitten by COBRA:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) created a 65 percent COBRA premium subsidy that is available to help unemployed workers continue their health insurance. Details about how the subsidy works are available online from the Department of Labor. The subsidy is available for COBRA periods beginning after February 17, 2009, and can last as long as nine months. Individuals must have a qualifying event relating to involuntary termination of employment that occurs on or after September 1, 2008, and before December 31, 2009.

The COBRA premium assistance subsidy phases out for individuals whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $125,000, or $250,000 for those filing joint returns. Taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income exceeding $145,000, or $290,000 for those filing joint returns, do not qualify for the subsidy.

The income limitation applies to the income received in the same taxable year in which the subsidy is received. So, for example, if the subsidy is received in 2009, but the individual has a modified adjusted gross income for 2009 exceeding $145,000, he/she would not be eligible for the subsidy.

The calculations as to the income limitation are done when the individual completes tax returns for that year. The tax due for that taxable year would be increased by the amount of the premium assistance subsidy that the individual received during the year. A high-income worker can opt out of the subsidy by notifying his or her health plan that they do not want it.

If a worker receives a lump-sum severance payment, the severance payment would not automatically delay eligibility for the subsidy. Employees should be encouraged to carefully examine the terms of any subsidy arrangement, and consult with their attorney or tax preparer to determine whether it would affect their eligibility for the COBRA premium subsidy.

If, for example, the severance payment is all cash, it would likely not affect eligibility for the subsidy, although it could affect the income limitation if it is high enough. However, if the severance payment is expressly to pay for COBRA expenses, it could result in the worker losing eligibility for the COBRA premium assistance subsidy, because an individual cannot receive the COBRA premium assistance subsidy if their employer pays for COBRA.

SOURCE: Kathryn Bakich, senior vice president and national director of health care compliance, the Segal Co., Washington, March 2, 2009

LEARN MORE: An earlier article discusses how the recently enacted stimulus bill will affect COBRA.

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
Posted on April 1, 2009June 27, 2018

IRS Releases Guidance on COBRA Subsidies

The Internal Revenue Service has released eagerly anticipated guidance on the new federal COBRA premium subsidies available to employees who lose their jobs.


The guidance, released Tuesday, March 31, resolves numerous questions—such as clarification of situations when laid-off employees are entitled to the subsidy—that employers have been asking for since the subsidy legislation was signed into law in February.


The subsidy, included in a broad economic stimulus measure, is available to employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009. A 65 percent federal premium subsidy is provided to eligible beneficiaries for up to nine months, until they become eligible for coverage from a new employer or a spouse’s employer, or until they become eligible for Medicare.


Lawmakers put the cost of the federal subsidy at about $25 billion, enabling as many as 7 million jobless people and their families to retain health care coverage.


Congress, eager to pass the legislation quickly, left the role of providing detailed guidance on the subsidy to the regulatory agencies, with the first major batch provided by the IRS in a question-and-answer format spanning 27 pages.


The most significant guidance—crucial for helping employers determine who is eligible for the subsidy and who is not—is defining what constitutes an “involuntary termination of employment” and then providing numerous examples of involuntary termination.


In the guidance, the IRS defines an involuntary termination as the independent exercise of an employer’s authority to terminate employment when the employee was willing and able to work. The determination of whether a termination is involuntary is based on all the facts and circumstances, not on whether a termination is designated as voluntary or a resignation.


For example, the IRS says, retirement could be considered an involuntary termination if the employee knew he or she would be terminated unless the individual retired.


In addition, the resignation of an employee who left due to a “material change” in the geographic location of the employer would be considered an involuntary termination.


The IRS guidance extends to many other areas as well, including how the premium subsidy is to be calculated when the employer pays part of the COBRA premium, whether the subsidy is available to those who continue only dental coverage, and the length of the subsidy for employees who are involuntarily terminated several times while the subsidy law is in effect.


The IRS guidance can be viewed here: Notice 2009-27. (Link opens an Acrobat document.)


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


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 … 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