The surprising big winner when men take paternity leave
Originally posted August 7, 2014 by Bruce Jacobs on https://www.benefitspro.com
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns that paid paternity leave will be a job killer, cost businesses too much, increase administrative burdens, and lower wages for workers who have to foot the bill for a perk that not every employee can access equally.
Yet, if paid paternity leave ever becomes a benefit as commonplace as two-weeks’ vacation or a 401(k), the big winner, suggest researchers and scholars in the field, will be business itself.
Though the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act entitles employees of either gender to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave to care for a newborn, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued “time for care” guidelines calling for equal parental leave for both genders, new dads are still expected to bring home the bacon, not cook it.
Josh Levs, a CNN journalist, notes that numerous studies have shown that men who return to work after paternity leave are often treated dismissively by their colleagues and bosses, and all too frequently suffer damage to their reputations, reduced job responsibilities, and even demotions.
Levs, who also writes the blog ‘levsnews,” and is working on a book about the male role in parenting, isn’t just venting. When CNN parent Time-Warner denied his request for paid paternal leave, he filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging discrimination against fathers, one of the first suits brought under the new guidelines.
A scant 16 percent of U.S. companies offer paid paternity leave, according to statistics from the Society for Human Resource Management, but loss of income isn’t the main reason why most men don’t take paternity leave. Ridicule from peers, fear of career suicide, and the cultural expectations of a man’s role in society concoct a brew far more potent than money in keeping men wing-tipped and in the conference room.
“There’s still a powerful stereotype that real men work; real men earn wages,” says Brad Harrington, director of Boston College’s Center for Work and Family, and one of the authors of the 2011 study, The New Dad: Caring, Committed and Conflicted. The report found that only “one in 20 fathers took more than two weeks off after their most recent child was born. Only one in a 100 took more than four weeks off.”
That’s beginning to change, particularly among millennials, those born between 1982 and the early 2000s, a cohort of workers larger and potentially more influential on the future of the American workplace than even the huge wave of soon-to-be retiring baby boomers.
Surveys by PricewaterhouseCoopers reveal that 70 percent of millennials place great importance on flexible work environments, as do 60 percent of baby boomers. But unlike boomers, millennials are willing to quit — or sue — if an employer fails to accommodate a balance between work and personal life.
A few cited examples:
- With no paid paternity leave offered by his company, 34-year-old newspaper reporter Aaron Gouveia stitched together vacation and sick time to be home with his first child. Before his second kid was born, he quit and joined a company that offered paid paternal leave.
- When Jim Lin, 41, a public relations specialist and publisher of the Busy Dad blog, wanted to take a couple days off to help care of his ailing son, his boss dismissed the request as something Lin’s wife should handle. Lin eventually quit. “I just didn’t want to be in that kind of environment,” he says.
- Though he didn’t quit his job, New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy had to endure withering heat from media big mouths when he missed the first two games of opening season to be with his wife during the birth of his first child.
The increasingly willingness of at least some male employees to take paternity leave will inevitably lead to a necessary cultural shift regarding paternity leave, industry insiders say.
Already, California, Rhode Island and New Jersey have been leaders of this trend by mandating paid parental leave in their states for mothers and fathers alike.
Governors of these three states may be paying heed to some surprising results of a report issued late last year by the World Economic Forum, which conducted extensive research on the global gender gap. Countries that found ways to keep women in the workforce after they became mothers, the study revealed, tend to have the strongest and most resilient economies worldwide.
But that’s not the big surprise: It’s the role paid paternity leave played in strengthening those economies. By offering it, encouraging it, and normalizing it, those countries enjoyed increased commercial vitality.
But why? With more women in the workplace, more women holding advanced degrees, and more women often earning salaries greater than their husbands, women employees are increasingly key to the success of many businesses. Yet, according to a 2007 study, 60 percent of professional women who left their careers after their baby was born said they stopped working because their husbands were not available to share childcare and household responsibilities.
Paternity leave “shapes domestic and parenting habits as they are forming,” writes Liza Mundy, author of "The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love and Family." Because men who take paternity leave are developing lifelong habits of shouldering more of the childcare and household responsibilities, she argues, working women can return to their careers confident that they aren’t the only ones responsible — and able — to raise children and maintain a household.
A recent report evaluating a paid paternity leave program in Iceland, in which 90 percent of all father take part, found that three years after the start of the program, 70 percent of parents who live together continue to share childcare and household duties. That’s an increase of 40 percent from the start of the program.
Though research indicates that women, men and children all win in that scenario, the biggest winner is business. Half the workforce — highly educated women — return to their desks, contributing skill, energy and acumen to the economy.
Enforcing employer policies outside the workplace
Originally posted August 7, 2014 by Tracy Moon and John Stapleton on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
All employers adopt and enforce policies regulating conduct at the workplace. Many employers expect that employees will follow their employment polices at all times regardless of whether the employee is working or at work. Many employers expect that employees will follow their employment polices at all times regardless of whether the employee is working or at work.
Today, in the age of social media and smartphones, employers and employees have much greater visibility when they leave work – giving employers the ability (and desire) to monitor their workers after hours, and resulting in greater exposure and potential for harm to an employer’s reputation. But can you monitor or discipline employees for policy violations that occur when an employee is off-duty and off-premises?
First, regardingillegal off-duty conduct, employers are generally entitled to take action after learning of an employee’s conviction, although they may have to demonstrate that the decision or policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. For instance, an employer would have a valid interest in an employee-driver’s recent conviction for drunk driving. In fact, failing to take remedial action could lead to a claim for negligent hiring or retention against the employer down the road.
The answer is slightly more complicated when an employer attempts to regulatelawful off-duty conduct, such as social-media postings or tobacco use. There are several competing interests at play. On one hand is the employees’ right to be free from the employer’s control while they are away from work, and to engage in conduct which may have no impact on their work performance. On the other hand is the employer’s desire to enforce its policies in order to minimize liability, protect its reputation, and maintain employee productivity.
In an at-will employment relationship, both the employer and the employee can end the employment relationship at any time without notice or reason. In other words, the employer has the right to terminate an employee at any time, for any reason, for no reason at all, or even for a “bad” reason, as long as it is not an unlawful reason. In order to determine what reasons are unlawful, one must look to federal, state, and local laws.
Federal law
Federal law clearly outlines many factors which would be unlawful reasons for making employment decisions. These include: race; color; religion; genetic information; national origin; sex (including same-sex harassment); pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; age; disability or handicap; citizenship status; and service member status.
Likewise, federal law prohibits making employment decisions based on whether employees have taken time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act, made a safety complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, questioned the overtime practices of their employer, or filed a charge of discrimination or harassment.
Off-duty social media use may also be protected under federal law. As many employers have learned the hard way, the National Labor Relations Act applies to the private sector and may restrict an employer’s ability to terminate an employee for posting disparaging comments on social media. An employer may also violate the NLRA by maintaining an overbroad social-media policy if it could be construed by employees to prevent them from discussing their wages or other conditions of employment.
State and local laws
Next, consider state and local laws. Most states have laws that are similar to or mimic federal law. But many have laws that are much more expansive and protective of employees’ rights. For example, many states have laws protecting smoking, elections and voting, certain types of court-related leaves of absence, victims of crimes or abuse, medical marijuana, or the possession of firearms, among others.
In addition to laws that protect specific types of off-duty conduct, some states have enacted laws which protect broad categories of off-duty conduct, or require an employer to demonstrate some nexus between the employee’s engagement in an activity and the employer’s business before allowing the employer to take adverse action against the employee for engaging in the conduct. (This is also a typical standard under collective bargaining agreements in unionized workforces).
In Colorado, for example, it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee because that employee engaged in any lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours unless the restriction 1) relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employee’s employment activities and responsibilities; or 2) is necessary to avoid, a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict, with any of the employee’s responsibilities to the employer.
In Montana, an employer is prohibited from refusing to hire a job applicant or disciplining or discharging an employee for using “lawful consumable products” (such as tobacco or alcohol) if the products are used off the employer’s premises outside of work hours, with certain exceptions for a bona fide occupational requirement or a conflict of interest, similar to Colorado’s law.
In addition to the examples set forth above, here are additional instances of off-duty conduct which may be grounds for discipline or termination, depending on the state and the circumstances:
- 20 states have enacted medical marijuana laws, and 13 states have similar legislation pending (Arizona and Delaware even restrict an employer’s ability to terminate an employee in response to a failed drug test);
- while most employers may prefer that employees not bring firearms onto company property, some states have laws which protect an employee’s right to do so, including Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin; and
- 29 states and the District of Columbia have statutes protecting the rights of employees who smoke.
As the above examples illustrate, you must carefully analyze each situation before refusing to hire a candidate, or disciplining or terminating an employee for having engaged in lawful off-duty conduct, even if such conduct violates your established policy.
Even with all of the possible restrictions in some states, employers may have more leeway than they think to consider off-duty conduct when making employment decisions. A wise employer seeks wise counsel to help the employer avoid possible legal pitfalls while exercising the full extent of its rights.
90% will qualify for individual mandate exemption
Originally posted August 7, 2014 by Dan Cook on https://www.benefitspro.com
There are now so many exemptions to PPACA’s individual mandate that the CBO says the number who would face fines for lack of coverage has dropped from seven million to four million.
That means that almost 90 percent of the nation’s uninsured population would not have to pay a penalty under PPACA in 2016, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Though it’s good news for those who decide not to seek health insurance coverage as required by the law, it’s bad news for the insurance industry, which was to receive revenue from the fines. Instead of collecting $7 billion, the CBO now estimates $4 billion will be assessed.
The new numbers are posted on the CBO website.
As PPACA has been tossed back and forth between the legal and the political arenas, the number of exemptions has grown rapidly. The CBO lists the following major categories:
- Unauthorized immigrants, who are prohibited from receiving almost all Medicaid benefits and all subsidies through the insurance exchanges;
- People with income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return;
- People who have income below 138 percent of the federal poverty guidelines (commonly referred to as the federal poverty level) and are ineligible for Medicaid because the state in which they reside has not expanded eligibility by 2016 under the option provided in PPACA;
- People whose premium exceeds a specified share of their income (8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time);
- People who are incarcerated or are members of Indian tribes. (CBO doesn’t explain why these two constitute a single bullet point).
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration in December 2013 expanded the number of exemptions to include 14 ways residents can file for an exemption based on hardships, including domestic violence or a recent death of a family member.
The upshot is that about nine in 10 of those who will choose not to purchase insurance won’t have to pay the fine, which is $95 for an adult or 1 percent of an individual’s taxable income, whichever is higher. Currently, penalties are set to increase to $325, or 2 percent, in 2015, and $695, or 2.5 percent, in 2016.
Based on these latest numbers, CBO said, “An estimated $4 billion will be collected from those who are uninsured in 2016, and, on average, an estimated $5 billion will be collected per year over the 2017–2024 period. Those estimates differ from projections … made in September 2012, when the agencies last published such estimates. About 2 million fewer people are now projected to pay the penalty for being uninsured in 2016, and collections are now expected to be about $3 billion less for that year.”
The fallout from these increasing exemptions will probably fall on those who actually have coverage. Carriers had based projected premium rates in part on the revenue from the fines assessed against those who shunned coverage. With that money dwindling, carriers have said they’ll have to raise premiums for those with coverage.
Play or Pay in 2015 — so many requirements, so little time
Originally posted August 6, 2014 by Dorothy Summers on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
2015 is getting close and the Employer Shared Responsibility Mandate (“Play or Pay”) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is almost here. So what does this mean for your organization? Play or Pay requires certain employers to offer affordable and adequate health insurance to full-time employees and their dependents, or they may be liable for a penalty for any month coverage is not offered.
Play or Pay goes into effect in the calendar year of 2015 for large employers only. However, mid-size employers aren’t entirely off the hook. They’ll have to report on insurance coverage even though they won’t be liable for penalties in 2015. By January 1, 2015, businesses with 100 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent employees must ensure they are offering health benefits to all of those working an average of 30 hours per week, or 130 hours per month. If an employer has a non-calendar year plan and can meet certain transitional rules, they can delay offering employee health benefits until the start date of their non-calendar year plan in 2015. Mid-sized employers will have to comply beginning in 2016.
Here are important questions that employers need to answer today:
- Do you know which category your business fits into?
- How do you classify who is a full-time employee?
- What do you need to do to comply with Play or Pay requirements?
Let’s take an in-depth look at each of these questions.
Which category do you fit into?
Whether you are a small, mid-sized, or large employer is determined by the number of full-time and full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). It sounds simple on the surface:
- Small employers have 1-49 full-time or FTE employees
- Mid-sized employers have 50-99 full-time or FTE employees
- Large employers have 100+ full-time or FTE employees
However, it’s important to remember that these numbers can be affected by several factors, including whether the employer is a part of a control group, seasonal employees and variable-hour employees. That brings us to our next question:
Who is a full-time employee?
The law defines a “full-time employee” for penalty purposes as an employee who, for any month, works an average of at least 30 hours per week, or 130 hours. This includes any of the following paid hours: vacation, holiday, sick time, paid layoff, jury duty, military duty and paid leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Employees who aren’t considered full-time include non W-2 leased workers, sole proprietors, partners in partnerships, real estate agents, and direct sellers.
Variable-hour employees—those who don’t work a set amount of hours each week—fall into a gray area. That is, they don’t need to be counted as full-time employees until and unless it becomes an established practice for them to work more than 30 hours per week.
To assist employers in determining whether variable hour workers will meet the definition of full-time employees (and therefore need to be offered health insurance), employers may use various “look back” and “look forward” periods. Here is a summary of terms used for measuring variable-hour employees:
- Measurement Period: A period from three to 12 months in which the employer would track hours to determine whether the employee worked an average of more than 30 hours per week.
- Stability Period: A period from six to 12 consecutive months in which the employer must provide health insurance coverage to employees who worked more than 30 hours per week in the Measurement Period. Note: must be at least six months and cannot be shorter than the Measurement Period.
- Administrative Period: A period not to exceed 90 days, which falls between the Measurement Period and Stability Period, and/or a short period after a new employee’s date of hire. Using this waiting period allows employers to analyze eligibility of full-time employees and provide enrollment information to enroll them in a plan before penalties could be assessed.
Does your plan meet the Play or Pay requirements?
To avoid penalties, you’ll need to make sure your plan meets certain requirements. First, coverage must be offered to full-time employees and their dependents. Under the ACA, dependents are defined as children under age 26. Spouses are not considered dependents.
3 questions to ask before moving to a private exchange
Originally posted July 24, 2014 by Andrew Bloom on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
As employers grapple with how best to deliver health insurance to their employees, the concept of private insurance exchange or marketplace is quickly gaining traction. In a private exchange model, rather than continuing to assume the responsibility for making healthcare decisions for plan participants (or managing the risk on their behalf), an employer transfers responsibility to employees. This transfer of power enables employees to make important decisions on behalf of their families. Employers have something to gain, too: predictable healthcare costs.
But there is more involved here than simply choosing a private insurance exchange over a traditional benefits delivery model. This is not a simple switch you flip. In fact, the move to a private exchange could be difficult for employees who generally are not accustomed to making benefits plan decisions for themselves, or who balk at the potential of an increased out-of-pocket burden. It’s incumbent upon employers to guide them through the transition to help them accept the idea that having more power and choice is a good trade-off to taking on more risk. To do this, the employer must introduce a defined contribution approach to the workforce and embrace concepts like premium transparency, fixed dollar contributions and multiple plan options.
When done properly, a private exchange will help you achieve the three C’s of benefits: consumerism, compliance and cost-containment.
In short, there’s a tremendous upside toward embracing this strategy, which is a reason why most employers are investigating the option of private exchanges. For virtually every organization, it is not a matter of “if” joining a private exchange is right; it is a matter of “when.”
The key to answering “when” a private insurance exchange is right for your organization starts with understanding where you are on the course. This will help you determine what tools and resources are necessary to help get you there.
Here are three simple questions to consider:
1. How do your employees enroll in benefits today?
2. Do you have a health/wellness and cost management strategy in place?
3. How active are your employees in your current benefits decision-making process?
Depending on the answers to these questions, you may need to:
- Alter your benefits philosophy and design benefits plans and programs to help you move further down the path on the engagement spectrum.
- Design an aggressive wellness and health management strategy. While a private exchange may provide short-term cost savings, it is not a silver bullet. You must continue to drive better behaviors to control costs associated with your program over the long term.
- Execute an ongoing communication strategy that educates employees to become smarter consumers of benefits and better prepared to accept the responsibility and risks associated with making healthcare decisions.
- Implement benefits administration technology that will allow you the flexibility of managing your current program as well as a private exchange, thus affording you the flexibility of a smooth transition.
- Leverage an experienced third party, regardless of implementing a private exchange, to manage the administrative complexities and ever-changing regulatory requirements surrounding your benefits program. This is critical to eliminating costly mistakes and ensuring regulatory compliance.
Before pushing off from the starting line, consider if your organization and employees are ready for such a significant shift in benefits delivery. Keep in mind that preparation for a private exchange is a bit like running a relay. Before the starting shot is fired, everyone in your organization must fully trained to make it around the track.
Employers have an opportunity to transform the delivery, management and overall outcome of their health and welfare programs for the better. A private insurance exchange will be a critical component of your benefits program, but only after you determine your readiness and strategy before taking the first step.
Include health care cost in plans
Originally posted August 3, 2014 by Redding Edition on https://www.ifebp.org
The possibility of having to pay major health care costs in the future is a primary concern of planning for retirement these days. Is there some way to plan for these expenses years in advance?
Just how great might those expenses be? There’s no rote answer, but recent surveys from AARP and Fidelity Investments reveal that too many baby boomers might be taking this subject too lightly.
For the last eight years, Fidelity has projected average retirement health care expenses for a couple — assuming that retirement begins at age 65 and that one spouse or partner lives about seven years longer than the other. In 2013, Fidelity estimated that a couple retiring at age 65 would require about $220,000 just to absorb those future health care costs.
When it asked Americans ages 55 to 64 how much money they thought they would spend on health care in retirement, 48 percent of the respondents figured they would only need about $50,000 each, or about $100,000 per couple. That pales next to Fidelity’s projection and it also falls short of the estimates made in 2010 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. EBRI figured that a couple with median prescription drug expenses would pay $151,000 of their own retirement health care costs.
AARP posed this question to Americans ages 50 to 64 in the fall of 2013. The results were 16 percent of those polled thought their out-of-pocket retirement health care expenses would run less than $50,000 and 42 percent figured needing less than $100,000.
Another 15 percent admitted they had no idea how much they might eventually spend for health care. Not surprising, just 52 percent of those surveyed felt confident that they could financially handle such expenses.
Prescription drugs may be your No. 1 cost. EBRI currently says that a 65-year-old couple with median drug costs would need $227,000 to have a 75 percent probability of paying off 100 percent of their medical bills in retirement. That figure is in line with Fidelity’s big-picture estimate.
What might happen if you don’t save enough for these expenses? As Medicare premiums come out of Social Security benefits, your monthly Social Security payments could grow smaller. The greater your reliance on Social Security, the bigger the ensuing financial strain.
The main message is save more and save now. Do you have about $200,000 after tax saved for future health care costs? If you don’t, you have yet another compelling reason to save more money for retirement.
Medicare, after all, will not pay for everything. In 2010, EBRI analyzed how much it did pay for, and it found that Medicare only covered about 62 percent of retiree health care expenses. While private insurance picked up another 13 percent and military benefits or similar programs another 13 percent, that still left retirees on the hook for 12 percent out of pocket.
Consider what Medicare doesn’t cover, and budget accordingly. Medicare pays for much, but it doesn’t cover things like glasses and contacts, dentures and hearing aids — and it certainly doesn’t pay for extended long-term care.
Medicare’s yearly Part B deductible is $147 for 2014. Once you exceed it, you will have to pick up 20 percent of the Medicare-approved amount for most medical services. That’s a good argument for a Medigap or Medicare Advantage plan, even considering the potentially high premiums. The standard monthly Part B premium is at $104.90 this year, which comes out of your Social Security. If you are retired and earn income of more than $85,000, your monthly Part B premium will be larger. The threshold for a couple is $170,000. Part D premiums for drug coverage can also vary greatly. The greater your income, the larger they get. Reviewing your Part D coverage vis-à-vis your premiums each year is only wise.
Takeaway: Staying healthy may save you a good deal of money. EBRI projects that someone retiring from an $80,000 job in poor health may need to live on as much as 96 percent of that end salary annually, or roughly $76,800. If that retiree is in excellent health instead, EBRI estimates that he or she may need only 77 percent of that end salary — about $61,600 — to cover 100 percent of annual retirement expenses.
Obamacare Challengers Eye Supreme Court Date
Source: https://insurancenewsnet.com - Originally posted by Kimberly Atkins of the Boston Herald.
Aug. 03--The legal battle over Obamacare federal subsidies could land before the nation's top court as soon as next year after challengers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.
If the high court grants the request and ultimately rules that the Obama administration lacked authority under the law to authorize subsidies for individuals who purchase health care through the federal exchange rather than state-created exchanges, it would gut a crucial source of funding for the law and severely threaten its viability.
The Supreme Court petition, filed late Thursday, comes just more than a week after federal appellate courts in Virginia and Washington, D.C., issued conflicting opinions as to whether the text of the law, which allows individuals to qualify for subsidies if they purchase insurance on exchanges "established by the state," applies to those in the 36 states that either refused to set up an exchange or for some other reason require residents to go to the federal exchange to enroll.
The Virginia plaintiffs, who claim that they would have qualified for the unaffordability exemption from the law requiring them to purchase health care but for the existence of the federal exchange subsidy, went directly to the Supreme Court instead of asking a full panel of the Virginia federal appellate court to rehear that case "because it's important to get a resolution as soon as possible," said Sam Kazman, general counsel at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which coordinated and funded the challenges to the federal subsidy.
Kazman said the case, one of several legal challenges to various provisions of the law that was largely upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, was legal and not political.
"Once you get agencies going beyond the implementation of the law to actually rewriting it, one, it spells trouble and two, it's unconstitutional," Kazman said.
The Justice Department declined Friday to seek immediate Supreme Court review of the D.C. federal court that struck down the administration's interpretation of the law the same day the Virginia court upheld it. Instead, it asked a full panel of the D.C. Circuit to review the three-judge ruling.
The 7 Most Destructive Phrases to Avoid at Work
Originally posted July 27, 2014 by David Van Rooy on https://www.inc.com
Sometimes leaders make statements that have an effect entirely opposite of what was intended. These phrases might be well intended, but the interpretation can be very damaging. Instead of leading to efficiency and productivity gains, these phrases can result in destructive consequences. Use the seven phrases below with great caution and be sure that people understand what you are trying to convey. Otherwise,instead of being helpful you are apt to find negative outcomes, including resentment, lowered creativity, reduced engagement, and higher turnover.
1. We already tried that: This is a statement borne out of something that did not work in the past. Maybe it was an idea that was ahead of its time, or maybe it wasn't executed properly. Regardless, it should not forever be used as an excuse not to try again. Particularly as the time gap widens, what once failed may now be a wild success.
2. That's not your job: Role clarity is essential, and none of us like it when someone needles into our area without asking. At the same time, this statement prevents people from stretching themselves to do more. It's important to encourage people to make the most of their ability, and allowing them to take on stretch assignments and projects outside their immediate area can advance this.
3. Whose job is on the lineif this doesn't work?: With any goal or project, there needs to be a person that is accountable for its success. But this can be done in a positive way. Statements like this or "Who gets fired if this doesn't work?" create an atmosphere of negativity and fear. This will prevent people from taking strategic risks that can set your business apart.
4. Don't reinvent the wheel: If the wheel was never "reinvented" Lamborghinis and Porsches would be driving on top of 4 wooden disks! Many market leading companies lost their edge--or even went bankrupt--when the failed to try to make their products better. Think Kodak, Blockbuster Video, AOL, etc. Other dangerous variations of this phrase are "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and "We've always done it that way."
5. That won't work: Don't just shut someone down. Ask the right questions to get at the heart of what they were trying to do or propose. Provide suggestions and engage in an interactive dialogue and you may soon find something that will work.
6. Just get it done. This is another phrase that leads to a culture of fear. As a result, people feel immense pressure to deliver, regardless of how it gets done. At its best, employees don't treat each other as well and corners get cut; at its worst, people begin to delve into practices that might be borderline unethical, or even illegal. Instead ask them what they need in order to get the job done.
7. I already knew that. Sure you may have, but a "shut up" statement like this will make people feel little. They are subsequently less inclined to speak up next time they have an idea. Thank them for the suggestion, or better yet, give them credit for the idea.
Open enrollment checklist for employers
Originally posted July 23, 2014 by Alan Goforth on https://www.benefitspro.com
Wrestling with the implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could make the upcoming open enrollment period one of the most challenging in memory. Mercer, a human resources and benefits company in New York City, encourages companies to approach the fall season with a plan.
Mercer’s proposed checklist includes:
- Consider offering a consumer-driven health plan. The momentum behind this type of plan continues to grow, with 39 percent of large of large employers offering one last year and 64 percent expected to do so within two years.
- Communicate early and often to the newly eligible. Mercer’s research indicates that one-third of employers still need to make changes to comply with the requirement to extend coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week. Start communicating right away with newly eligible employees about who is eligible, why they are eligible, how eligibility was determined, what this means and what they have to now consider. Information should also be delivered to those who still remain ineligible and the options these employees may have in the public exchange arena.
- Make voluntary benefits a big part of the message. Voluntary benefits can deliver significant value to employees and are an important element of a thoughtfully designed benefits program. They can also be used to overcome misperceptions and confusion around other benefit offerings. These offerings also can assist employees who remain ineligible for the employer-sponsored medical plan.
- Use open enrollment as an opportunity to reinforce wellness campaigns. This is particularly important if any perceived compliance penalties are going to be introduced next year, such as increased premiums for those who do not participate in health screenings.
- Deploy decision support and mobile technology to support the accountability theme. Participants are being asked like never before to take accountability for their health benefit decisions and cost outlays. For example, some employers are providing digital “wallet cards” for smart phones and other devices that contain benefit information and contacts needed at the point of service or anywhere else a participant needs this information and/or advice.
Average worker needs to save 15% to fund retirement
Originally posted July 22, 2014 by Nick Thornton on https://www.benefitspro.com
A typical household needs to save roughly 15 percent of their income annually to sustain their lifestyle into retirement, according to a brief from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Generally, workplace retirement savings plans should provide one-third of retirement income, according to the study. For lower income families, defined contribution or defined benefit plans should provide a quarter of all retirement income. Higher income families will need their retirement plans to provide about half of all retirement income.
Middle-income families will require 71 percent of pre-retirement income to maintain living standards after they leave the workforce. About 41 percent of their retirement income is expected to come from social security.
Low-income families need an annual savings rate of 11 percent in order to sustain their lifestyle into retirement, which is lower than middle-income families (15 percent) and high-income families (16 percent). For lower income families, social security will replace a greater portion of pre-retirement income.
The Center’s National Retirement Risk Index says that half of Americans lack adequate savings to maintain their standard of living into retirement. A “feasible increase” in savings rates by younger workers can greatly affect their retirement wealth.
For those middle-income workers ages 30 to 39 who lack enough savings, a 7 percent increase in annual savings can provide adequate retirement funding. But middle-income workers age 50 to 59 who lack retirement savings would have to increase their annual savings rate by 29 percent, an unlikely expectation, the report adds.
For those older workers behind the curve, a better funding strategy would be “to work longer and cut current and future consumption in order to reduce the required saving rate to a more feasible level.”
Delaying retirement to age 70 greatly reduces the annual savings expectations workers need to meet in order to fund retirement.
A worker who starts saving at age 35 will need a 15 percent annual savings rate in order to retire at age 65. But if the same worker delays retirement until age 70, only a six percent annual savings rate is necessary.
A worker who starts saving at age 45 would need to save 27 percent annually to retire at 65. But by delaying retirement to age 70, the same worker only has to save 10 percent to maintain their standard of living after retirement.