Category: Archive

Posted on

Survey Finds Nearly 20 Percent of Employers Plan to Drop Health Benefits

Nineteen percent of employers responding to a new Hewitt Associates survey are planning to stop offering health benefits over the next three to five years, nearly five times as many as the 4 percent that said they were planning an exit strategy last year.


For those employers planning to continue to provide health benefits, keeping employees healthy has become the primary workforce issue in 2009, up from the No. 2 position in 2008, according to Lincolnshire, Illinois-based Hewitt’s survey, “The Road Ahead: Emerging Health Trends 2009.”


“Promoting employee accountability” was ranked the chief health and prevention component of employers’ health care strategies in 2009, followed by “offering competitive benefits” and “managing health risk.” In 2008, employers selected “offering competitive benefits” as their chief objective, followed by “promoting accountability” and “tightly managing health care cost trends.”


“In today’s environment, employers are under pressure to cut health care expenses, but they realize that short-term cost-management tactics do not address the underlying drivers of health care cost,” Jim Winkler, head of Hewitt’s North America health management consulting practice, said in a statement. “This leaves them with two options: making a long-term commitment to improving the health of employees and their families, or exiting health care altogether.”


Among other survey findings:


• More employers are targeting specific health conditions within their employee populations than in previous years. Specifically, employers are targeting asthma, cardiovascular disease, depression and diabetes.


• When employers were asked to what extent health care reform proposals outlined by the Barack Obama administration would affect their current health care strategies, 51 percent said they would have some impact, while 44 percent said it would have no impact.


• While one-third of executives think the Obama administration and Congress should address health reform in the president’s first year in office, 63 percent believe it will take place in Obama’s first term.


• Moreover, 60 percent of executive said the federal government should take the lead, while 33 percent said the federal government and the states should share responsibility.


A total of 343 benefits executives from a broad spectrum of industries responded to the survey, which was conducted from December 2008 to January 2009.


For more information about the survey, contact Maureen Mersch at maureen.mersch@hewitt.com or Mary Ann Armatys at maarmatys@hewitt.com.


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


Workforce Management’s feature article alerts are now available via Twitter


Posted on

Unemployment Surges; Worker Benefits, Morale Deteriorating

Employment deteriorated in February as employers faced greater pressure to cut costs through layoffs and compensation reductions, moves that appear to be taking a toll on the morale of remaining workers.


The unemployment rate surged to 8.1 percent last month, marking the highest joblessness rate in a quarter-century, with losses seen across all sectors, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, March 6.


Employers are also looking to trim compensation costs associated with health benefits, a survey released by Hewitt Associates this week showed. The annual survey showed a sharp increase in the number of employers looking to stop offering health benefits in coming years, a move largely attributable to the weak economic outlook.


The sharp rise in unemployment and fears about the state of the economy have begun to affect those workers remaining, according to a separate survey by staffing firm Adecco. Workers fear they might be next to lose their job, and one in five say the economy, while not yet technically a depression, is nonetheless making them feel depressed.


The Labor Department reported that the number of Americans without jobs increased by 851,000 in February to bring the total number of unemployed to 12.5 million. Job losses have totaled 4.4 million since the recession began in December 2007.


The unemployment rate’s half-percentage-point jump in February, to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent, reflects the worst labor market since 1983, the Labor Department said. Laid-off workers—as opposed to those leaving voluntarily or new workers just joining the labor force—represent 62.3 percent of the unemployed, up from 50 percent when the recession began.


The number of long-term unemployed, those jobless for 27 weeks or more, rose by 270,000, to 2.9 million, in February.


Job losses spanned almost all sectors, with deep reductions in construction, manufacturing and, most heavily, in professional and business services, which shed 180,000 workers, most notably among temporary staffing agencies.


The staffing industry, often the first to be hit by a downturn and the first to recover, continues to see a steep drop in demand for temporary workers. Temporary employment has fallen by 686,000 jobs since the recession began.


The health care industry, however, continued to grow. In February, the industry added 27,000 new hires. That gain was in keeping with its employment trend, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.


The deteriorating economy is affecting the willingness of employers to provide health benefits. Nineteen percent of employers say they are moving away from “directly sponsoring health benefits,” up from 4 percent that reported doing so last year, Hewitt reports.


“In this economy you can be a lot more candid with your employees than when they’re job hopping,” said Jim Winkler, a health care consultant with Hewitt.


Winkler anticipates more employers will renegotiate contracts with health insurance vendors and reopen benefits enrollment midyear to save money in the near term.


“Having another enrollment this year is the only way you can materially impact costs this calendar year,” he said.


Workers report a greater willingness to take drastic measures to save their job, according to Adecco. Twenty-eight percent of workers said they would be willing to do something dishonest, like blame a co-worker for a mistake, to keep their job. Generation Y workers were most likely—at 41 percent—to do something dishonest.


Hopes are high among workers that the recently enacted stimulus legislation will be successful. Nearly three-quarters of workers surveyed by Adecco believe the stimulus will provide some benefit to the economy.


Workers appear to be growing impatient, though, to see its impact on the economy, said Doug Arms, chief talent officer for Ajilon Professional Staffing, a division of Adecco. One in five workers say the recession is having a negative impact on their health.


“I think there is more hope that the stimulus package will be helpful, but as the hope meter goes up, the patience meter goes down,” Arms said.


—Jeremy Smerd


Posted on

Companys Deposition Questions of Employee Violated NLRA

Shieh-Sheng Wei, Lynne Wang and Jeffrey Sun were longstanding and open union supporters working at the Chinese Daily News, a publication based in Monterey Park, California. Wang brought a class-action wage and hour lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the newspaper, and Wei and Sun provided declarations in support of this action. During discovery, the newspaper took their depositions asking numerous questions regarding union support, sympathies and related activities. Wei, Wang and Sun alleged that the newspaper’s deposition questions violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.


    The judge found that the newspaper did not violate the act and that the questioning by the newspaper was relevant to its defense of the wage and hour class action. The judge further found that Wei, Wang and Sun did not have “substantial confidentiality interests” under Section 7 of the NLRA because they were open and longstanding union supporters.


    Reversing the judge’s decision, the National Labor Relations Board held that the newspaper’s questioning during Wei’s deposition violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees about their union support and activities.


    Specifically, the newspaper’s question to Wei “Did you vote for the union to win the election?” violated Wei’s Section 7 rights protecting the confidentiality of his vote. The board further held that it was unnecessary to decide whether other questions posed during the depositions of Wei, Wang and Sun were unlawful, because finding additional violations would not have changed the remedy, which was ordering the newspaper to “cease and desist” from interrogating employees about activity protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. Chinese Daily News, 353 NLRB No. 66, (12/22/08).


    Impact: Activity protected under Section 7 of the NLRA extends beyond questioning by the employer of the employee at work. The NLRB’s holding in Chinese Daily News appears to broaden the NLRA’s protections to any questioning by the employer of the employee’s union activities, regardless of context.


Workforce Management, February 16, 2009, p. 23 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on

Dissecting Pros, Cons of Card-Check Legislation

The election of President Barack Obama has turned the spotlight on a proposed law to reshape how unions are formed.


    Obama backs the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to form a union. EFCA also imposes stiffer cash penalties on employers that interfere with organizing efforts or illegally stall initial contract negotiations. Crain’s Chicago Business asked two Washington, D.C., labor law experts with opposing views on EFCA to discuss how life might change if it becomes law.


    Josh Goldstein is a spokesman for American Rights at Work, a nonprofit, union-funded lobbying group that supports EFCA.


    Crain’s Chicago Business: Is there anything wrong with the current process?
    Josh Goldstein: The law today too heavily favors the employer. Management can force workers who have already indicated their desire to form a union to take an extra step and hold an election, which gives them time to harass, intimidate and even fire individuals seeking union representation. And the penalties for interfering with the union formation or contract negotiations are so insignificant they are laughable.


    Crain’s: Does this bill take away the right of workers to hold an election to determine whether to form a union?
    Goldstein: No, not at all. That’s one of the myths opponents of this law would love for you to believe, but it’s not true. Workers will still have the right to request an election by signing a card indicating a desire to hold an election. The difference is that neither the National Labor Relations Board nor the employer can force an election on them. If workers sign a petition indicating their desire to have an election, then the NLRB can call an election; but if a majority want union representation and indicate that on a card, they will not be forced to go through that additional step of holding an election. EFCA gives workers the right to call an election, not management.


    Crain’s: Even if EFCA doesn’t pass, do you think the Obama administration is likely to foster a more union-friendly environment?
    Goldstein: We’re under new leadership in Congress and the White House, and both are committed to workers’ rights. People voted for leadership who can help to elevate a struggling middle class.


    J. Justin Wilson is managing director of the Center for Union Facts, a lobbying group funded primarily by corporations. The group opposes EFCA.


    Crain’s: Why is this bill garnering so much attention right now?
    J. Justin Wilson: Labor unions are looking to swell their ranks and their war chest. They spent $450 million in this election, and there was really only one string attached: the Employee Free Choice Act. The stars are aligned for them right now with a Democratic House and Senate and Democratic president, and they know they are in reach of it.


    Crain’s: Is there anything wrong with the current process?
    Wilson: The process used today… ensures American workers have the right to vote their conscience in a secret ballot, and that ensures the process is democratic. Unions know that it’s much easier to get people to sign a card than to get them to vote in an election, so it’s clear that this bill was introduced because they have no intention of using the NLRB process ever again. The bottom line is, every worker should have the right to vote.


    Crain’s: Does this bill take away the right of workers to hold an election to determine whether to form a union?
    Wilson: Is there a loophole that would allow an election? Yes. Would that loophole ever be used? It’s very, very unlikely. The bill explicitly says that if they turn in 51 percent of cards [saying yes to unionizing], the NLRB is explicitly prohibited from having an election.


    Crain’s: Even if EFCA doesn’t pass, do you think the Obama administration is likely to foster a more union-friendly environment?
    Wilson: What we see happening … is more and more tweaks around the edges that favor labor unions. … It’s a litany of things small-business owners will have to hire lawyers to help them comply with and that expose them to a greater degree of liability.

Posted on

Likely Business Targets Brace for Organizing Push From Unions

R etailers, restaurants and health care facilities will be in unions’ cross hairs if the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law.

    “Any kind of service industry will clearly be first on the hit list,” says bill critic Richard Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has consulted employer groups on the legislation.


    The common denominator for these industries, he notes, is that they can’t relocate to cheaper labor markets. So if the EFCA becomes law, “hotels, restaurants, any kind of industry where mobility is not an option will be forced to deal with wage rigidity and job rigidity.”


    Until now, unions have had only mixed success in organizing these sectors. But the “card check” legislation has some workers looking forward to a change.


    “Give us a choice and a voice,” says Shirley Brown, a housekeeper at Resurrection Health Care’s Westlake Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois, who has been pushing for six years to organize Resurrection’s 8,000 employees for AFSCME Council 31.


    Current law requires employees to gather pro-union signatures from a majority of workers. An employer can then either negotiate with the union or call an election. EFCA would give employees the right to determine whether an election is held. It also would stiffen penalties on employers who interfere with organizing efforts.


    “You should not be subjected to fear, harassment and intimidation because we want a voice,” says Brown, 50, who has worked at Westlake for 13 years.


    But restaurateur Glen Keefer worries the law would strain small-business owners already struggling in a weak economy. Keefer is part-owner of Keefer’s Restaurant, a Chicago-area steakhouse with 99 employees. He also runs Tavern at the Park, a restaurant near Millennium Park in Chicago with 80 employees.


    Keefer says he and his partners put on hold plans to open a third restaurant in 2009—partly because they were concerned about taking on more debt and partly because of the uncertainty over costs if the EFCA becomes law.


    “We don’t need a third party in between us and our employees who is extracting money from our employees for services that, frankly, they don’t need,” says Keefer, who says his workers get health care benefits and paid vacation time. “A third party could disrupt our working relationship and would raise costs for our employees and for us.”

Posted on

A Renaissance for Government Work

P resident Barack Obama has tried to model himself after Abraham Lincoln. When it comes to the federal workforce, a more apt comparison may be John F. Kennedy.

    Obama hasn’t exhorted Americans to ask themselves what they can do for their country. But early indications are that he has inspired them to consider working for their country.


    The administration, however, faces the same recruiting, retention and development challenges that have bedeviled its predecessors in managing the huge federal bureaucracy, which totaled 1.9 million executive branch employees in 2008.


    The government must solve turnover problems among young employees, fill gaps in the midcareer ranks and find a way to hold on to workers who are nearing retirement, according to experts. It also has to make applying for a civil service job less onerous.


    Initially, it looks as if the “hope” and “change” themes of the Obama campaign are carrying over to governance.


    “He’s already on his way to making government cool again,” says Max Stier, president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group promoting effective government.


    As of Inauguration Day, about 400,000 applications had been submitted for administration political appointments through the Web site Change.gov. Those positions number about 7,000 across federal agencies. The site was shut down after Obama was sworn in, and visitors were referred to the jobs section of www.white house.gov, which is still under construction but will presumably connect to the Office of Presidential Personnel when it is completed.


    For those interested in civil service jobs, Change.gov provided a link to USA jobs.com, the official site for federal government employment. In early January, about 2.8 million people were visiting each week, up about 500,000 per week from the summer, according to Stier.


    “This is a new era of hands-on government and more active government, and Obama is bringing a lot more people into it,” says John Hamre, president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.


    Although the jobs section of Change.gov was just a one-page information form, Stier says it was useful in channeling the enthusiasm for administration jobs.


“He’s already on his way to making government cool again.”
—Max Stier,
Partnership for Public Service

    “It does appear to me, from the bleacher seats, they have been effective in providing a single portal that is easy to use and informative, which is an accomplishment,” Stier says.


    But given the Internet savvy of the Obama campaign, which reached out to some 10 million people, some observers expected Change.gov to garner more than a few hundred thousand applications.


    “I would characterize that as low volume,” says Linda Brooks Rix, co-CEO of Avue, a human capital management software company in Washington. “I would have expected that number to be in the seven figures.”


    One of the problems with Change.gov, according to Rix, was that it didn’t identify specific openings. Avue’s transitionjobs.us site offers an online version of the “Plum Book,” which lists federal jobs that are filled by political appointment.


    Another Change.gov shortcoming was that it was more of an aggregator of résumés than a device for identifying talent. Most of those decisions will be made the old-fashioned way—through connections and personal references.


    “I don’t think it will have much value as a selecting tool,” says Scott Cameron, director of global public sector at consulting firm Grant Thornton in Alexandria, Virginia.


Difficult to apply
    For fired-up job seekers, indicating interest in a federal job, either online or by contacting an administration official, is only the beginning of a long process that could include filling out many forms and answering dozens of questions.


    Similar challenges exist in applying for other federal jobs. Although the Office of Personnel Management launched an initiative to significantly reduce the lag between receiving a résumé and making a job offer, the process can still take several months.


    “It’s a nightmare to apply for a federal civil service job,” Cameron says. “If any American company recruited people … the same way the federal government does, then that company would be out of business very soon.”


    Recruiting is just one of many deficiencies in federal workforce management.


“You have this massive capital outlay that you can’t see, you can’t track and you can’t manage.”
—Linda Brooks Rix, Avue

    “Our government’s current system for recruiting, hiring, compensating, training and managing people is broken in too many places,” states a recent report by Grant Thornton and the Partnership for Public Service.


    The report is based on interviews with chief human capital officers throughout the government. “As a result, federal agencies struggle to bring in top talent, often don’t fully utilize the skills of current civil servants, or simply lack enough of the right talent.”


‘A crisis of competence’
    Experts say recent government missteps ranging from the botched response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to more recent crises like approving tainted toys from China and failing to detect a $50 billion financial Ponzi scheme can be traced back to personnel failures.


    With the government being called on to bail out financial markets and pull the country out of a recession, the demands on civil service are sure to grow. But the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s ascension to the White House is concentrated mostly among young people just starting their careers.


    The real strain in the federal workforce is in the more experienced ranks. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, says the government “lacks effective ways to bring people in midgrade.”


    He says too many people drop off “the conveyor belt” as they move from the low levels at which they were hired to more senior jobs. Part of the problem is that the government has provided only cost-of-living adjustments rather than real raises for nearly two decades.


    The result is that top civil service performers have departed for the private sector. Many senior managers who have stayed on board are within a few years of retirement.


    “I believe we have a crisis of competence in the government,” Hamre says. “We have not brought in talent in systematic ways for the past 15 years. Government is seriously enfeebled precisely at a time when we need a stronger, more capable and sophisticated government.”


    As in-house talent shrinks, the government has increasingly turned to outside firms to perform services. From 1999 to 2005, the number of federal contractors grew by more than 50 percent to 10.5 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. Critics say that the George W. Bush administration contributed to the trend with its emphasis on privatization.


    The shift has inherent drawbacks, Rix says. Contractors are hired through the procurement office of an agency, sometimes causing a disconnect with the HR department.


    “You have this massive capital outlay that you can’t see, you can’t track and you can’t manage,” Rix says. “You have a system that is not agile … and [is] ripe for corruption.”


    Avue is encouraging the Obama administration to “insource” more federal work by hiring civil service employees. “We don’t have enough expertise in-house to provide oversight of government contractors,” Rix says.


 A talent pipeline
    If the government starts to rely more on its own workforce, it should put more emphasis on talent management, says Maria Grant, federal human-capital practice leader at Deloitte in Washington.


    For instance, the government has a shortage of Food and Drug Administration inspectors. It needs to think through the skills required for the position and work with colleges to produce graduates who are qualified and inspired for the work.


    The objective is to go beyond simply filling openings.


    “We must have much more robust leadership development programs and succession planning,” Grant says. “I’m hoping that the new administration takes a more holistic view and develops a comprehensive workforce planning strategy.”


    But the first order of business is to make it easier for everyone who has renewed enthusiasm about government work to apply for federal jobs.


    “If [Obama] can do that, he will make a major contribution that will extend far beyond his four or eight years in office,” says Grant Thornton’s Cameron.

Posted on

Salute Recruiters for Mining the Military, but the Corporate World Is a Different Battleground

It shouldn’t come as a huge shock that military officers are a sought-after group of individuals for corporate management positions.


In particular, recruitment is heavy in industries such as aerospace and defense, where assets including leadership, work ethic, commitment and even Rolodexes filled with names of key military personnel are elements to individual and corporate success.


Officers, however, are often jarred by the bumpy road they face when transitioning into civilian leadership positions. There are exceptions to every rule, but by and large, there is a certain culture shock that takes place. Recruiters and the corporations pursuing military officers need to be aware that special attention must be paid to this particular segment of job recruits.


Emily King never sugarcoats the transition from military leadership to civilian leadership with her clients. King has had more than a decade of experience working with veterans to help them—and the corporations that hire them—better understand what’s in store. Two years ago she started her own Washington-based consulting firm, King Street Associates, which has a division dedicated to military-transition coaching.


“What we’ve found is that many ex-military officers leave their first civilian job within the first three years,” King said. “They often have the misconception that since they’re being hired for their military experience, the job is going to be basically like it was in the military, just in a different venue.”


This is far from the truth, and Eric Peterson, manager, diversity and inclusion initiatives at the Society for Human Resource Management in Alexandria, Virginia, points out that an entirely different approach has to be taken when placing veteran officers in corporate positions.


“At SHRM, we really take a broad definition of diversity,” Peterson said. “It’s not simply the traditional diversity categories you might think of, but anything that makes you markedly different.”


In other words, it makes sense that much like someone with a disability requiring special needs and attention, military officers may also need particular tools and education that other job recruits would not.


“The military has a very specific culture. They break you down and build you back up as a soldier,” said Peterson, who added that it’s a difficult proposition to just leave that lifestyle behind.


Some military leaders have trouble shifting their managerial style in a corporate setting. They might bark commands or mismanage time and resources to meet a deadline because they were never instructed on how different the corporate culture is from what they’ve been accustomed to during their military careers.


King says most recruiters and corporations don’t understand how important catered training programs are to these former armed forces commanders.


“They don’t have any specialized knowledge or resources to help these leaders easily transition, understand the learning curve and become productive quickly,” King said. “They’re thrown into new-hire orientations with kids coming out of college and other new employees. But these officers have a specific set of challenges that aren’t shared by most other groups.”


King has seen a lack of patience too.


“The time that it takes for them to be productive, successful and accepted by their peers in an organization is a lot longer,” she said.


Peterson agreed, and said that not taking proactive steps to train and educate former military leaders “is almost always a recipe for failure.”


If these recruits seem too high-maintenance, King and Peterson insisted that the upfront investment pays off. While they’re highly recruited and normally paid lofty salaries, the experience, knowledge and dedication they bring to the table is often unparalleled by other employees—even other executive leaders.


Because of this, King recommended that recruiters try to better understand what the transition will be like and work with their corporate clients to develop mentoring and training programs, which could even be taught by other former military leaders. Putting more stock into the “human capital” investment is always a smart move, but almost a necessity in this case.


Peterson said companies that are able to keep these unique leaders on board ultimately will reap the benefits. And as for recruiters, he said one important piece of the puzzle is to make sure veterans, whether former officers or not, feel wanted, valued and respected.


Ultimately, he added, tapping into the military for recruiting efforts, if done correctly, can give recruiters an additional, viable pool of candidates.

Posted on

The Hot List: 2009 Dental and Vision Providers

2008 DENTAL AND VISION PROVIDERS

With a range of vision benefit programs available to them, employers can offer employees choices while controlling the cost of the benefit even as general health care costs continue to rise.

“If you look at the major providers, I see a lot of `high-medium-low’ designs similar to what an employee might see in a medical offering,” said Manny Menendez, principle benefits consultant-health management practice with Lincolnshire, Illinois-based Hewitt Associates Inc.

By offering a range of copay levels, employers hope to keep the benefit attractive for those employees who need it most—particularly older workers and those with chronic vision problems and other illnesses—while keeping costs down for others. The average employer spends less than 5 percent of total health care-related spending on employee vision care, Menendez said.
On the dental-benefits front, the National Association of Dental Plans and the Delta Dental Plans Association, the U.S. industry’s two trade associations, are closely watching health care reform efforts and how they may affect dental benefits, officials said.

The groups are particularly concerned about changes that would remove employers’ ability to deduct such premiums from their taxes and counting dental benefits as taxable income for employees.

“Over 96 percent of all dental benefits are provided through employment or other private and public groups,” said Evelyn Ireland, Dallas-based executive director of the National Association of Dental Plans. “Changes in employer-based coverage could significantly erode current dental coverage and thereby reduce the oral health of Americans.”

To enlarge the view, click on the image below.
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required


Posted on

Talbots to Freeze Pension Plans

Talbots Inc. will freeze its two defined-benefit pension plans indefinitely as of May 1 in an effort to boost company cash flow, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.


Participants will receive no further accruals under the defined-benefit pension plan or supplemental pension plan, which should yield cash savings of roughly $6 million for the current fiscal year, according to a news release.


On February 5, Hingham, Massachusetts-based Talbots announced it was suspending matching contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan while increasing health care contributions by employees. The company expects those two steps to result in roughly $7 million in savings during the current fiscal year, spokeswoman Julie Lorigan said.


Talbots’ defined-benefit pension plan had $110 million in assets as of February 2, 2008, according to its most recent annual report. The company had $159 million in its 401(k) plan as of December 2006, according to the 2009 Money Market Directory.


Filed by Douglas Appell of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Wyoming Passes Disability Cost-of-Living Increase

Both chambers of Wyoming’s Legislature on Monday, March 2, approved a bill that would provide annual cost-of-living increases for workers’ compensation permanent-disability cases.


H.B. 54, sponsored by the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee, would adjust permanent-disability benefit increases by 3 percent or an amount equal to increases in the Consumer Price Index, depending on which is less. It also would increase death benefits.


A spokeswoman for Wyoming Gov. Dave Freuden did not immediately return a telephone call about whether the governor would sign the bill.


Filed by Roberto Ceniceros 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