Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on September 12, 2008June 27, 2018

10-Plus Tips for Succeeding in an EEOC Mediation Part Two

I n the first part of this article, I wrote about avoiding the EEOC through the use of neutral, third-party mediation, and discussed some key points to consider before an EEOC mediation. Now let’s talk about the mediation process itself.

Tip Six: ‘Butter up’ the mediator.
    After you’ve decided who will accompany you to the mediation, the next important step is considering how you interact with the mediator. Mediators are neutral, but first and foremost, they are human beings. Many employers forget this, and because of their frustration and anger, they take it out on the mediator. That is not in your best interest.


    One of the most neutral EEOC mediators I know told me recently: “I will go out my way for an employer who treats me well instead of one who comes in with an attitude. I’m not a computer, and I can’t help but respond to how I’m treated. My willingness to pursue resolution when an impasse looms will diminish if I’ve been treated rudely. I want to shut the process down when someone is treating me disrespectfully, rather than give it my all.”


Tip Seven: Despite feelings of resentment and upset, control your emotions over the employee and the charge made against your organization.
    When I reflect on effective employer conduct during the 500 mediations I conducted, I remember one of the employee relations professionals who always maximized her company’s outcome. She achieved this simply by the way she conducted herself during the mediation process. This woman, whom I’ll call “Marie,” started with body language. From the time she entered the mediation room, she conveyed warmth, openness and a genuine willingness to listen to the employee. Marie never interrupted the employee, never became defensive and interacted with the employee by asking thoughtful, empathetic questions. She rarely attended with counsel. She was confident and answered employee questions honestly and thoroughly without being evasive. She never issued ultimatums. She was clear about what she could and could not offer, and was very creative in her ideas for resolution.Most of this employer’s EEOC charges were resolved during mediation. And they didn’t always involve a monetary settlement.


Tip Eight: Try for creative solutions to resolve the dispute. Brainstorm nonmonetary options before attending the mediation.
    I have settled a number of cases by listening to what the parties are not saying and by addressing those unspoken needs. In one case, the employer was strongly opposed to offering the employee any monetary compensation, but the employee was unwilling to withdraw the charge and walk away empty-handed. The employee alleged gender discrimination and was on maternity leave. I suggested that the employer give the employee a gift certificate at a baby store, and both parties were amenable to this suggestion. I have always mediated according to the Mick Jagger principle: You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need.


    Before attending a mediation, it is crucial to brainstorm with others what all the possible nonmonetary ideas for resolution can be. Don’t come into the mediation expecting the mediator to suggest the solutions. Think outside the box—way outside the box—and come prepared to know what you can offer the employee. Do not, however, assume that telling your side of the story will win an employee over. It’s unlikely that the employee will say, “Thanks! I never thought of that explanation for your actions. I guess you didn’t discriminate against me, so I’ll just withdraw my charge and go home.” Many employers actually attend a mediation thinking their explanations will make the charge vanish. This almost never happens.


Tip Nine: Let go of needing to be right and keep focused on the long-term goals you want to achieve.
    One of the greatest barriers to resolution is not being able to let go of feeling that you’re in the right. This is incredibly difficult to do, but try to keep focused on what you wish to accomplish, not on that you believe you’ve been wrongfully accused of something. Ask yourself: “Is this an employee I want to continue working with?” If so, try to use the mediation as a time to mend hurt feelings and clear up misunderstandings. Even if you’re dealing with an employee who will never return to your workplace, do you want to risk not settling the case during the mediation? Do you want to endure more months of an investigation, or is it in your best interest to put it behind you today? Protracted conflict is rarely in a company’s best interest. A good mediation is when the parties vent their concerns, figure out a way for most of their interests to be satisfied, and are able to move on.


Tip 10: Don’t call it quits prematurely.
    When you feel like giving up and calling an impasse, don’t! A lot of cases get settled when everyone is tired and frustrated.


Tip 11: Recognize that it’s not over when it’s over.
    After a mediation that has resulted in a withdrawal of the charge and produced a negotiated settlement agreement, don’t assume the matter will not resurface. If the mediation involves a current employee, make sureto check in with this employee a few times after the mediation. You may even want to put in the agreement that certain parties will meet in, say, 30 days to ensure that nothing has been omitted from the agreement, and that nothing new has arisen or been missed since the day of the mediation. Additionally, remember that any agreed-upon terms need to be communicated if management changes.


Bonus Tip One: Recognize common problems before they erupt into more protracted conflicts.|
    As the mediation is coming to a close, it is a good idea to learn ways to avoid returning to the EEOC. Having spoken to so many employers about their simmering pots, I know them when I see them. Here are some common (and actual) situations that can bring you back to the EEOC if you don’t deal with them:


1. There’s a change in management. The new supervisor follows the organization’s policies and guidelines, but the previous managers were more flexible. This leads the employee to think he is being treated unfairly by his new supervisor.


2. An employee with a history of performance issues has had several supervisors, but some of these supervisors have not completed a written evaluation of the employee. The last performance evaluation is more than 4 years old.


3. A supervisor is frustrated with his manager because he has to clean up after the manager’s outbursts toward the line staff.


4. A supervisor is disengaged at work because she is not being supported by her manager when it comes to dealing with a disruptive employee.


    All of these situations offer the employer an opportunity to seek an outside contracted mediation option to avoid a more disruptive outcome. Many employees feel it is important to go to management in HR, employee relations or equal employment opportunity to maintain a record of the problem, and I would support this approach almost 100 percent of the time. After the concerns have been documented, most of these situations would benefit from mediation, where concerns can be vented, patterns, if any, can be detected and new ways of interacting can be discussed. For this to be effective, both parties have to be able to trust the mediator and recognize their mutual interest in resolving the problem.


Bonus Tip Two: Develop a comprehensive approach to conflict and consider offering employees an additional option by having an internal dispute-resolution program.
   
Some of the employers I speak with talk of having a more comprehensive approach to conflict resolution. Employers such as the EEOC and Coca-Cola have decided that the best way to accomplish this is by starting their own internal dispute -resolution program with outside mediators conducting the mediations. This allows all parties to feel that the mediator is neutral and can be trusted to hear all sides fairly. An attorney at a leading national law firm reported that two years after one of his clients started an internal dispute resolution program, its outside legal expenses were reduced by 60 percent.


    Some equal employment opportunity managers I have spoken with measure the morale of their workplace by the number of EEO/EEOC charges brought against them. I don’t believe that is an accurate barometer of the health of a workplace. The more important question to address is whether your employees have a meaningful way to resolve the concerns they are having at all levels among themselves.


    With the Employee Free Choice Act legislation pending, employers and their counsel can no longer afford to let these simmering pots continue. If attorneys and HR management continue to deny their own limitations in addressing the employees’ concerns, the employee will feel powerless. And unions will attempt to fill that void.


    A better approach is to find proactive ways to take your simmering pots off the stove and create a workplace environment where employees are fully engaged.


Posted on September 11, 2008June 27, 2018

Survey Critical of ‘Say on Pay’ Draws Fire

Institutional investors may not be as monolithic as believed when it comes to their views on executive compensation.


At least that would seem to be the take-away conclusion of a study of 20 of the 25 largest U.S. institutional investors. That survey found that more than half of the respondents oppose “say on pay” proposals.


Only a quarter of the institutions were in favor of such proposals, in which shareholders make nonbinding votes on whether they support or oppose an executive’s compensation.


The results come as something of a surprise, considering that influential shareholder advisory firms RiskMetrics and Glass Lewis back say on pay. Likewise, the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents 130 public, labor and corporate pension funds, approved a policy in March 2007 recommending that all companies voluntarily adopt say on pay.


But one of the executives at the polled institutions, all of whom chose to be anonymous in the study, said: “I think [say on pay] is ridiculous. I don’t get it. If you don’t like [the executive’s pay package], then don’t invest in the company. Go somewhere else.”


While some of the largest top institutional investors—including Vanguard, Fidelity Investments and T. Rowe Price—took part in the phone survey, other large institutions, such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, did not.


“There are nuances that often get lost in the day-to-day reporting” of these issues, said Tim Bartl, general counsel at the Center on Executive Compensation, which commissioned the study and helped draft some of the questions. “These findings are more contrary to [union and pension] statements.”


Maybe. But supporters of say on pay contend that the study is biased because of the involvement of Bartl’s group, a newly formed association that represents executives in the compensation debate and is funded by the Human Resource Policy Association.


Rich Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and pension investment at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said the center is a “front group” for defending excessive pay.


“Big Business must see the writing on the wall from Congress that there will be legislation to curb abusive pay practices next year, so they are out to undermine the growing view that action must be taken,” he said.


The study’s author, Kevin Hallock, a human resources professor at Cornell University, said the responses seem to indicate institutional investors are more willing to engage in direct dialogue with companies over disparate pay than to support say-on-pay proposals.


“Most of these guys are not worried about [executive compensation],” he said. “Although some vocal groups have a more formalized view of it.”


Other survey findings sure to tick off shareholder rights groups: About three-quarters of the investors had no real concerns about current levels of executive pay, and less than half said they think compensation consultants should be independent.


Filed by Nicholas Rummell of Financial Week, 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 September 11, 2008June 27, 2018

Senate Approves Legislation to Expand Workplace Disability Law

A bill that would expand workplace protections for disabled Americans gained unanimous Senate approval on Thursday, September 11.


The legislation, which was co-sponsored by 77 senators, sailed through on a voice vote. Both presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, came out in support of the bill weeks ago.


The measure clarifies that Congress meant for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be broadly interpreted. The original measure, which became law in the early 1990s, required employers to make accommodations for disabled employees.


The new bill, the ADA Amendments Act, addresses Supreme Court decisions that critics say restricted the law. The court ruled in several cases that mitigating measures—such as medication or prosthesis—make a person ineligible for coverage.


In an unusual show of cooperation, disability advocates and the business lobby compromised on the final bill, ensuring broad support on Capitol Hill. In late June, the House approved a similar bill, 402-17.


“This was a slam-dunk,” said Keith Smith, director of employment and labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “The biggest hurdle was the Senate calendar.”


Congress returned from its August recess on Monday and will be in session until late September, when it will take another break to allow members to go home and campaign.


It’s not clear whether all legislative business will be concluded by October, but the window is closing quickly.


Both the House and Senate versions of the ADA bill reiterate that the definition of a disability is a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. They also increase the number of activities covered, add a category of bodily functions and allow workers to sue if they are “regarded as” disabled.


The House bill defines “substantially limits” as “materially restricts.” In an effort to garner more support, the Senate avoids such sharpening of the language.


“Instead, the bill takes several specific and general steps that, individually and in combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and application of the definition,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Congressional Record statement in July.


Differences between the House and Senate bills won’t slow down the measure, Smith said. He anticipates that the House will take up and pass the Senate measure, bypassing the need for a conference committee.


“This is a high priority for [House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer,” Smith said. Hoyer, D-Maryland, is the author of the House bill.


The White House has not indicated its position on the bill, but a veto is unlikely.


In addition to NAM, the Society for Human Resource Management and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the business groups that participated in a coalition with disability advocates to push the bill through Congress.


As is the case with any compromise, no one was completely satisfied. The business community accepted a bill that could increase litigation. But the final language was less expansive than that contained in the original bill.


The lack of a specific definition of “substantially limits,” however, could require courts to step in again.


“At the center of the continuum, the question [of who is disabled] is probably straightforward,” said Neil Abramson, a partner at the law firm Proskauer Rose in New York.


“At the margins, it’s more difficult. That will probably generate, at least in the beginning, litigation,” he said.


HR departments will have to be fastidious about ensuring that language in employee files pertains only to performance so that it doesn’t become fodder for disability lawsuits.


“It’s going to require a fairly diligent HR function,” Abramson said. “The nuances are fairly complicated and will be fairly significant as this plays out.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


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

Posted on September 11, 2008June 27, 2018

New Yorkers Take Second Jobs to Make Ends Meet, Poll Shows

New Yorkers are trying to take their economic fate into their own hands by seeking overtime and getting second jobs, according to a poll conducted by the Siena Research Institute.


In the past six months, 34 percent of New York state’s residents have started a second job or added overtime to their schedules to make ends meet. Of the respondents, 13 percent of retirees said they’ve taken on extra work, as did 43 percent of lower-income residents.


Researchers said residents are partly trying to save up for their winter energy bills.


“Gas and food prices have most people’s attention, and many are driving less, juggling spending or rewriting the family shopping list to include more store brands and fewer cookies, but everyone is bracing for the heating bills this winter,” said Don Levy, founder of the Siena Research Institute, in a statement. “Upstate, downstate; all incomes, nearly 80 percent of New Yorkers are concerned about the bite energy will take when the weather turns.”


The poll, which queried 513 households and comes with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points, showed that many residents are simply accepting today’s economic turmoil as a new way of life.


About 52 percent of respondents said they believe the country’s best economic days are behind us and that the next generation will have to accept a lower standard of living. Nearly 75 percent of voters said food prices are seriously affecting their financial condition, and 67 percent continue to feel the pinch of gasoline prices.


In May, fiscal analysts for New York Gov. David Paterson said a recession was beginning in New York and should continue into early 2009.


Still, some optimism remains, Siena researchers said.


“Even though more New Yorkers expect the economy to decline than to improve over the next 12 months, by a margin of 49 percent to 32 percent, residents think their personal situation will improve,” Levy said.


Residents who take a second job or work more overtime are trying to make that happen for themselves.


“It’s a natural reaction to economic insecurity,” said Jim Brown, an economist at the state Department of Labor.


Filed by Elisabeth Butler Cordova of Crain’s New York Business, 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 September 10, 2008June 27, 2018

More Employers Freeze Defined-Benefit Plans

The number of large employers that have frozen at least one of their defined-benefit pension plans continues to increase, according to a new survey.


Of the 624 employers on the 2008 Fortune 1000 list that sponsor defined-benefit plans, 27 percent have frozen at least one of those plans, according to benefit consultant Watson Wyatt Worldwide of Arlington, Virginia, which analyzed Securities & Exchange Commission filings. That’s up from 2007, when 21.6 percent of 638 Fortune 1000 companies had frozen at least one of their defined benefit plans.


In 2004, as the corporate drive to freeze defined-benefit plans was gathering steam, only 7.1 percent of 633 Fortune 1000 companies with defined-benefit plans had one or more frozen pension plans, according to the survey.


In a freeze, a company continues its pension plan, but future benefit accruals stop for some or all participants. Typically, employers who freeze their defined-benefit plans enhance their defined-contribution plans for affected participants.


Employers freezing their pension plans have done so for various reasons, including reducing retirement-plan costs and the volatility of required contributions, which for defined-benefit plans can fluctuate significantly due to changes in interest rates and investment results.


Fortune 1000 employers that have frozen defined-benefit plans in recent years include Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM Corp. and Sears Holdings Corp.


The survey is available at www.watsonwyatt.com.


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.

Posted on September 9, 2008June 27, 2018

Mitsubishi Work Goes on Without a Contract

Workers at Mitsubishi’s U.S. assembly plant continue to build vehicles despite a breakdown in contract talks with negotiators from the United Auto Workers.


The sides have reached an impasse on whether 1,250 UAW workers at the Normal, Illinois, plant will be asked for wage and benefit concessions, as they were two years ago during a period of financial trouble at Mitsubishi.


Mitsubishi Motors North America spokesman Dan Irvin said there is no schedule for returning to the negotiating table, but that production continues at a normal pace.


The two sides have declined to publicly discuss the issues of their negotiations. But a statement posted Sunday, September 7, on Mitsubishi’s UAW Local 2488 Web site told U.S. workers that “it’s extremely disappointing that this latest proposal asks these loyal workers for the kind of drastic cuts that would have a devastating impact on their lives and on the communities in which they live.”


The statement is attributed to UAW vice president Jimmy Settles, who directs the UAW’s affairs with the non-Detroit Three automakers.


In the Web site statement, which instructs the workforce to continue reporting to work, Settles said: “In 2006 UAW members made concessions worth millions of dollars to improve Mitsubishi’s bottom line.”


A $4-an-hour wage reduction lasted until this year, when workers returned to their previous wage levels.


The current Mitsubishi contract expired August 28, but both sides agreed to extend talks through September 5. The contract would have expired in 2005, but the UAW agreed to two separate extensions as Mitsubishi worked to regain financial stability.


Filed by Lindsay Chappell of Automotive 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 September 9, 2008June 27, 2018

Britain Considers Bigger Role for Private Health Insurance

In Britain, long the home of publicly funded health care, the health system may be taking on a more private-sector look, with employers potentially picking up more of the tab.


Top government officials are discussing a policy proposal known as “top-ups” for the National Health Service in England and Wales, which would allow insurers to offer NHS patients coverage for treatment, particularly expensive drugs, not covered by the service.


Sometimes paid by employers as an employee benefit, private medical insurance supplements NHS services in the United Kingdom. However, current practice requires that once patients seek care outside the NHS, they must continue to receive all care for that condition outside NHS facilities. If authorized, the NHS top-up plan would aim to pay for uncovered treatments while patients still receive the remainder of care from the NHS.


“It’s a whole new market that hasn’t been explored yet,” said Philip Blackburn, senior economist at health care consultant Laing & Buisson Ltd. in London. “It will change the landscape.


“It remains to be seen how much extra money the consumer has for health care,” he added. “The market is unlikely to explode overnight. It will be digested gradually.”


Alan Johnson, the government minister in charge of health care, has asked Mike Richards, the Department of Health’s national clinical director for cancer, to review the proposal and report back in October.


According to a July report from Laing & Buisson, 4.2 million people in the United Kingdom purchased health insurance policies or enrolled in self-insured employer plans at the beginning of 2008, a rise of 1.3 percent over 2007. Those plans covered nearly 7.5 million people, or 12.3 percent of the population. Individual policies shrank by 0.5 percent while corporate demand rose 2.3 percent, according to the report.


Cancer treatment is at the nexus of the debate over top-ups. Some drugs licensed for marketing within the United Kingdom are barred from NHS use on cost-effectiveness grounds established by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The agency evaluates clinical trial data on drugs and other medical technologies and assesses their cost-effectiveness as measured in British pounds per quality-adjusted life year, or a year of good health.


Drugs that cost less than 20,000 pounds, or $37,168, per quality-adjusted life year are usually judged as cost-effective. Those that cost 30,000 pounds, or $55,752, or more are unlikely to be approved. Those that fall between require additional evidence and scrutiny, according to a spokesman for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.


Most recently, the agency drafted a decision that proposed barring NHS patients with advanced or metastatic kidney cancer from having access to Sutent and three other cancer-treatment drugs. Sutent costs more than 3,000 pounds for a six-week cycle; while it increased the length of time some patients survived without any disease progression, it did not meet the cost-effectiveness threshold.


Ignoring current practice, one company has already jumped into the top-up market. Armed with a legal opinion in favor of top-ups that was written by a government attorney, Taunton, England-based Western Provident Association, a nonprofit insurer, in April 2007 began offering a plan covering up to 50,000 pounds of cancer medications. The annual premium is the policyholder’s age plus a 5 percent tax.


Six weeks ago, the association began offering a more comprehensive plan that covers an array of preventive and routine care costs, including a 200-pound payment each time a policyholder has a child. An option allows adding cancer drugs to the policy.


“All we’re trying to do is complement the gaps in the NHS,” a company spokesman said. “Whatever [the government] decides in October, it’s an opportunity for us. We’re ahead of the curve. We will evolve the policy if we need to.”


The spokesman would not disclose how many people purchased such policies.


For employers, the potential change in government policy gives them a chance to re-evaluate the health benefits they provide, restructure how they are provided and how they are financed—whether through employer contributions or salary deductions, especially if top-up coverage costs less than traditional medical insurance.


“If you’re effectively self-funding the medical plan, it allows you to say, `Let’s let people get coverage from the NHS for the things that NHS does well, and we’ll supply some sort of supplementary coverage for the things people have to wait for,’ ” said Paul Ashcroft, a principal at Mercer who heads the company’s London-based health and benefits office. “It may open up those sorts of discussions.”


Structuring a new plan with wider access to benefits also means employee-benefit managers need to understand more about the health marketplace and how it affects their programs.


“Be aware of what’s out there in the clinical world, what drugs are coming on the market and how they work,” said Elliott Hurst, senior consultant for health care and risk consulting with Watson Wyatt Worldwide in London. “From the financial perspective, you’ve got to a keep a close eye on your claims expenses and trends in the demographics of your group…. Try to paint a picture of what the implications are if you take a particular stance on a particular drug.”


Benefit managers also need to be aware of how their program structure affects health services.


“The liability to you needs to be clear,” said Fiona Harris, Staines, England-based head of personal markets with the British United Provident Association. “You don’t want somebody halfway through the [treatment] process and have a conflict.”


Finally, managers of employee benefit plans need to think about how they communicate changes in plans, particularly if they choose to jettison or reduce cancer coverage should the NHS supplement become available.


“It’s potentially quite a difficult message,” Mercer’s Ashcroft said.


Filed by Jonathan Gardner of Business Insurance-Europe, 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 September 8, 2008June 27, 2018

DOL Opens Advice Window for Investment Firms

The Labor Department has proposed to dramatically open the door for mutual funds and other investment companies to offer investment advice directly to participants in defined-contribution plans.


Fund companies long have been effectively barred from offering direct advice to participants because of fears that the advisors might steer participants to the companies’ own investment options.


But under a proposed class exemption published in the Federal Register on August 22, the Department of Labor would allow an investment company’s employees to offer one-on-one advice directly, as long as the employee’s compensation doesn’t depend on the investment options selected by the participant, and the advice meets other key conditions. (The proposal can be viewed here.)


The Pension Protection Act of 2006 included a provision intended to provide limited leeway for plan participants to receive investment advice, but the proposed exemption takes it further.


Proponents of the proposed class exemption, backed by Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, insist that DOL action is needed to provide investment advisors with meaningful relief from the advice prohibitions.


“Americans deserve face-to-face, personally tailored advice on a range of investment options to meet their own unique needs,” Boehner said in a release. The proposed exemption “is a major step toward giving workers that.” Calls to Boehner’s office for additional comment were not returned by press time.


Critics, however, said the new proposal goes far beyond the relief envisioned by the pension law.


One key problem is that it would open the door for conflicts of interest and then rely on after-the-fact enforcement efforts to ferret out abuses.


“This is blind to the way ethics sometime play out in the marketplace,” said Norman Stein, a professor of law at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and senior advisor to the Pension Rights Center in Washington.


“We all know that there will be winks and nods and bonuses that will be discretionary. If conflicts are possible, they’re going to happen.”


Rep. George Miller, D-California, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said in a release: “The rules proposed by the [DOL] are nothing more than a boon for Wall Street and corporate executives, and I urge the department to immediately withdraw these harmful proposals.” Miller was in Denver last week for the Democratic National Convention and could not be reached for further comment.


“The Bush administration is proposing to further tip the scales toward special interests by opening the door to conflicts of interest among the very consultants purporting to offer unbiased investment advice, and potentially allowing companies to reap windfall profits at the expense of American workers,” Miller added.


Still, supporters of the proposed class exemption argue the DOL has provided adequate safeguards to protect the interests of plan participants.


“I think with the care that has gone on with developing and balancing these rules that this concern [about conflicts of interest] may start to diminish or maybe even disappear,” said Andrew Oringer, an ERISA attorney for New York-based law firm White & Case.


Supporters of the proposed class exemption said that department intervention is needed to provide meaningful advice relief. The advice provisions of the PPA provided too little relief to be of much value, they maintain.


Under one reading of the new law, mutual fund employees could provide the advice only if all of the mutual fund’s investment options were offered at the same price, regardless of whether they are, for example, active or passive.


In a Field Assistance Bulletin issued February 2, 2007, the DOL, however, interpreted the new law to mean the fee-leveling requirement did not apply to a fund’s investment options if the fund’s advice provider worked for a separate affiliate of the fund and the fees received by the separate affiliate didn’t vary depending on the selection of the investment options.


ERISA attorneys say the August 22 proposed class exemption proposes to extend the relief from fee leveling to firms that don’t operate their investment advice and investment management services through separate affiliates.


“The class exemption is a helpful effort by the Department of Labor to rationalize the investment advice structure Congress created with the Pension Protection Act,” said Jason Bortz, an ERISA attorney for Davis & Harman in Washington.


“The net result is it’s going to be a lot easier for plan participants to get investment advice and a lot easier for advisors to give investment advice to the largest possible group of people,” said Melanie Nussdorf, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson in Washington.


DOL officials say the exemption would make it easier for defined-contribution plan participants and individual retirement account holders to get personalized investment advice.


But the proposal comes with a number of strings attached.


It essentially says that advice would be OK if offered through computer models independently certified to be unbiased or if the compensation of the advisor providing one-on-one consultation doesn’t vary depending on the investments selected based on the advice.


The proposed exemption also would permit advisors to provide participants with follow-up advice if the participants want more options than those offered by a computer model.


To qualify as an “eligible investment advice arrangement,” under the proposed exemption, advice also would have to rely on “generally accepted” investment theories and take into account the participant’s retirement age, risk tolerance and investment preferences.


In addition, to qualify as an eligible investment advice arrangement, the arrangement must be expressly approved by a plan fiduciary and audited at least annually. The manager also must disclose to participants all fees or compensation that the manager or its affiliates might receive and keep records on the advice for at least six years.


Despite the fact that the department’s proposed class exemption would allow major mutual fund companies to offer their own advice, it’s unclear how the ruling will affect existing advice providers.


The class exemption could stimulate interest in the proprietary advice programs offered by Vanguard Group Inc., said Dennis Simmons, a principal in Vanguard’s ERISA and fiduciary services team.


“At the end of the day, it will help our advice programs because plan sponsors will have a clear road map in confirming that the programs are consistent with ERISA,” he said.


Nonetheless, Simmons said Malvern, Pennsylvania-based Vanguard planned to continue offering interested plan sponsors the independent third-party advice services of Palo Alto-based California Financial Engines Inc.


At T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services Inc. in Baltimore, officials have no plans to provide direct advice. “Right now, we expect to continue with our existing model” of using third-party providers, said spokesman Brian Lewbart.


A spokesman for Fidelity Investments in Boston had no comment.


Peng Chen, president of Chicago-based Ibbotson Associates said there still will be a place for independent advice providers. “A lot of record keepers and plan sponsors will continue preferring third parties because of the independence and experience and the potential cost savings a firm like Ibbotson can bring to the table,” he said.


As of June 30, Chicago-based Morningstar Inc. subsidiaries Morningstar Associates and Ibbotson Associates were providing third-party computer-model advice to 15.6 million retirement plan participants through 136,000 plan sponsors and 29 plan providers, according to Courtney Goethals Dobrow, a Morningstar spokeswoman.


Comments on the proposed class exemption, along with a related proposed regulation, are due October 6. They can be emailed to e-ORI@dol.gov.


Filed by Doug Halonen Pensions & Investments, 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 September 8, 2008June 27, 2018

Beware, Chief Marketing Officer A Temp Might Steal Your Job

The hard times facing the marketing industry may be only temporary, but so, it turns out, are a lot of the jobs.


With an increasing number of companies looking to reduce the full-time headcounts in their marketing departments, and a glut of experienced baby boomers available to do consulting stints, a growing number of marketers are looking to fill brand manager, project leader and even marketing director positions with short-term employees.


A trend tracker on Indeed.com, a search engine that scans U.S. job listings throughout the Internet, shows a sharp spike since May on listings that include the word “temporary” in ads seeking marketing managers, directors and researchers. The spike punctuates a general uptick in such marketing listings relative to all postings since 2005.


The percentage of online job listings containing the words “temporary,” “marketing” and “director” surged roughly 50 percent between May 1 and July 31, according to Indeed.com, even though the trend line for just “marketing” and “director” remained flat during the period.


“I’m finding a lot more companies now are [using] contract employees and consultants at the higher-level jobs, such as director of marketing and senior brand managers,” said Michael Carrillo, president of CPG Jobs, which operates the job site CPGjoblist. He also works as a recruiter.


While the move is clearly aimed at controlling headcounts and cutting costs, Carrillo said he believes demographic factors are at play, such as baby-boomer employees who are downsized out of positions but aren’t ready to retire and have valuable experience.


Broad range of marketer
A variety of firms specialize in the burgeoning area, including conventional temporary service firms such as Kelly Services and Manpower. They’re seeing temporary marketing jobs on the rise even as temporary employment overall has declined steadily since early 2007 because of the slowing economy.


The surge appears to be coming from a surprisingly broad array of marketers, as well as old and new media.


An ad last week from Creative Group, a unit of Robert Half International, for an unnamed Southern California beauty marketer seeks a marketing director for a temporary assignment possibly converting to full-time—and offers someone with eight-plus years of industry experience $50 to $60 an hour.


Apparently the same Southern California beauty marketer seeks to round out the team with a product development manager at $20 to $30 an hour, a bilingual media planner at $25 to $35 an hour and a “marketing guru” at $43 to $50 an hour. Creative Group stands to be the employer of the outsourced team.


Media companies also appear to be stepping up temporary hires. Among temporary positions advertised online: a sales and marketing coordinator for Time Warner’s Health.com; a marketing program manager for EchoStar’s Sling Media, marketer of SlingBox; and a site manager whose duties would include marketing of a national portal and social networking site from Gannett Digital, MomsLikeMe.


“Everybody is looking at headcount and ways to reduce it,” said Joe Hawley, who helped lead the turnaround of Doctor’s Dermatologic Formula for two years before the business was sold to Procter & Gamble Co. last year.


The veteran of Avon Products, Unilever and Liz Claiborne is now working as a consultant with his own firm, Hawley Global Partners. While he’s open to another permanent position, he’s also plying a series of consulting gigs and believes marketing—
and even general management functions—increasingly will be outsourced in the way information technology and human resources positions have been in recent years.


Most of these marketers aren’t contractors directly through the employer, he said, but through third-party firms such as Aquent, which specializes in providing temporary marketing industry help from its own pool of permanent employees and says it serves 90 of the Fortune 100 corporations.


The downside
“You’ll look at a company and not be able to tell who’s a contract employee, who’s [a permanent employee] from a third-party resource and who’s [an employee of] the company,” Hawley said.


Of course, the downside can be quality, said Dave Gallagher, president of Boyden, an Atlanta-based executive search firm.


“Nobody is going to leave their job,” he said, “to be a 90-day temp contractor.”


But Hawley said temps aren’t always getting worse deals, and some can even be of higher quality.


“I call it rent to buy,” he said, adding that many of the positions have permanent potential, sometimes involve equity stakes or efforts to bypass corporate salary caps, and can attract people with broader or more current experience than permanent employees.


Filed by Jack Neff of Advertising Age, 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 September 8, 2008June 27, 2018

California Companies and Brokers Tussle Over HRAs in Consumer Plans

A dispute between health insurance companies in California and brokers could end a practice favored by small employers to save money on health coverage.

The feud centers on employers’ funding of health reimbursement arrangements with high-deductible health plans. Normally, high-deductible plans are used with health savings accounts, which are owned by employees and often partially funded by the employer to help defray an employee’s health care costs.


Health reimbursement arrangements, on the other hand, are like accounts but are managed and owned by the employer rather than the individual. Instead of depositing a lump sum of cash into an individual’s health savings account, employers simply pay for health care claims as they occur. Employers save money if an employee does not use the full amount offered by an employer in the HRA.


But health insurers in California say the practice, which is being sold by brokers to employers as a way to cut costs, undermines the way they’ve priced high-deductible health plans, essentially turning them into inexpensive low-deductible plans.


In a letter to brokers, Health Net of California wrote: “Key to our ability to provide these plans is the principle that higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums will encourage members to be more aware of and cautious in their utilizations of services.”


Beginning in March 2006, Health Net said it would not pay brokers a commission if an employer offered health reimbursement arrangements with high-deductible plans intended to be used with health savings accounts. Health Net then asked employers to sign an “Employer Acknowledgement Form” promising, in effect, not to use HRAs.


Other insurers, including Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield of California, have sent similar warnings to brokers, according to letters sent by health insurers to brokers and reviewed by Workforce Management. The plans generally affect employers covering as many as 500 people, though some of the plans are specifically targeted to employers with as few as 50 employees.


The CEO of the state’s health insurance advocacy group says health plans can offer high-deductible plans with lower premiums because they encourage members to spend less on health care. Chris Ohman, CEO of the California Association of Health Plans, says insurers are concerned that HRAs with these plans will upset that balance, causing utilization—and premiums—to go up. Although insurers say such a scenario has not occurred, their efforts to penalize brokers for selling HRAs, known generally as wraparound products, are meant to keep HSA plans affordable.


“These wraparound schemes run the risk of destroying these premium products,” Ohman said. “It’s not sustainable, it’s not appropriate, and it’s not fair.”


Brokers say this is a way for health insurance companies to protect their margins at the expense of employers.


“The insurance carriers are hard-nosed because they feel they could be losing revenue,” said Linda Jacobs, a broker in Campbell, California. “It’s a disservice to employers because the HRA is a better buy, so they’ve had to comply with what the health insurance carrier wants, not with what’s best for their company.”


Raj Singh, a broker with Expert Quote in San Jose, California, says he sells the plans to remain competitive because he knows employers are looking for ways to save money. But the conflict has sown confusion among employers and brokers about whether the practice is legitimate.


Mark Reynolds, president of Visalia, California-based health benefits administrator Benelect, says insurers are violating state insurance law by keeping brokers from performing their fiduciary duty to employers.


Molly DeFrank, a spokeswoman for the state’s insurance commissioner, said California is “reviewing the issue,” but that the practice is not common.


Health insurers say employers who want to offer HRAs should purchase high-deductible plans that are meant to be used with them.


As Blue Cross of California told brokers in a May letter, it “is the only plan appropriately priced” to reflect the increased spending the insurer believes will occur when employers offset the cost of a high-deductible plan with an HRA.


—By Jeremy Smerd


Workforce Management‘s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 … 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