Benefits Buzz

Flu Prevention--Mostly Common Sense, but Do Your Benefits Policies Support It?

The Chicago Tribune's cover of the Sunday business section has a story, like dozens we're seeing now, about Firms bracing for a rash of flu absences. While I hope the H1N1 flu season doesn't prove to be much worse than a typical flu season, most companies (and certainly the major media) are already assuming the worse.

What struck me from this Tribune article was the prevention advice: 

Tips for H1N1 flu prevention and treatment

-- Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.

-- Wash your hands often with soap and water, or use alcohol-based sanitizers, especially after you cough or sneeze.

-- Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth to limit the spread of germs.

-- Avoid close contact with sick people.

-- If sick, stay home for seven days after your symptoms begin or until you have been symptom-free for 24 hours, whichever is longer.

-- Follow public health advice regarding school closings, avoiding crowds and other social-distancing measures.

-- Get both the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccinations, when available. This is especially important for pregnant women, caregivers to infants and health care personnel.

-- If you contract swine flu, talk to your doctor about antiviral medications Tamiflu and Relenza, which can lessen the duration and severity of the illness.

-- For more information visit flu.gov.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Pretty much all common sense, right? The first 5 tips especially are behaviors that make sense ALL the time--not just when there's a pandemic. But, no matter how much the CDC says it, and no matter how much we all know it makes sense, how many people actually stay home when they are sick? (Let alone for seven days!?!!?)

This isn't all about company policy (it is also a lot about individual choices) but, there are a ton of benefit programs and policy factors at play here--time off programs, sick leave, coverage for preventive care, short-term disability policies, family leave, access to child care, the list goes on and on. A company can't be successful with the message "please stay home when you're sick" if they don't have the policies, business process and culture that allow for that.

While many companies have moved from separate sick, holiday and vacation banks to one single "Paid time off" for flexibility, those policies may unintentionally encourage people to work when they are sick. Would you rather come into the office with the sniffles or take a day off of your upcoming vacation to Maui?

What if furloughs have drained people's vacation and PTO banks this year? How will you encourage workers to stay home when they're sick if they are going to have to take a pay cut to do it? Do your policies support parents who may need to stay home with sick kids?

And, what about hourly and low-wage workers? How do you encourage them to take time off if being sick for a week may mean not being able to make rent that month?

Think about the business culture too. Do the work requirements of a specific line of business set the expectation that no one can ever miss a day? How many knowledge workers still come into the office when they're sick even though they have laptops and cell phones, because they don't have a good relationship with their manager? How many managers don't really understand the time off and benefit policies in the first place?

Lots of questions and no easy answers. And, much at stake as we know the cost of lost productivity and absenteeism. As you plan for the flu season, look deeper--beyond common sense communication and business planning--are your benefits programs, policies and business culture truly supporting the health of your workforce this flu season? Or, are they discrediting your message and encouraging exactly the opposite behaviors you need?

Editor's Note - Jennifer Benz is founder and chief strategist at Benz Communications, a boutique consulting firm that focuses on employee benefits communication. You can reach her at jen@benzcommunications.com or via Twitter @jenbenz. 

Time Magazine - Exercise Doesn't Help You Lose Weight...

Weight Loss has long been thought to be a calories in, calories out type of thing that was aided by exercise.  Now, Time Magazine's throwing one of those cover articles out (titled, "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin") that's sure to make a lot of people say "A-HA!!!"

More from the Time article:

"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like The Biggest Loser — or, for that matter, from magazines like this one.

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

Earlier this year, the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE — PLoS is the nonprofit Public Library of Science — published a remarkable study supervised by a colleague of Ravussin's, Dr. Timothy Church, who holds the rather grand title of chair in health wisdom at LSU. Church's team randomly assigned into four groups 464 overweight women who didn't regularly exercise. Women in three of the groups were asked to work out with a personal trainer for 72 min., 136 min., and 194 min. per week, respectively, for six months. Women in the fourth cluster, the control group, were told to maintain their usual physical-activity routines. All the women were asked not to change their dietary habits and to fill out monthly medical-symptom questionnaires.

The findings were surprising. On average, the women in all the groups, even the control group, lost weight, but the women who exercised — sweating it out with a trainer several days a week for six months — did not lose significantly more weight than the control subjects did. (The control-group women may have lost weight because they were filling out those regular health forms, which may have prompted them to consume fewer doughnuts.) Some of the women in each of the four groups actually gained weight, some more than 10 lb. each.

What's going on here? Church calls it compensation, but you and I might know it as the lip-licking anticipation of perfectly salted, golden-brown French fries after a hard trip to the gym. Whether because exercise made them hungry or because they wanted to reward themselves (or both), most of the women who exercised ate more than they did before they started the experiment. Or they compensated in another way, by moving around a lot less than usual after they got home."

The article's a good read, so give it a run.  The problem with mass media articles like this is that they tend to not change anything, with the exception of making those avoiding exercise feel emboldened like they are somehow doing the right thing.  I haven't been exercising, but guess what?  Time ran that big article that said exercise doesn't work - so there's no reason for me to start.

Meanwhile, regardless of the reality regarding exercise's impact on weight loss, that same group gets none of the other postive impacts of exercise in their daily lives.

Worse yet, their kids grow up with no exposure to exercise as a part of a healthy lifestyle.

Thanks Time...

There's No Such Thing As Private Health Information in the Big Time....

Most of us get to control access to our private healthcare information.  If we're on blood thinners and we want to keep that confidential from future employers, we control it - we just don't say anything.

Not so in some professions, especially where public safety is involved.  Still, in professions with public safety at issue, your employer would put safeguards in place to ensure the disclosure of your medical issues through questionaires and full-blown physicals, but your medical conditions aren't widely known by the public.

Not so in professional sports.  Consider the case of DeMarre Carroll, as reported by SI.com:

"Former Missouri forward DeMarre Carroll earned the nickname "Junkyard Dog" for his blue-collar approach and relentless work ethic. Now he must convince NBA teams that a previously undisclosed liver disease won't keep him from being a pro.

Agent Mark Bartelstein confirmed Wednesday that Carroll, a first-team All-Big 12 pick and potential first-round draft selection, was diagnosed with a liver ailment "a couple of years ago." He downplayed the possibility that Carroll might eventually require a liver transplant.

"It's jumping the gun," said Bartelstein, a Chicago agent whose NBA clients include former Kansas star Brandon Rush and Eddie House of the Boston Celtics. "There's a possibility (of a transplant) way in the future, maybe 20 or 25 years down the road."

Carroll has been treated by Dr. Jeffrey Crippin of Washington University in St. Louis, a specialist in gastroenterology, liver disease and transplants. Crippin declined comment, referring questions to Carroll's agent.

Bartelstein said that Crippin is preparing a letter for NBA coaches, general managers and team doctors outlining Carroll's health before the June 25 draft."

In your workplace, such public disclosure would be the cause for a lawsuit.  In professonal sports, it's given that everyone has the info and the info becomes public.  Strange contrast...

Alabama - Now Charging Obese Workers More For Benefits....

I've written a lot in the past about the continuing escalation of healthcare costs in the U.S. forcing companies into a corner, a corner which will force them to either penalize unheathly employees or reward healthy employees for their health metrics.

Whether you use the carrot or the stick will be up to you.  But employers are increasing their moves to link employee heathcare premiums to metrics like blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, obesity, etc.

The state of Alabama recently annouced some changes that suggest you'll have your BMI memorized in 5 years.  From MSNBC....

"Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat. The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit — or they’ll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.

Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don’t work on slimming down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors. Alabama already charges workers who smoke — and has seen some success in getting them to quit — but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.

The State Employees’ Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don’t have free health screenings. If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won’t be charged. But if they don’t, they must pay starting in January 2011.

“It’s terrible,” said health department employee Chequla Motley. “Some people come into this world big.”  Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn’t like the idea of another charge.  “It’s too Big Brotherish,” he said.

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.  The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight."

Welcome to the brave new world.  I'm a proponent of rewarding employees who live healthy lifestyles that result in reduced risk.  Still, I wonder if $25 per month ($300 per year?) makes enough of a dent.  My take is that the psychological threshold for action is triple digits - $100 per month. 

Put the doughnut down.  Doughnuts are for closers people who exercise... Not for those who think the Wii Fit is a good exercise tool...

How Are Benefits Managers Responding to Tough Economic Times?

Chances are, given current economic conditions, you aren’t rolling out many new benefits this year.  In fact, you’ve probably received direction from your e-suite to “cut costs” without much direction regarding where those savings should come from.  There’s a fine line that folks who work in benefits are walking these days.  On one hand, we’re looking for opportunities to control or cut costs.  On the other, we want to continue offering benefits programs that help attract and retain talent.  The challenge is finding ways to balance these competing interests.
 
If you believe the media, the easy cut for many employers is the employer match on 401k contributions.  Others are making changes to what they contribute toward medical coverage or changing medical plan design.  Still, others are moving away from traditional health coverage altogether toward consumer driven health plans (CDHP).  In a recent survey, Watson Wyatt found that 51% of employers responding currently have a CDHP in place -- up 9% from the prior year.

While it may feel like every employer is reducing benefits, the results of a recent Tower Perrin survey seem to indicate otherwise.  The survey found that few respondents were planning to make dramatic changes to their benefits during the next year.  Many employers are taking this opportunity to communicate with employees about their concerns and take a harder look at their benefits strategies.  Here’s an excerpt from their press release:

“Amid worries about their 2009 performance (56% of respondents expect to see revenues decline, in some cases by as much as 20% or more), a fair number of respondents see the economic crisis as a catalyst for constructive action.  For instance:

• 70% are increasing communication to address employee concerns, and more than 57% said they were not cutting back on investments in benefit communication or education.
• 53% are trying or considering new benefit strategies they would not have considered otherwise.
• 47% reported they are taking a more holistic approach to reward management.”

The argument against making drastic cuts today is that employees tend to have long memories.  While they may not walk out your door in the current economic environment, they’ll remember how you treat them today when the environment improves.  There are certainly employers making changes to their benefits programs just to survive.  If a choice has to be made between reducing benefits and closing your doors, obviously a reduction in benefits makes more sense. 

Let’s face it -- benefits are offered as part of a total compensation package to attract and retain talented employees.  Benefits managers around the country will be faced with tough decisions this year.  Over the next 6-18 months, they’ll need to be strategic about decisions they make.  Looking for opportunities to control or cut costs will be imperative.  But employers should think twice before taking an axe to their benefits programs at will.  If they do, their employees will remember it when times aren’t quite so tough.

Editor's Note - Greg Dagley is a Benefits Consultant for a large multinational employer in Houston, TX. While his company has employees all over the globe, his job keeps him focused on US benefits and spending a lot of his time managing external vendors.  Is there any doubt his Excel skills are more advanced than yours?

Comparing the Cost of Google Daycare with the Rest of the Free World...

The price tag bandied about regarding Google Daycare - 57K for 2 kids under Google's new bundling plan - sent a shockwave out across parents in the working world.  Relax everyone, it's got more to do with the cost of stuff in the valley than it does with any Google desire to stick it to working parents.

For some perspective, let's rely on economic data supplied by yours truly and trusted subscribers to the Capitalist:

-First, there's me.  I live in Birmingham, Alabama, a metro area with a population of a little over one million.  The southeast/sunbelt is known as a pretty affordable area to live, and the magic city was recently rated as the 3rd most affordable housing market in America.   I had two kids in high end, education-first day care for four years, and the biggest annual bill I ever had was around 16k.  That's 8K per kid, and that came down a bit as the youngest one got out of infant care, etc.  (total annual cost per kid - 8K).

-Then, there's my friend Evil HR Lady, who hit us in the comments to the original post.  I don't know where she lives, but my guess is it's a metro area bigger than Bham that's not on the west coast.  She gave us the weekly cost of $300 for one kid, which is $1,200 per month or $14,400 annualized (assumes 2 weeks out for a trip to the EHRL beach house) (total annual cost per kid - 14.5K).

-Next, friend of the Capitalist, Meg, gave us the baseline cost of daycare in the Silicon Valley area, providing a figure of $10/hour or 20K annually for solid daycare.  Ouch.  (total annual cost per kid - 20K)

So, those are the market figures, and it's important to note that those prices represent parents paying 100% of the cost.

And, that's where the math gets freaky when comparing the market to Google's subsidized daycare. 

Let's start with what's easy.  Daycare at Google, for those fortunate enough to get the benefit (supply/capacity issue) use to be able to get 2 kids in daycare for 33K a year, or 16.5K per kid.  That made it twice as expensive as Birmingham, but comparable to where Evil HR Lady lives and cheaper than what folks could buy on their own in the Valley.  With the price increases, that figure goes up to 57K, or 28.5K per kid.  That makes it twice as expensive as EHRL, and significantly more costly than what Meg reported as a baseline.

But, that's not the full story, since Google was subsidizing and continues to subsidize the cost of their daycare.  According to the NYT article, Google was subsidizing the cost-per-child, before the change, to the tune of 37K per child, meaning the total loaded cost was 53.5K per child (wow).  The article suggests that Google was making changes to the childcare operation that included raising the child per caretaker ratio.  That would naturally drop the total cost.

Assuming Google made changes to the childcare operation that resulted in them providing a subsidy per child similar to Cisco and Oracle (12K per child), the total cost of the Google daycare solution would be 40K per child (28.5 per kid plus 12K - I rounded down).

And that's roughly 5 times the Birmingham price, 3 times the EvilHRLadyville price, and 2 times the normal Silicon Valley price. 

Which means if I ever work for Google, I would be... how do we say it....

...a Telecommuter, from Birmingham.

WOW.      

The price tag bandied about regarding Google Daycare - 57K for 2 kids under Google's new bundling plan - sent a shockwave out across parents in the working world.  Relax everyone, it's got more to do with the cost of stuff in the valley than it does with any Google desire to stick it to working parents.

For some perspective, let's rely on economic data supplied by yours truly and trusted subscribers to the Capitalist:

-First, there's me.  I live in Birmingham, Alabama, a metro area with a population of a little over one million.  The southeast/sunbelt is known as a pretty affordable area to live, and the magic city was recently rated as the 3rd most affordable housing market in America.   I had two kids in high end, education-first day care for four years, and the biggest annual bill I ever had was around 16k.  That's 8K per kid, and that came down a bit as the youngest one got out of infant care, etc.  (total annual cost per kid - 8K).

-Then, there's my friend Evil HR Lady, who hit us in the comments to the original post.  I don't know where she lives, but my guess is it's a metro area bigger than Bham that's not on the west coast.  She gave us the weekly cost of $300 for one kid, which is $1,200 per month or $14,400 annualized (assumes 2 weeks out for a trip to the EHRL beach house) (total annual cost per kid - 14.5K).

-Next, friend of the Capitalist, Meg, gave us the baseline cost of daycare in the Silicon Valley area, providing a figure of $10/hour or 20K annually for solid daycare.  Ouch.  (total annual cost per kid - 20K)

So, those are the market figures, and it's important to note that those prices represent parents paying 100% of the cost.

And, that's where the math gets freaky when comparing the market to Google's subsidized daycare. 

Let's start with what's easy.  Daycare at Google, for those fortunate enough to get the benefit (supply/capacity issue) use to be able to get 2 kids in daycare for 33K a year, or 16.5K per kid.  That made it twice as expensive as Birmingham, but comparable to where Evil HR Lady lives and cheaper than what folks could buy on their own in the Valley.  With the price increases, that figure goes up to 57K, or 28.5K per kid.  That makes it twice as expensive as EHRL, and significantly more costly than what Meg reported as a baseline.

But, that's not the full story, since Google was subsidizing and continues to subsidize the cost of their daycare.  According to the NYT article, Google was subsidizing the cost-per-child, before the change, to the tune of 37K per child, meaning the total loaded cost was 53.5K per child (wow).  The article suggests that Google was making changes to the childcare operation that included raising the child per caretaker ratio.  That would naturally drop the total cost.

Assuming Google made changes to the childcare operation that resulted in them providing a subsidy per child similar to Cisco and Oracle (12K per child), the total cost of the Google daycare solution would be 40K per child (28.5 per kid plus 12K - I rounded down).

And that's roughly 5 times the Birmingham price, 3 times the EvilHRLadyville price, and 2 times the normal Silicon Valley price. 

Which means if I ever work for Google, I would be... how do we say it....

...a Telecommuter, from Birmingham.

WOW.      

Do It Pro Bono: Getting the Most Benefit From Time Off to Volunteer

Volunteering is definitely hot right now. President Obama has made it part of his national agenda and laid-off workers are flooding nonprofits with applications to volunteer. Many many companies have time off to volunteer as part of their benefits program and vocal companies like Salesforce.com tout their volunteering + donations so much that they even teach other organizations how to follow their model.

But, what's really exciting (and, just in time for National Volunteer Week), is the growing appreciation that giving employees time off to volunteer is not only good for the community, but good for your employees--and good for business.

Talent Management's April cover story Volunteerism’s Impact on Talent Management says it all:

"Organizations should encourage, value and support extracurricular volunteer efforts, not just because it is the right thing to do but because these volunteer activities will increase employee engagement, underscore the employer brand, support recruitment and retention initiatives, and develop valuable workplace skills that ultimately will help the employer succeed."

Now, that sounds like a business case any CFO can appreciate.

Limeade, a wellness company, is taking that one step further and linking volunteer efforts to productivity in their health risk assessment. Instead of just asking employees for their BMIs and cholesterol levels, Limeade asks the employee what he or she wants to achieve--from health to social to career goals--and lets the employee pick up to three. "Giving back" is one of these. Others are things like "get more sleep" and "have more energy."

Henry Albrecht, the CEO of Limeade, says that Giving Back option is there because it is linked to higher productivity. "Giving Back is a goal on the Limeade assessment because altruism predicts better business and personal performance. Including factors like these allows Limeade to predict more than 10 times the variability in productivity than just looking at health factors alone. It's about being a high-performance company--not just flagging health risks and 'singling out the costly.' Our own rigorous statistical analysis shows that 'Concern for Others' predicts both productivity and well-being (both of which are connected to other positive business outcomes like profits and customer satisfaction)." 

So, volunteering can increase engagement, develop talent, improve recruiting efforts and even bump up profits and customer satisfaction. Wow. But, how do you get the most bang for your volunteering buck? Two ways:

--Promote your volunteering benefits. (And, promote your donation and gift-matching programs, too--they're all benefits!) This seems like a no-brainer, but plenty of companies give their employees 2 or 3 days a year off to volunteer and then forget to remind their employees to take the time off. Or, worse, their demanding work environment doesn't allow for it. Promote this benefit--and encourage managers to do the same. (If your company doesn't have this benefit, now is a great time to add it!)

--Encourage pro bono work as the most valuable way to volunteer and link those volunteer opportunities to learning and development. Pro bono projects use employees' professional skills. I would never discourage volunteer work like cleaning up parks or building homes for Habitat for Humanity, but pro bono work has so much more potential to engage and develop employees--and pro bono work also delivers the most value to the nonprofit sector, which is desperately in need of the skills your employees have. Most people find donating their unique skills more rewarding than "stuffing envelopes" and other fewer-skills-required jobs. And, pro bono projects and pro bono consulting can often be integrated into employees' day-to-day work rather than having to take everyone off-site for a day or two for a concentrated volunteer project. Need some inspiration? Check out how Umpqua Bank quantifies the impact of all of their associates volunteering (they have nearly 70% participation!).

Not linking time off to volunteer to learning and development is a huge missed opportunity. From the 2008 Deloitte Volunteer IMPACT Survey, a nationwide survey for Fortune 500 HR pros: "Fully 91 percent of respondents agree that skills-based volunteering (which involves the contribution of business knowledge and experience to help nonprofits increase their capacity) would add value to training and development programs, particularly as it relates to fostering business and leadership skills.  However, only 16 percent make it a regular practice to intentionally offer these opportunities for employee development, suggesting a missed opportunity to boost learning in a way that offers substantial benefits."

More on that from the Talent Management article: As Peter F. Drucker wrote in the article "Managing Knowledge Means Managing Oneself," "The real development I've seen of people in organizations, especially in big ones, comes from their being volunteers in a nonprofit organization. I hope we will soon begin to talk about the nonprofit organization as the great social opportunity for business. It is the opportunity for business to develop managers far more effectively than any company or university can. It is one of the unique benefits that the social sector can offer."

Did you hear that? Pro bono work provides opportunities to develop managers far more effectively than any company or university can! (And, hey, it is way cheaper than an MBA.)

Pro bono work also has the ability to elevate everyday professionals to hero status, especially when you're helping organizations that are solving some of society's most challenging problems. That is the theme of a new childrens' book Mommy and Daddy Do It Pro Bono. Written by Aaron Hurst, the founder of The Taproot Foundation, an organization that engages professionals in pro bono work across the country, and his wife, Kara Hurst, a global corporate social responsibility leader, the book shows what typical professionals look like through the eyes of children--and how significant pro bono work can be. It is a fun look at the impact of volunteer work not just on the organizations and individuals involved, but as a way to be a role model in every profession.

It is also the first children's book to feature an HR Manager--perhaps the best roll model in a company for the value of pro bono work (especially since nonprofits need HR help now more than ever). And, it is on sale, just in time for National Volunteer Week, and just in time for you to add a promo about your volunteer time off program to your next benefits update.

Author's note - A big thank you to Liz Guthridge, Charlotte Graeber and Chip Abernathy who provided me with some of the examples above via Twitter.

Editor's Note - Jennifer Benz is founder and chief strategist at Benz Communications, a boutique consulting firm that focuses on employee benefits communication. She admits to not being even slightly impartial on the topic of pro bono work, having been involved with the Taproot Foundation since 2002.

Lie on the Job Like Ferris - Is It OK to Use Sick Days for Job Interviews?

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney  (PG-13 language warning on the clip below)...

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney  (PG-13 language warning on the clip below)...

42% of Tampa Bus Drivers Have Signed Up for Intermittent Leave..(!)

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

Crazy Energy Stats Related to Telecommuting...

I've riffed in the recent past about the craziness of gas guarantees for employees in the face of rising fuel prices.  Not exactly the most progressive way to handle the cost of energy.  With that said, here are some cool stats on telecommuting from Sun Microsystems as reported by Green Car Congress (hat tip to Kevin Grossman at HR Marketer):

• Employees saved more than $1,700 per year in gasoline and wear and tear on their vehicles by working at home an average of 2.5 days a week.

• Office equipment energy consumption rate at a Sun office was two times that of home office equipment energy consumption, from approximately 64 watts per hour at home to 130 watts per hour at a Sun office.

• Commuting was more than 98% of each employee’s carbon footprint for work, compared to less than 1.7% of total carbon emissions to power office equipment.

• By eliminating commuting just 2.5 days per week, an employee reduces energy used for work by the equivalent of 5,400 Kilowatt hours/year.

• Working from home 2.5 days per week saved the employees in the study an average of 2.5 weeks of commute time (8 hours/day, 5 days/week).

Through this program, Sun has nearly 19,000 employees around the world work from home or in a flexible office, representing more than 56% of Sun’s employee population. 

WOW.  Compelling stuff.  Add to that tally, as I'm reminded by Kevin, the increase that can occur in productivity if employees treat the arrangement professionally, and the business case is strong. 

While we have some telecommuters, I've been working on something to help institutionalize the approach.  I need to wrap that up and get it to market, ASAP...

Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em - German Company Fires Non-Smokers....

Has there ever been a harder transformation in societal expectations than the one that has occurred in the last 30 years regarding smoking?  I was raised in a family of smokers, and in the 70's and 80's, as a kid, it really never occurred to me that the whole habit was dangerous.  In a weird twist, it also never occurred to me that I should smoke. 

I hear I beat the odds...

Then, society got cracking and made all who smoke a little uncomfortable.  Don't smoke here, here or here, and just so you got the message, here's a fishbowl to smoke in at the airport with your friends.

Of course, the whole thing has been good for our health care plans.  Fewer people smoking is good for what ails your PPO.  I'm channeling John Lennon when I say "imagine" if the U.S. made the same shift with Crisco.  Now that would really help the PPO trendline.

Of course, smoking is now seemingly uncool in the U.S.  Other countries however, like Germany, would like to thank you for smoking:

"The owner of a small company in Germany fired three workers because they were not smokers. It seems that their boss (evidently a smoker himself) felt that they were “disturbing the peace” in the workplace by being vocal about their smoking colleagues.

“I can’t be bothered with trouble-makers,” said the boss. “We’re on the phone all the time and it’s just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It’s time for revenge. I’m only going to hire smokers from now on.”

Of course, being anti-smoking doesn't fall in a protected class.   Here's my ridiculous list of other things that are easier while smoking:

1.  Filling out a health history at your local doctor's office.
2.  Helping your son bat during a father/son baseball game.
3.  Engaging a fire extinguisher.
4.  Typing a Blackberry message while driving, and smoking...

Hat Tip to Andrew Scott-Holman, keeper of the best blog in Kiwi-land....

Benefit Jobs From Hell - The LOA Administrator

By now, readers of the Capitalist know that I am a HR Generalist, meaning I do it all - recruit, employee relations, benefits, performance management, etc.   I'm also a firm believer that Generalist roles span the globe of HR titles - Generalists can be found at the Rep/individual contributor, manager, director and VP levels.

One of the things that is cool about being a HR Generalist is the variety - if you're sick of doing one thing, you just need to wait about 20 minutes, because you'll get a call shifting your priorities to another area as a routine course of business.

Some people call it chaos, I call it variety...

So, for me, a HR job from hell is one that includes no variety, and resides in an area of the HR practice where little joy is found.  Here's my first HR Job from Hell - the corporate Leave of Absence Administrator.

First up, let me say that me tagging the LOA Administrator as a job from hell has nothing to do with the people in the job, but instead has everything to do with what these folks have to put up with on a daily basis.  As luck would have it, a fellow HR pro is currently in the job market:

"I had a phone screen yesterday that went ok. It was for the Leave of Absence Specialist. Get this: the organization has 15,000 employees. Guess how many NEW leave of absence cases were processed last year? 4,400. That is almost a 1/3 of their workforce, yo! Geez. Anyhow the in person interviews aren't until a few weeks from now due to vacations. So, we'll see".

UGH.  That pretty much sums up why I would consider the LOA Administer role as a HR role from Dante's 9th circle.  Here's what you have to deal with in that role:

-Primary focus is interacting with folks going through very rough times.  For the right person, this would be a plus, as they could use their empathy to make a difference.  But a steady diet of this over years surely leads to burnout.

-Being the tough gal/guy regarding compliance.  Folks are going through rough times, and you're the one that has to hassle them about the FMLA certification forms even though that's the last thing on their mind.

-Deciding when to play hardball on fraud.  You have 4,000 applications for LOA, you're going to have some folks gaming the system.  You have to decide when to play hardball and go after it.  You see the 5-10% that game the system - how can you not become jaded after a year or two of that?

Let me be clear - if you are in the LOA Administrator role in your company - thank you.   You are taking multiple hits daily for the HR function as a whole, and you're likely doing it very well.  If you get burned out, I hope your company has a rotational program in place, because you have skills that are a valuable resource.

What An Angry Mob Looks Like - Reducing Healthcare Benefits of Retirees...

If you've been in HR for more than 5 years, you've been a part of what I'll call the "Great Benefits Crunch", which has forced your company to reduce overall benefit levels and/or pass along greater costs to employees.

You don't have to explain it to me.  I've had to explain those decisions to employees, and I'm aware that you didn't create the economic problem that is the "state of health care".  Sadly though, if you're in HR, you're left to explain the realities to a set of employees that doesn't feel great about costs being shifted their way.

You and I can understand that, because we're employees too.  Just because you manage the plan doesn't mean your health insurance is free. 

But being in HR means you take ownership of the employee relations side of the business, which means at times you're going to feel the laser on your back when employees vent their frustrations.

Watch the whole video below, which is one of the hardest rants about cost shifting I've ever seen captured on video...

Wow.  Did that get your attention?  Here are the details from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat:

"Convinced that the county no longer can afford spiraling health insurance premiums, Sonoma County (CA) supervisors told thousands of retirees and employees Tuesday that they will have to pay an increasing share of the cost.  Supervisors conceded their vote would be unpopular with the 2,500 retirees and 650 non-union workers who will be affected by the cost restructuring beginning in June.

Currently, the county provides non-union workers 85 percent of the premium for any plan selected, and gives retirees 85 percent of the lowest-cost premium, either for an individual or couple. Under the adopted recommendations, there will be a gradual reduction of 20 percent annually over the next five years in the county's contribution to retiree and non-union health benefits to $500 a month.

Nearly two-thirds of the 2,400 retirees would experience a drop in county contributions to their medical premiums. Those who insure dependents or who retired before age 65 are likely to see the biggest reductions. For example, an early retiree insuring a dependent under age 65 on the least expensive PPO plan is now getting $1,043 a month. That amount would be reduced by 20 percent each year until 2013 when the $500 monthly level would be reached."

I suspect retiree benefits will continue to be under pressure based on the economics of health care, as will the plans for active employees. 

I don't have the answers, but I do know this.  If you're an HR pro with 20 years left, you're going be a part of transitions and cost-shifting that spur reactions like what you see in the video above.  Brace yourself for a bumpy ride.

The employee relations portion of the HR Manager's role - it's the toughest job you'll ever love...

Balance Billing Still an Issue for Employees, Especially Under $1,000...

If running a self-insured medical plan has taught me anything, it's that I am glad I have access to the network discounts for routine and non-routinue medical procedures provided to me by our medical provider (think Blue Cross, Aetna, Cigna, etc.).  Depending on your medical provider's market share, it's not uncommon for insurance providers to have agreements with doctors that provide up to a 50% discount from the sticker price provided by M.D.'s and surgeons.

God help those without insurance or access to government programs.  I'm guessing those folks are the ones who get stuck with the full retail sticker price for an operation, then spend the rest of their lives trying to dig out of the resulting debt since they held 100% responsibility for payment.

Here's another ugly angle to the current healthcare system.  A nasty process called Balance Billing.  A description from BusinessWeek:

"As health-care costs continue to soar, millions of confused consumers are paying medical bills they don't actually owe. Typically this occurs when an insurance plan covers less than what a doctor, hospital, or lab service wants to be paid. The health-care provider demands the balance from the patient. Uncertain and fearing the calls of a debt collector, the patient pays up.

Most consumers don't realize it, but this common practice, known as balance billing, often is illegal. When doctors or hospitals think an insurer has reimbursed too little, state and federal laws generally bar the medical providers from pressuring patients to pay the difference. Instead, doctors and hospitals should be wrangling directly with insurers. Economists and patient advocates estimate that consumers pay $1 billion or more a year for which they're not responsible.

Yolanda Fil, a 59-year-old McDonald's (MCD) cashier in Maple Shade, N.J., got tangled up with balance billing after gall bladder surgery in 2005. She and her husband, Leon, a retired state transportation worker, have coverage through Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. Horizon made payments on Fil's behalf to the hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist. Then, in 2006, Vanguard Anesthesia Associates billed Fil for an unpaid balance of $518. Soon, a collection agency hired by Vanguard started calling Fil once a week, she says. Although she thought her co-payment and insurance should have covered the surgery, Fil eventually paid the $518, plus a $20 transaction fee. "I didn't have any choice," she says. "They threatened me with bad credit."

Nice.  So the doctor's have signed the insurance provider's contract, which clearly states at what rates they'll be reimbursed for different procedures.  Then, in pure "let's go fishing" mode, they send out invoices that make it appear your employees are responsible for a greater amount that they paid at the time of the procedure via co-pay/deductible. 

Who gets blamed?  A combination of the insurance provider and the HR team, for obtaining a provider who couldn't give them cost certainty.  Especially troublesome is the fact that doctor's will often go after balance billing of less than $1,000 since they know the pay rate for these will be higher.  After all, if you're threatened with a $500 bill hurting your credit rating and don't have the time or knowledge to research it, many of us are apt to dig deep, pay the bill and move on.

That stinks.  Keep your eyes out for balance billing coming to an employee near you. (More below from CBS News, email subscribers click through for video).

If running a self-insured medical plan has taught me anything, it's that I am glad I have access to the network discounts for routine and non-routinue medical procedures provided to me by our medical provider (think Blue Cross, Aetna, Cigna, etc.).  Depending on your medical provider's market share, it's not uncommon for insurance providers to have agreements with doctors that provide up to a 50% discount from the sticker price provided by M.D.'s and surgeons.

God help those without insurance or access to government programs.  I'm guessing those folks are the ones who get stuck with the full retail sticker price for an operation, then spend the rest of their lives trying to dig out of the resulting debt since they held 100% responsibility for payment.

Here's another ugly angle to the current healthcare system.  A nasty process called Balance Billing.  A description from BusinessWeek:

"As health-care costs continue to soar, millions of confused consumers are paying medical bills they don't actually owe. Typically this occurs when an insurance plan covers less than what a doctor, hospital, or lab service wants to be paid. The health-care provider demands the balance from the patient. Uncertain and fearing the calls of a debt collector, the patient pays up.

Most consumers don't realize it, but this common practice, known as balance billing, often is illegal. When doctors or hospitals think an insurer has reimbursed too little, state and federal laws generally bar the medical providers from pressuring patients to pay the difference. Instead, doctors and hospitals should be wrangling directly with insurers. Economists and patient advocates estimate that consumers pay $1 billion or more a year for which they're not responsible.

Yolanda Fil, a 59-year-old McDonald's (MCD) cashier in Maple Shade, N.J., got tangled up with balance billing after gall bladder surgery in 2005. She and her husband, Leon, a retired state transportation worker, have coverage through Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. Horizon made payments on Fil's behalf to the hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist. Then, in 2006, Vanguard Anesthesia Associates billed Fil for an unpaid balance of $518. Soon, a collection agency hired by Vanguard started calling Fil once a week, she says. Although she thought her co-payment and insurance should have covered the surgery, Fil eventually paid the $518, plus a $20 transaction fee. "I didn't have any choice," she says. "They threatened me with bad credit."

Nice.  So the doctor's have signed the insurance provider's contract, which clearly states at what rates they'll be reimbursed for different procedures.  Then, in pure "let's go fishing" mode, they send out invoices that make it appear your employees are responsible for a greater amount that they paid at the time of the procedure via co-pay/deductible. 

Who gets blamed?  A combination of the insurance provider and the HR team, for obtaining a provider who couldn't give them cost certainty.  Especially troublesome is the fact that doctor's will often go after balance billing of less than $1,000 since they know the pay rate for these will be higher.  After all, if you're threatened with a $500 bill hurting your credit rating and don't have the time or knowledge to research it, many of us are apt to dig deep, pay the bill and move on.

That stinks.  Keep your eyes out for balance billing coming to an employee near you. (More below from CBS News, email subscribers click through for video).