Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What Does Consistent Participation in 401(k) Plans Generate?
This Issue Brief presents recently available longitudinal data from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database on consistent participation in a 401(k) plan, through year-end 2007.
Looking at consistent participants in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database over the eight-year period from 1999 to 2007, the average 401(k) account balance increased at an annual growth rate of 9.5 percent over the period, to $137,430 at year-end 2007.
The median 401(k) account balance (half above, half below) increased at an annual growth rate of 15.2 percent over the period, to $76,946 at year-end 2007. Data for 2008 are currently being analyzed and are expected to be published later this year.
Looking at consistent participants in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database over the eight-year period from 1999 to 2007, the average 401(k) account balance increased at an annual growth rate of 9.5 percent over the period, to $137,430 at year-end 2007.
The median 401(k) account balance (half above, half below) increased at an annual growth rate of 15.2 percent over the period, to $76,946 at year-end 2007. Data for 2008 are currently being analyzed and are expected to be published later this year.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Tool of the Month: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Guide
Many employment laws have been enacted during and for the first half of 2009 with many more anticipated for the rest of the year and beyond. For a refresher, you now can review a variety of helpful information in the HR Support Center, including the key aspects of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. With a simple one-page document, you can easily reference:
• The Ledbetter Case,
• The Ledbetter Act, and
• The Recommended Actions.
In the HR Support Center website under the Essentials tab section, simply search for the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Guide.”
Lay Off Using Layoffs to Manage Poor Performing Employees
With many employers seeing the business need to layoff employees during the past several months, it may be tempting for a manager to use it as a way to avoid confronting problem employees. When conducting a formal layoff, however, employers would need to follow certain guidelines and be aware of specific state and federal laws. In general, employers are often better off taking the more appropriately accountable route of employment termination for cause using progressive discipline.
In turn, keep the following three points in mind:
1. Eliminate the Position. A layoff involves eliminating positions and not people. Determine your business-essential positions, and your supporting documentation should demonstrate that a position to be eliminated is due to decreased work demands and / or financial reasons. If you want to get rid of a poor performing employee, then getting rid of that job position would likely be not in your best interest since the work still needs to be done.
2. Select the Worker. For the eliminated position in question, identify all employees with similar job titles and roles. After review the type of the work that still needs to be done, figure out which of the employees are the lesser qualified. After assessing the employees’ overall work experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities, pick the least qualified individual. If that individual happens to be the poor performing employee you initially had in mind, then you now would have a more solid basis to end the employment relationship with a layoff.
3. Don’t Fill the Position. If an employer has a legitimate business reason to eliminate a job position, then there should be no need to bring back that position in the near future. Otherwise, the alleged layoff may be viewed as a veiled termination for cause which can cast questions on the company's true intentions and general integrity if ever challenged. The suggested rule of thumb is to not reopen the position for about a year.
In the bigger picture, if you are in Management, part of your direct responsibility is to effectively manage employee confrontations. Addressing employee performance problems through corrective action holds employees accountable for their behaviors and their outcomes. You can leverage various strategies to motivate employees to positively change their performance levels as well as to establish proof of your company’s good faith efforts to help all employees improve.
In turn, keep the following three points in mind:
1. Eliminate the Position. A layoff involves eliminating positions and not people. Determine your business-essential positions, and your supporting documentation should demonstrate that a position to be eliminated is due to decreased work demands and / or financial reasons. If you want to get rid of a poor performing employee, then getting rid of that job position would likely be not in your best interest since the work still needs to be done.
2. Select the Worker. For the eliminated position in question, identify all employees with similar job titles and roles. After review the type of the work that still needs to be done, figure out which of the employees are the lesser qualified. After assessing the employees’ overall work experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities, pick the least qualified individual. If that individual happens to be the poor performing employee you initially had in mind, then you now would have a more solid basis to end the employment relationship with a layoff.
3. Don’t Fill the Position. If an employer has a legitimate business reason to eliminate a job position, then there should be no need to bring back that position in the near future. Otherwise, the alleged layoff may be viewed as a veiled termination for cause which can cast questions on the company's true intentions and general integrity if ever challenged. The suggested rule of thumb is to not reopen the position for about a year.
In the bigger picture, if you are in Management, part of your direct responsibility is to effectively manage employee confrontations. Addressing employee performance problems through corrective action holds employees accountable for their behaviors and their outcomes. You can leverage various strategies to motivate employees to positively change their performance levels as well as to establish proof of your company’s good faith efforts to help all employees improve.
HR Advisor July 2009 The Monthly Newsletter from your AMS HR Support Center
Federal Minimum Wage Rate Increase.
Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage rate will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour.
E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule Delay.
For the fourth time, the effective date requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use the federal government's E-Verify program has been delayed to become effective on September 8, 2009.
Age Bias Decision Favoring Employers.
On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court placed a greater burden on workers to prove their claims of being targets of workplace discrimination due to age.
Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage rate will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour.
E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule Delay.
For the fourth time, the effective date requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use the federal government's E-Verify program has been delayed to become effective on September 8, 2009.
Age Bias Decision Favoring Employers.
On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court placed a greater burden on workers to prove their claims of being targets of workplace discrimination due to age.
What is being said about health care changes!
I was a little surprised to read a recent poll stating that the majority of Americans are receptive to the idea of increased government influence over health care if it means a reduction in cost and better coverage.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 63 percent of respondents would favor an increase in federal influence over health care plans if it translated into lower costs and more coverage, while 36 percent opposed the idea.
Also, a little more than 60 percent of Americans said they believe the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, versus 36 percent who opposed the idea.
Another question involved the concept of raising taxes in order to improve health care for every American, with 47 percent favoring the idea and an equal number opposing it, even if it meant not providing health care for all Americans.
It will not come as a shock when I tell you that opinions were starkly split down party lines, with the majority of Democrats supporting increased government influence and just one-quarter of Republicans favoring the idea.
Of course, these are tough and often very personal beliefs and decisions. Many in the industry oppose government control and there is no shortage of arguments on both sides. Just one first-hand experience either way can erase years of arguments and counter-arguments. This promises to remain an enormous topic in our country for years and probably decades to come.
The questions continue and whether you are for or against its important to be informed.
Questions:
1) Can the government financially support a health care system?
2) Will increased taxes bring about a more beneficial health care plan without excess burden on individual tax payers?
3) Considering Medicare as a system which is almost ready to go bankrupt and which as increased costs to seniors, can the government do better with health care in general?
4) Can a national health care system come about because there is a call to change, without the time to bring about meaningful change with a well thought out plan?
5) Can Insurance companies, Health Care Providers, and all the players in the field of providing benefits and care truly come together putting aside their self interest to create meaningful change?
Would appreciate hearing your comments:
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 63 percent of respondents would favor an increase in federal influence over health care plans if it translated into lower costs and more coverage, while 36 percent opposed the idea.
Also, a little more than 60 percent of Americans said they believe the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, versus 36 percent who opposed the idea.
Another question involved the concept of raising taxes in order to improve health care for every American, with 47 percent favoring the idea and an equal number opposing it, even if it meant not providing health care for all Americans.
It will not come as a shock when I tell you that opinions were starkly split down party lines, with the majority of Democrats supporting increased government influence and just one-quarter of Republicans favoring the idea.
Of course, these are tough and often very personal beliefs and decisions. Many in the industry oppose government control and there is no shortage of arguments on both sides. Just one first-hand experience either way can erase years of arguments and counter-arguments. This promises to remain an enormous topic in our country for years and probably decades to come.
The questions continue and whether you are for or against its important to be informed.
Questions:
1) Can the government financially support a health care system?
2) Will increased taxes bring about a more beneficial health care plan without excess burden on individual tax payers?
3) Considering Medicare as a system which is almost ready to go bankrupt and which as increased costs to seniors, can the government do better with health care in general?
4) Can a national health care system come about because there is a call to change, without the time to bring about meaningful change with a well thought out plan?
5) Can Insurance companies, Health Care Providers, and all the players in the field of providing benefits and care truly come together putting aside their self interest to create meaningful change?
Would appreciate hearing your comments:
Aetna wants to help you get lower group health rates with new RAF program!
Click for quotes:
| RAF Program update | ||||||||
As of Wednesday, July 1, Aetna will only accept the original renewal received by a group to determine eligibility for our RAF promotion. Revised renewals will not be accepted. Aetna will continue requiring submission of prior year and current renewals (original only). We've expanded our RAF promo through 12/31/09 and AB1672 eligible groups moving from a large group contract are now eligible for our RAF program. To qualify, groups must provide a large group renewal of less than 20% increase within 90 days of their requested effective date. Click here RATES! | ||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)