Why the Hobby Lobby Case Puts Employees (And Your Happy Workplace) at Risk
Originally posted July 3, 2014 by Jeremy Quittner on www.inc.com.
The Supreme Court's ruling in support of Hobby Lobby on Monday may be a win for anti-abortion advocates, but it could also spell the end to long-sought anti-discrimination laws for other groups.
A case in point: the Employee Non-discrimination Act(ENDA), which would add LGBT workers to the roster of groups including racial minorities, women, and the disabled currently protected by federal non-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The bill is aimed at granting these traditionally vulnerable groups protections against discrimination in hiring practices and in the workplace, among other things. And though ENDA has floated around in Congress without ever passing for close to two decades, it did enjoy some recent time in the sun, as recently as last year, when it passed in the Senate. Its proponents are hoping for another try this year. Yet after recent events, that optimism may now seem quaint.
Legal observers now say Monday's Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell, basically renders that once-promising bill moot. Since the Court's decision effectively lets businesses object--on religious grounds--to most any federal mandate, not just the Affordable Care Act.
In addition to causing confusion and unease among business owners in general, this latest implication of the Hobby Lobby ruling indicates that owners might also expect significant problems in their own ranks. From discrimination against women and LGBT people to sexual harassment incidents, the ruling's repercussions could extend far and wide.
"The majority [opinion] said that you can't discriminate based on race. It did not mention same-sex marriage" or sexual identity, says Kevin Martin, a partner at Goodwin Procter in Boston, and a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Speaking for the majority in Monday's 5 to 4 decision, Justice Samuel Alito suggests the Hobby Lobby ruling should not be construed to support racial discrimination:
The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked in religious practice to escape legal sanction. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.
Nevertheless, Alito leaves open to question discrimination based on gender, sexual identity, and sexual expression. There's probably a good reason for that, notes Daniel O. Conkle, an expert on constitutional law, the First Amendment, and religion at Indiana University.
Extensive case law has already provided a precedent that forbids religious groups claiming an exemption from race-based discrimination, as Bob Jones University had decades ago. The university had sued the IRS, which revoked its tax-exempt status as a religious organization, based on its discriminatory admissions policies at the time.
Despite getting a recent boost, ENDA had been languishing for some time. Last year, the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, reportedly helped place a religious exemption in the legislation, to make the bill more palatable to conservative lawmakers. The added measure included broad exceptions for any religious organization that opposed hiring LGBT people, as well as broad exemptions for small business owners with fewer than 15 employees. While that strategy worked in the Senate this winter-- ENDA passed 64 to 32--the bill stalled in the House.
Although President Obama signed an executive order in June, forbidding discrimination against LGBT federal contractor workers, currently, there is no federal law protecting people in the workplace on the basis of sexual identity or gender expression. Twenty-one states have added their own protections, and about 175 municipalities have as well. But in 29 states, it's still perfectly legal to fire LGBT employees based on their sexuality or gender expression.
About 75 percent of LGBT people say they have experienced discrimination at work, with an equivalent percentage saying they have been harassed at work, according to the Williams Institute, a gender identity law and public policy institute. Sixteen percent say they have lost a job due to their sexual orientation. Williams estimates there are about 8.2 million lesbian and gay workers in the U.S.
And after 20 years, particularly after the Hobby Lobby ruling, it now seems like ENDA's time has come and gone. LGBT people must try a new approach for workplace equality.
3 ways the Hobby Lobby decision affects workplaces
Originally posted July 1, 2014 by Eric B. Meyer on www.lifehealthpro.com.
Mid-morning yesterday, the Internet broke shortly after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in HHS v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..
Jeez, I'm still cleaning out my Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook feeds.
In case your wifi, 4G, 3G, dial-up, TV, radio, and other electronics picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue, the long and short of yesterday's Supreme Court decision is this: Smaller, closely-held (think: family-owned) companies don't have to provide access to birth control if doing so would conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
So, how does yesterday's decision affect your workplace? I promised you three ways, and here they are:
- The court's opinion creates a PPACA exception for closely-held business. If your company isn't closely held, then there's nothing to see here;
- The Hobby Lobby decision does not allow employers (closely-held or otherwise) to discriminate against employees under the guise of a religious practice. In the dissent, Justice Ginsburg pondered, "Suppose an employer's sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage or according women equal pay for substantially similar work. Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?" Well, no. The majority recognized that "the Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the work force without regard to [a protected class], and prohibitions on [discrimination] are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal."
The Court's opinion is a good reminder about religious accommodations in the workplace. Title VII requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for a worker's sincerely-held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business operations. The "sincerity" of an employee's stated religious belief is usually not in dispute. (More on that here). And, in these situations, an employer should not judge the employee's religious belief to determine whether it is plausible. Rather, the focus should usually be on whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship — because the burden there is rather low.
Employee medical self-care programs reduce spending: SHRM speaker
Originally posted June 23, 2014 by Sheena Harrison on www.businessinsurance.com.
ORLANDO, Fla. — Medical self-care programs that teach employees which symptoms can be treated at home and which need medical attention can help reduce unnecessary medical spending for workers and employers, said Don R. Powell, president and CEO of the American Institute for Preventive Medicine in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Mr. Powell gave a presentation Monday about the characteristics of best-in-class wellness programs during the Society for Human Resource Management's Annual Conference & Exposition in Orlando, Florida.
He said about 25% of physician visits each year are unnecessary, equaling about $227 million in excess medical costs for workers and employers, and 55% of emergency room visits are unnecessary, resulting in $65.6 million in extra costs to treat medical problems that are not urgent.
Employers should provide printed employee resource guides and websites that employees can use to evaluate whether their medical symptoms can be treated at home, whether they should visit a doctor and what questions to ask when they visit a physician, Mr. Powell said. Such guides typically include an easy-to-use flow chart that employees can follow to determine whether they need immediate medical care.
In addition to resource guides, Mr. Powell said some companies offer a nurse advice hotline to employees to discuss whether their symptoms need medical care.
Usage and ROI
Mr. Powell noted that printed self-care resource guides, which cost about $5 to $8 per copy, are more likely to be used by employees of all ages than websites or nurse hotlines when considering the urgency of a medical problem. However, he said, offering a variety of delivery methods — as well as communicating the program’s availability through newsletters, emails and posters — can make employees more likely to use self-care programs.
Companies see anywhere from a 3-1 to a 15-1 return on investment for every dollar spent on medical self-care programs, Mr. Powell said.
“You're cutting into those unnecessary doctor and ER visits,” he said. “If you're a self-funded company ... that's $199 per visit to $350 per ER visit right back into your pocket, so you stand to gain the most. Not to say a company that’s fully insured doesn't stand to gain, because it allows employees not to miss work when they’re at the doctor or ER unnecessarily and because people really appreciate a medical self-care program.”
Other factors in successful wellness programs include having corporate leaders and employee peers involved in such initiatives, making it easy for workers to participate in wellness initiatives and health coaching to program participants, Mr. Powell said.
What Laws Relate to Antidiscrimination in the Workplace?
Originally posted May 12, 2014 by Bridget Miller on https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com.
No employer wants to be accused of discrimination. Employers strive to treat employees fairly and act without improper bias. To do this and also remain in legal compliance, it’s more important than ever to understand the various laws that protect employees from different types of discrimination.
Here are the primary U.S. laws at the federal level that have antidiscrimination components. (Note: This article focuses on the laws that apply to private employers and does not distinguish which also apply to government entities. There are additional laws pertaining to antidiscrimination for government employees.)
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). This is the first law most people think of when it comes to antidiscrimination. Title VII protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on gender, religion, color, national origin, or race. It also makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who take protected actions. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA states that employers cannot discriminate against individuals over 40 years old in employment decisions or in any terms or conditions of employment. It applies to employers with at least 20 employees.
- Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay act states that men and women who perform equal work at the same employer should receive equal pay, as long as the jobs they perform are completed under similar conditions and require equal skills, responsibilities, and effort. The job titles do not have to be an exact match for the rules to apply. This act applies to all employers.
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) This act states that employers cannot discriminate against qualified individuals who are disabled. It includes those with a history of being disabled or who are perceived as disabled, even if this is an incorrect perception. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. This amendment takes the prohibition of discrimination based on gender a step further and specifically prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or any related medical conditions. As a part of the Civil Rights Act, it also applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). GINA prohibits employers from asking employees for genetic information or requiring them to provide it. It also says that any genetic information obtained (even inadvertently) must be kept confidential and cannot be used in employment decisions. It applies to employers with at least 15 employees.
- Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This act states that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of citizenship or national origin. It also makes it illegal for employers to knowingly employ workers who are not authorized to work in the United States. It applies to employers with at least 4 employees.
This list is not intended to be fully comprehensive; it simply contains the laws that are most commonly cited and enforced pertaining to antidiscrimination. Employers should also note that some state laws provide further protection than these federal laws. Always check local laws and confer with employment counsel with questions. (This article does not constitute legal advice.)
How to make wellness work
Originally posted May 29, 2014 by Andy Stonehouse on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
For all the talk of the benefits of onsite wellness programs – in both the healthier, more productive lives of workers, as well as the presumed employer cost savings as sickness, injury and absenteeism are reduced – are American companies really getting the most out of their wellness dollars?
A new EBN survey, which drew responses from 245 benefits managers, administrators and human resources professionals, finds that wellness programs work best when employee incentives – be they cash or decreases to insurance premiums (or penalties for not achieving goals) – are clearly established. But meeting wellness objectives, be they cutting costs, increasing employee productivity or lowering on-the-job absences, remains a struggle, and companies who’ve implemented wellness programs say they sometimes find it difficult to justify the investment in those costly ventures.
Wellness programs, as a result, are still on the “to do” list of many respondents; only 44% are currently running a wellness initiative, with more than a third either thinking about or almost ready to roll out a program of their own. A lack of benefits/HR managerial resources and the challenging nature of showing the financial justification for wellness’s costs are the biggest factors holding them back, according to the survey.
Among those who’ve actively adopted a wellness program at their workplace, the results are largely positive, but not breathtaking. Just 5% of respondents say they’ve completely met their top objectives – cost savings and cost avoidance – though 53% say they’ve “somewhat” met those goals and a third say they’ve achieved “a little” of that goal. The same goes for other top goals – improving employee health and longevity, and enhancing employee engagement and participation – with respondents reporting only mid-level success, at best.
Respondents said they personally had far less interest in using wellness to increase employee retention and satisfaction, reduce absences or increase overall productivity. “Turnover is an issue in our industry; spending money on wellness for people that leave hurts the ROI on wellness,” one respondent added.
What works
In order to make wellness successful, those who’ve set up and retained a program say that it’s critically important to offer easy-to-use wellness educational tools for employees. This is a much easier task to accomplish, they say, than objectives such as transforming their workplace culture into one centered on wellness, or getting employees engaged in wellness offerings.
But there are still plenty of success stories, and examples of what helps to get workers fully engaged. “A culture of wellness and associate programs requires a long-term commitment,” one respondent noted. “We are beginning to see results after only two years in effect.” Most of those with positive wellness outcomes say they’ve used incentives to help push participation in their programs, with almost half offering cash or gift cards and 40% offering health insurance premium discounts … or penalties, on the other side of the coin, for employees who do not take part.
Survey participants offered their opinions on the vendors that they work with; according to the results, the top five wellness partners include Cigna Behavioral Health, WebMD Health Services, HumanaVitality, OptumHealth Care Solutions and Alere Health Improvement. The various units of Blue Cross/Blue Shield are also important strategic partners for many companies. Interestingly enough, 19% of those respondents with wellness plans in place admitted they did not work with a specific wellness vendor at all, opting to do the heavy lifting of implementing and running a wellness program on their own.
Wellness’ saturation also appears to be directly connected both to the type and the size of business respondents are engaged in. While office-based workplaces such as banking and financial services, plus health care – rife with potential health issues among sedentary workers – make up the largest percentage of those taking the survey, manufacturing and industrial worksites are also important settings for wellness programs. More than 65% of our respondents work with employee populations of 1,000 or fewer, almost a third in companies less than 100.
The survey’s results echo the experiences of benefits managers such as Katie Sens, director of human resources for Chemprene, a small manufacturing firm in New York’s Hudson Valley. Sens oversees the wellbeing of about 115 employees, and says that like many workplaces across the country, those involved in daily physical labor out on the manufacturing floor tend to be in better shape than the company’s desk-bound workers.
“We’ve tried to create interest by offering gym memberships, but we had problems with our health insurance providing coverage,” she says. “But we’ve been inspired by our boss, who walks every day and has lost about 75 pounds in the process, so we worked out another arrangement with Gold’s Gym – we’ll pay if they go eight times a month.” In addition to standard wellness pushes such as smoking cessation and flu shots, Sens says her company has partnered with online weight loss and nutrition and lifestyle coaching provider Retrofit, paying half of employees’ costs up front and hosting group programs.
“Our boss is aboard, I’m in it, as are several other managers and their sponsors, hoping to lead by example,” she says. “Now I’m getting a lot more questions about the program, and certainly raising awareness.” As for ROI on Chemprene’s wellness efforts, Sens says the company is hoping to achieve a better bottom line for its health insurance costs, which she and management will be keeping a close eye on as the wellness programs develop; their efforts are too early to tell, she admits.
Offerings matter
Employee participation in our survey respondents’ wellness efforts also greatly varies by the complexity of the programs they offered. Overall, the highest participation was experienced in safety and injury prevention programs – more than half of respondents said the majority of their workers took part, followed by health screenings (including biometric tests, flu shots, health risk assessments and on-site health clinics), with at least 50% of employees taking part. Significantly less participation was noted in awareness, education and support programs, stress relief efforts and disease management programs; in workplaces where direct physical activities were offered, the majority of respondents said that less than 50% of their workers took part.
Teisha Haynes, global benefits supervisor for international oilfield service company Halliburton, continues to work to find productive and cost-efficient wellness options for her 35,000 U.S. employees and 75,000 dependents, spread out at 104 worksites across the country. Haynes says that the teamwork atmosphere among the company’s largely laboring workforce can actually be beneficial, when it comes to getting workers more actively engaged in physical activity.
“We realize that our employees like to work in teams and compete, so we have implemented a number of physical activity challenges that allow them to work together and compete against other business units for not only bragging rights, but a donation to the charity their select,” she says. “We have had participation from the executives, all the way down.”
For Halliburton, many larger worksites now include an on-location physical activity coordinator (“wellness champions”) to help provide compatible, healthy exercise, even for those employees not necessarily dragging pipes on an oil rig. Those coordinators are tasked with figuring out what works best in their local environment – and what vendors can provide the best services at annual wellness fairs, be they biometric screenings, heart health clinics, mammograms, or exercise programs (Red Wing Shoes, for instance, has helped with foot health assessments at various locations).
Do the efforts pay off? Haynes says measuring the investment in wellness can be a challenge, though the company is moving to quantify things more clearly by comparing claims numbers and data from health risk assessments. “We get some positive signs, like ‘employees are feeling better,’ but that produces pretty fuzzy numbers, so we’re thinking of working with Truven’s health analytics database to get more solid results,” she says.
Among those companies that are reluctant to implement a wellness program, common impediments emerge: 46% say that wellness is simply not a priority for them now, while 20% of others say that they lack the staff resources and time to help establish a wellness system. More often than not, they admit they are “still questioning whether we need one or not,” as well. As a result, a quarter of those still on the fence about wellness say it will be at least a year, if not two, before they’re able to get underway with a full wellness push.
Those who have yet to start up their own wellness program say they are primarily frustrated by a lack of time and resources to do so, as well as the financial costs involved in both start-up and administration of a wellness offering. “Our company is just a year old so it takes time to find out what employees want and will participate in,” one respondent wrote. Others said that their upper management has yet to be convinced of the merits of a wellness program; quantifiying the potential savings, whether they be direct cost reductions or overall decreases in sick leave, remains the biggest stumbling block.
Those cost-related fears may not be unfounded: 40% of survey participants who formerly had a wellness program but have abandoned those efforts say they did so primarily for financial reasons, as well as out of concerns of issues of employee privacy or anti-discrimination laws. Some changed health care providers or lost a partnership with their wellness vendor, as well.
As a more successful alternative, some survey respondents say they have worked to establish very specific objectives for their wellness programs, working with wellness vendors to find the right fit. Dale Johnson, employee benefits manager for the city of Cary, N.C., says that involved developing an innovative functional movement screening – not unlike those used in professional sports – to better understand the musculoskeletal strains of an aging workforce engaged in medium to heavy physical work, and use exercise and better day-to-day techniques to reduce strain and injuries. Johnson says the holistic program, developed with the input of research from nearby Duke University and initially implemented with the city’s public safety employees, resulted in a tangible negative trend in health care utilization and costs.
“The jury’s still out on the long-term impacts of the program, but we’re now considering expanding it to our employees in public works and utilities,” Johnson says. If this variation of a wellness program can significantly cut costs, Johnson says it could be a very positive sign that focused wellness efforts pay off.
ADA accommodation just has to be reasonable
Originally posted May 29, 2014 by Eric B. Meyer on www.benefitspro.com.
This is my son's first year playing t-ball. The rules, in case you're not familiar with them, are simple: Everybody hits. Everybody (eventually) rounds the bases. Everybody scores.
Some games, my son wants to lead off. Some games, he wants to hit last. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where he hits. The coach can place him anywhere in the batting order because he will hit, he will round the bases, and he will score.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is similar in that respect. It requires an employer to accommodate an employee with a disability if doing so will not create an undue hardship for the employer and will allow that employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
The ADA regulations include a non-exhaustive list of reasonable accommodations. Does the employee get to choose which one? Sure, the employee can express his/her desire. But, ultimately, the employee should get one that is reasonable, whether it is the employee's choice -- or not.
A recent case reflects this. In Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc., Mr. Bunn, who is disabled (visual impairment), sought an accommodation to allow him to perform his essential job functions. So, the employer restructured the employee's job. The accommodation worked. But, since it was not the accommodation Mr. Bunn wanted, he sued, claiming a violation of the ADA.
The lower court granted summary judgment to the employer and, on appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed, because the job restructuring, while not the employee's preference, nonetheless allowed the employee to perform the essential functions of the job:
"In short, it was exactly the kind of accommodation envisioned by the regulations applicable to the ADA....the undisputed facts show that Khoury did what it was required to do by law....In this area of the law, we are primarily concerned with the ends, not the means...Bunn's apparent displeasure with the way in which Khoury decided on that accommodation, or with its failure to provide the exact accommodation he would have preferred, is irrelevant."
Does this mean that employers should resort to the my-way-or-the-highway approach to workplace accommodations? Certainly not. Oftentimes, providing the employee with a preferred accommodation will not increase expense or inconvenience and, instead, will satisfy the employee.
And although the 7th Circuit underscored that an employee will not prevail on a "failure-to-accommodate" ADA claim by merely showing that the employer failed to engage in an interactive process with the employee or that it caused the interactive process to break down, an employer that goes through the interactive process should have an easier time establishing it acted reasonably when responding to an employee's request for accommodation.
Because, after all, an employer just needs to act reasonably.
Worker Fatalities Show Importance of Safety Training
Originally posted May 28, 2014 by Paul Lawton on https://safetydailyadvisor.blr.com.
Today’s Advisor reports on several workplace fatalities that may have been prevented with more effective safety training.
Case studies provide real-life examples of why it is important for learners to complete safety training and apply that knowledge back on the job.
In the month of June 2013 alone, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued statements regarding citations to five companies where training might have helped save a worker’s life.
1. OSHA proposed fines of $157,000 against a plumbing company as a result of a January 16 incident in which a worker died from injuries sustained when a trench collapsed at a job site in Hastings, Nebraska. The company was cited for failing to train workers on trenching hazards and four other safety violations.
“This tragedy might have been prevented with the use of protective shoring that the company planned to bring to the job site that afternoon. All too often, compromising safety procedures has tragic consequences, and hazards like these cause numerous deaths and injuries every year,” said Bonita Winingham, OSHA’s area director in Omaha. “No job should cost a worker’s life because an employer failed to properly protect and train them.”
2. OSHA also cited waste treatment facility for 22 safety and health violations and proposed $325,710 in fines as a result of a December 28 fire and explosion at the Cincinnati waste treatment facility in which a worker was fatally burned. The violations include failure to provide new training to employees assigned to handle waste materials, to train workers on the selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for protection from various materials that are part of their routine assignments, and to provide training and PPE to employees assigned to work on energized circuits.
3. Penalties totaling $116,200 were proposed against a lumber company in Timpson, Texas, stemming from a December incident in which a worker was killed after being struck by a broken band saw blade. The 17 alleged safety violations include failure to provide easily understood lockout/tagout training for energy control and to certify that energy control training was completed and current.
4. Among other things, OSHA cited a trucking company in Ross, North Dakota, for failing to train workers on chemical hazards and precautions after a worker was fatally injured on March 27 while cleaning the inside of a crude oil tanker that exploded.
5. OSHA also cited tool manufacturer for 17 safety violations, including lack of training, after a maintenance worker was electrocuted on March 6 in Fenton, Missouri.
Each company had 15 days to comply with the citations, request a conference, or contest the citations and penalties.
Learn from the failures of these companies to protect their employees, and make any needed changes in your own safety training programs to ensure such tragedies don’t happen in your workplace.
Why It Matters
- Safety on the job is a top priority for employees and employers alike.
- Safety training is a key component of every safety program.
- Keep your employees safe—and avoid expensive citations—by continually evaluating your safety program and its training component.
Financial services companies renew focus on talent management
Originally posted May 29, 2014 by Michael Giardina on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
As the financial services industry recovers from the recession, HR leaders at companies such as BNY Mellon and Invesco are re-examining their talent management programs and putting a new emphasis on corporate culture.
Following the recession, many executives in the financial services HR field began to question the industry’s focus on top-down management. At BNY Mellon, combining the firm’s traditional corporate structure with a new focus on talent management was an important part of its business strategy.
The global investment company has more than 50,000 people in 100 different locations, which makes culture and communication integral to its growth.
“We spend a lot of time thinking about culture,” says Sarah Allen, global director of HR strategy and talent solutions for BNY Mellon. “We really do try and reinforce the values.”
The company is in the process of implementing a year-long rotational development program, also known as a management training program, for interns and current employees.
“We think it’s really important because it gives us a chance to offer a differentiated experience, and gives these new employees a chance to see the company from a completely different perspective, from a 360 [degree] perspective,” says Allen. She notes that BNY Mellon is also rolling out a new employee career center to foster development, networking and coaching for motivated employees looking to grow.
According to Nancy Lupinski, head of people development at Invesco, the company is developing numerous programs with a focus on its more than 6,000 employees.
“We are continuing our focus on robust talent management processes, with enhanced efforts related to leadership development, as well as succession and development planning for key roles,” she says. “We work closely with business leaders to target development solutions that accelerate top talent development.”
Identifying, developing and managing talent in an industry as complex and global as financial services is a constant challenge, says Chris Farbo, global leader of Towers Watson’s talent and rewards financial services practice.
“We’re seeing a difference now,” he says. “We’re seeing organizations challenging what have been the historic norms on the staffing pyramid. Do we really need that many seniors to this many middle managers to this many juniors or should we change the slope of that pyramid?”
In a recent poll, Towers Watson found that approximately 44% of financial services companies said that identifying and developing talent would be the primary focus of their HR department over the next 12 months. Also, manager effectiveness, performance management and career architecture were cited by executives as being part of their 2014 HR roadmap.
“I think the industry has been very good at creating very good vertical executives who know their particular area of expertise incredibly well,” says Farbo. “But, as I speak with executives in the industry and boards of directors, where they want the industry to go is having executives grooming talent with a broader horizontal perspective on the business, so they can see and understand the different pockets of activity that are taking place across what are increasingly global and very diversified business portfolios.”
Allen says BNY Mellon is launching a manager feedback component to its employee review process this year, which will allow employees to rate the effectiveness of their managers.
“The manager will use that as input into their professional development plan, but it’s something that our employees have asked for that we think will be pretty powerful,” Allen says. “It just ensures that greater two-way communication.”
Forty-two percent of respondents to the Towers Watson survey said both manager effectiveness and performance management would be the talent initiatives receiving the most attention over the next 12 months.
Do You Have an Employee Wellness Plan?
Originally posted May 19, 2014 by Bridget Miller on https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com.
Employee wellness plans have been gaining popularity in recent years, and with good reason: they can benefit both employees and employers. An employee wellness program is simply a program that intends to promote the health and well-being of employees. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the key is that the program has a goal of improving employee health.
The benefits for employees are fairly obvious:
- The potential for improved health
- Support in the form of encouragement, goals, or even team activities
- A focus on healthier choices
- Maybe a reduction in cost
But the benefits for employers are sometimes overlooked. This is unfortunate because employers actually stand to benefit a great deal as well. Here are just a few examples:
- Improved employee health can mean fewer absences for illness and higher employee productivity levels.
- Investing in employees can improve employee morale. Over time, this can even reduce turnover.
- Healthier employees often cost less to insure over time.
These benefits are there regardless of company size or industry. Every organization can benefit.
Starting an Employee Wellness Program
Starting an employee wellness program can be quite simple. (Of course, it can be quite involved too, depending on how far the employer wants to go with the program.) Here are some examples of easy ways to get started focusing on employee health:
- Provide health screenings. Examples include blood pressure or Body Mass Index (BMI) screenings.
- Provide food fact sheets. Simply having access to more information can allow employees to make healthier choices.
- Start employee fitness groups. Examples include walking groups or even sport team creation to compete in local leagues.
- Conduct individual health-risk assessments (i.e., questionnaires that help assess overall health and risk factors at an individual level). These are usually administered by a third party and come with personalized reports on health risk factors.
- Give away health-related promotional items. Examples include pedometers or water bottles.
- Remove on-site food that does not promote good health; replace it with healthier options. This can be implemented in many areas, such as vending machines, cafeterias, catering for meetings, break room options, etc.
- Provide information on the health benefits of quitting smoking.
- Distribute other wellness-oriented communications, such as health-related newsletters.
- Conduct training sessions on health or wellness-related topics.
- Allow longer lunch breaks to give time for exercise.
- Provide discounts on health insurance or otherwise reduce the cost.
Of course, employee wellness programs can also be implemented on a much broader scale, too. Here are some more in-depth examples:
- Adding an on-site fitness center or partnering with a nearby fitness center to offer free employee memberships; and
- Sponsoring employee contests. (Be sure to follow the latest guidelines under the Affordable Care Act when it comes to participation and rewards.)
Be aware that there are some rules governing wellness programs, particularly when a bonus or discount is based on an actual change in health status (e.g., lower blood pressure or cholesterol) as opposed to simply participating in an activity (e.g., a health screening).
No matter what type of employee wellness programs you implement, be sure to have a plan to communicate the program details to employees. Getting employees excited and involved is the first step to gaining the benefits. Focus on the benefits for the employees in all communications and make it easy to participate, even offering incentives where appropriate.
Survey: Diverse structures point to a more tailored approach in family benefits packages
Originally posted May 22, 2014 by Nick Otto on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
Even against the backdrop of a stronger economy, modern families are still feeling the pinch of financial security, pointing toward the need to tailor products to the needs of specific family structures that are considerably different than the traditional nuclear family.
As a result, the increased diversity will require more comprehensive offerings on the part of benefits managers hoping to provide the best to an increasingly diverse workplace.
Traditional families — or those married to someone of the opposite gender with at least one child younger than 21 — were found to have fewer struggles with financial security than their modern blended, multi-generational or same-sex counterparts. Nearly 36% of modern families were reported to have collected unemployment versus 21% of traditional families, according to a recent report from Allianz.
The LoveFamilyMoney Study analyzed the financial security of a more diverse household landscape. According to the report, only 19.6% of today’s households constitute a “traditional” family, a drop from 40.3% in 1970.
The study included:
▪ Multi-Generational Families — Three or more generations living in the same household.
▪ Single Parent Families — One unmarried adult with at least one child younger than 18.
▪ Same-Sex Couple Families — Married or unmarried couples living together with a member of the same gender.
▪ Blended Families — Parents who are married or living together with a stepchild and/or child from a previous relationship.
▪ Older Parent with Young Children Families — Parents age 40+ with at least one child younger than 5 in the household.
▪ Boomerang Families — Parents with an adult child (21-35) who left and later returned to rejoin the family.
Each structure brings different dynamics to the inner workings of the family, Allianz says. For example, while traditional families provide hierarchy, collaboration and structure; boomerang families, while closely traditional, view their adult children more as friends.
Additionally, the study notes, only 30% of modern families feel financial secure, unlike 41% of traditional families. For example, twice as many modern families say they have declared bankruptcy — 22% compared with 11% of traditional families.
“New family structures have a direct impact on a family’s relationship with money and finances—and we found that, while modern families have similar strong emotional ties, they often feel financially less secure than their traditional counterparts," said Katie Libbe, Allianz Life vice president of Consumer Insights.
"While family structure plays a prominent role, our study of these different modern family cohorts uncovered a number of unique insights into each group’s attitudes, perceptions and beliefs around money and financial planning," she adds.
Although most employees understand the need for medical and dental insurance, the value of voluntary benefits is less understood and can open doors to the modern family structures seen in today’s society. Voluntary products are changing the employee benefits game and can help employers meet objectives while providing more choices for employees.