We may never agree post 1 of ?

The following blog will tell a story. The story is real and is about the future of HR. I expect many to disagree with the story's lessons but you will have to wait until the story unfolds one day at a time. This blog is day one of the story. The introduction may seem boring and even innocuous, but you need to know where the story begins or you will miss the point.

1 Question HR Department Alignment to PSFIN Department? How are you doing this? How are is reporting aligned?  2. Response

I assume your referring to Public Service Financial departments and the HR department alignment. If that is the case here are two examples of alignment and how to report it.

1. Finance generally is responsible for the budget and HR is generally responsible for the single largest operating expense, benefits and compensation. Therefore there are a number of ways for finance and HR to collaborate on how to manage these expenses so that they become an investment and deliver an ROI. It would not be too difficult to construct a benchmark, set up an objective, measure the objective with metrics, graph progress, and establish a regular reporting and review process.

2. Finance generally allocates costs such as legal fees for employment claims to the department that incurred the charge. As a result, HR is not held accountable for these expenses and they should be, if HR is going to have an impact on the organization. HR and Finance can work out what I refer to as shared objectives so that multiple departments are held responsible for containing cost and all participants benefit when the predefined objectives are met.

Call me if I can be of further assistance.

Mike Salisbury Principal HRA 818 970 0730 hralliance@att.net

Chief Talent Officer…A new title and a clear mission for HR

Does your company seek high-performing talent or does it settle for people to fill vacancies?

Does the organization set objective performance measures for employees or does the firm demand that you conduct arduous and ineffective performance reviews that focus on behavior? How about the organization’s contractors, consultants and temporary staff? Is their performance measured? Does your firm even assess a candidate’s ability to perform before they are hired? Does the enterprise use a benchmark as a standard for evaluating performance levels? And most important, does the organization measure and reward people based on their individual performance or the contribution of the team they are a part of?

My guess is that you firm does not do most of these things right and it won’t, if it continues to operate as it always has.

Why not?

Because you have a Human Resource person in charge of “people management” or “talent management” and they do not know how to take responsibility for increasing the value of the human capital that your firm has invested in.

Try This

Try posting a job on a job board.  You’ll receive resume upon resume that demonstrates that tasks and activities the individual has performed and was responsible for. You will not discover how they contributed to their employers in a meaningful way that impacted the success of the business.

The Quarterback

Imagine if an NFL quarterback’s resume stated something like:

“Assigned responsibility for the quarterback position where I called out and executed plays under senior management’s direction. Practiced regularly and exercised vigorously to prepare for the weekly game. Worked well with fellow teammates and cheerleaders.”

Would we know more about the quarterback’s accomplishments and potential value if he communicated in this manner?

“As the quarterback, I led my team to four playoff appearances in five seasons and two championship wins in five seasons.  No other quarterback in the league led their team to more than two playoff appearances during this same time period.”

Accomplishments, Contributions and Value

Seldom will you receive a resume that demonstrates accomplishments, contributions and value.  Why?  Because employers do not communicate that they need high-performing people who make contributions and create value.

Do you think it would be better if we expected business professionals to communicate their worth in terms of accomplishments, contributions and the value the can add to the business?

A Strategic Solution

We propose a solution where a “Chief Talent Officer (CTO), is on par with other executives such as the CFO and the CIO. Under this arrangement the CTO is held responsible for the company’s ability to retain, attract and benefit from the human capital that contributes to the organization’s goals and objectives.

Human Capital includes; employees, consultants, contractors, temporary staff and even the people that represent the myriad of vendors employed by the company.  Human Capital includes all of the staff that the company pays compensation to.

CTO Responsibilities

• The CTO should be responsible for establishing benchmarks, metrics, objectives and reporting mechanisms that reinforce the company’s commitment to talent development and performance.
• The CTO should be responsible for moving the company from filling vacancies to creating an environment that fosters high-performing teams.
• The CTO should be well-connected for networking purposes.  They should proactively screen and build relationships with industry-leading sources of talent and encourage all of the firm’s vendors to share in these sources of talent. This includes working with recruiters when the company needs to tap into professional networks that only highly qualified recruiters possess. 
• The CTO should be responsible for establishing performance metrics to measure and reward team performance.
• The CTO should foster coaching, education and professional development. As the capabilities of the staff improve, the abilities of the team expand; the performance of the company can be expected to grow.

What are your thoughts or contributions to this discussion?

Mike Salisbury is the Principal of Human Resource Alliance, which delivers human capital management services and solutions to growing organizations.  Mike is an MBA graduate from California State University and he has a BA in Business Administration from Loyola University of Los Angeles.  Mike’s background includes responsibility for all areas of Human Resources. He has a solid record of streamlining processes and contributing to clients by delivering both measurable and valuable results.

Jeff Snyder is the President of J.A. Snyder & Associates, Inc.  Jeff has recruited technology professionals since 1990.  Jeff holds a BA in Business Administration from the University of Kentucky.  Jeff is certified as an EQi-2.0 Emotional Intelligence Performance Coach and an EQ360 Emotional Intelligence Performance Coach through Multi Health Systems, Inc.  He is a Certified Mastermind Executive Coach from Executive Coaching University and a Stakeholder Centered Coach through The Marshall Goldsmith Group.

 

Change or Progress

Today's guest blogger, Peter Cappelli

It’s a worldwide trend that has been under way for nearly a decade: Responsibility for talent management is shifting from HR to frontline executives. The transition is driven partly by cost cutting—head counts in HR departments fell sharply during the Great Recession—but it is also fueled by the recognition that many aspects of talent management are best handled by day-to-day managers.

In a 2005 Australian study, 70% of respondents said that line managers had taken over many HR tasks in their firms during the previous five years. In a 2013 survey of UK companies, senior executives reported playing a much bigger role than HR departments in setting employees’ development goals. In the United States, 45% of the HR departments surveyed plan to restructure before the end of 2013, in part to reflect this trend.

More importantly, research by CEB shows that when line managers, rather than HR, are responsible for recruiting, performance management, and retention, companies are 29% more successful at those tasks.

Rousing Drowsy

The Future of Human Capital Management in the USA Do you think our competition have to deal with things like this?  OMG there is no end to the ways in which the courts can make it challenging for an employer.

Sidney Riddle was a manufacturing engineer for Hubbell Lighting Inc. (HLI) in Virginia. In 2010, Riddle was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, which caused him to sleep poorly and grow tired at work. Riddle admits that he fell asleep at his work station "on one or two occasions." In 2012, Riddle requested time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to his condition. HLI approved Riddle for FMLA leave provided he "call in [or] notify his supervisor." However, HLI terminated Riddle a few days later after he was caught sleeping at work. Riddle then sued HLI under the FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to Riddle, HLI should have considered his nap to be FMLA leave. Moreover, HLI should have accommodated his disability by waking him up when he fell asleep. The Court rejected Riddle's FMLA claim. "In an FMLA case, whether the employer had notice of the employee's intention to take leave is a question of critical importance," the Court explained. "Riddle's complaint omits to mention, however, that he attempted to [call in or notify his supervisor before he fell asleep]. Without more, Riddle has not stated an FMLA claim." Still, the Court allowed his ADA case to proceed to trial. "Here, Riddle alleges that he had disabling fibromyalgia (which prevented him from sleeping), that HLI knew about his condition, and that he could satisfactorily perform his job if HLI would accommodate him by waking him up when [he] fell asleep," the Court wrote. "He further alleges that he requested such accommodation and HLI refused to provide it." "Construing Riddle's allegations in the light most favorable to him, he has stated a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA," the Court ruled. [Riddle v. Hubbell Lighting (USDC WDVA 2013) no. 7:12cv00488] From Michael Salisbury, Principal of the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) at www.hralliance.biz

Better Wellness Programs

Employers have tried several strategies to control health care costs. For example they have; reduced expensive plan options, shifted costs to employees, and reduced the number of employees eligible for benefits. However, many companies have experienced negative reactions to these strategies and worse; the cost of health care continues to climb.  As a result, employers appear to be turning toward wellness programs to promote a healthy workforce, hoping that this effort will improve productivity and contain health care expenses.

 However, “Wellness” is an often used, yet little understood term. For example, is wellness the same as health? Probably not. The definition of “health” as contained in the constitution of the World Health Organization is broad and culturally neutral. They define it as, “The state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” What this definition reflects is the state of an individual but the description fails to consider any individual commitment to healthy behavior, which is so crucial to wellness.

 HRA uses the following definition to describe a wellness programs: “Those activities embraced and practiced on a regular basis by an individual that will prevent, mitigate or correct problem health conditions, which would otherwise contribute to lost productivity and/or costly medical care”.

We believe that conditions such as: heart disease, distress, drug abuse, obesity, hypertension, and the loss of health due to tobacco use, can be prevented and even corrected. However, the individual who is experiencing a health risk must take the appropriate actions to overcome their unhealthy state. Therefore, a wellness program that simply makes things available (e.g. discount gym memberships) is not a relevant course of action. Furthermore, a wellness program that primarily appeals to people who would otherwise be healthy is also not relevant.

To be meaningful and of value, HRA sponsors wellness programs that target those conditions that are driving cost, are preventable and can respond positively to healthy behaviors.  Furthermore, we believe that an organization’s wellness program must take into account a host of company related factors in addition to the employee, including:

1.    The employee’s dependents

2.    The organization’s  insurance plan

3.    Company strategy, goals, objectives, policies and practices

4.    The firm’s accident prevention program

5.    Workers compensation practices and policies

6.    Absence management efforts

7.    Attendance policies

8.    The ERP program

9.    EE productivity measurements and incentives

10.  The cause for turnover at the company

11.  Recruitment challenges for the enterprise

12.  The degree of presenteeisim within the firm

13.  The firm’s commitment and involvement in the community as a corporate citizen

14.  The level of employee engagement

15.  A firm’s internal  practices regarding;  gain sharing, benchmarking, communication, progress reports, accountability, reinforcement and recognition practices

16.  The level of participation by the local health care community (doctors, heath care facilities, sources of education and information)

17.  Financial incentives, support programs, sponsorship or champions, and community collaboration.

18.  And possibly, even an extension of the wellness program and its objectives into the  contingent work force (temps, contractors, consultants, vendor staff)

Is a wellness program the answer to a vexing problem faced by both employees and employers? A comprehensive survey conducted by ADP and the results of numerous other investigations suggests that traditional wellness programs fall short of a panacea.

 

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion7, defines a comprehensive work site health promotion program as having five key elements.  Among a nationally representative sample of employers, only 6.9% reported that they had all five of these key elements in place.

 ADP’s survey2, finds that the wellness programs offered in midsized companies include an average of five programs or interventions and in large companies the average is six. Of these initiatives, Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) are the most common component of a wellness program followed by health promotional materials and the practice of providing access to a nurse as the fifth most popular program.

 Furthermore, results from the same ADP survey state that only one-quarter of midsized companies and slightly more than one-fifth of large companies actually measure the ROI of their wellness programs.

The only conclusion that we can draw from this data is that the vast majority of wellness programs, no matter how well intended they may be, miss the mark. Sadly, the focus is on making an effort rather than striving for achievement or being accountable for the results.

 As a further illustration of our concern over traditional wellness programs, let me draw your attention to Biometric screenings, which most wellness programs encourage. The assumption is that such screenings will find illness at an early stage thereby saving both money and lives. However, a $40 biometric screen will find at best, one avoidable heart attack in every 4,000 people …at a cost of $160,000. Add in, company wellness incentives and the cost of time off from work to perform the test and you've now have created a very expensive and ineffective heart attack prevention screening experience.

Given the questionable practices, the absence of an ROI, the fuzzy focus on what wellness means, the tendency to focus on initiatives that promote healthy life style activities as opposed to results, all suggest that wellness offerings only appear to be of value to employers seeking to address problems associated with employee health, the rising cost of health care, workforce morale, staff productivity, employee retention and the attraction of talent.

2.The ADP Research Institute conducted the ADP HR / Benefits Pulse Survey on Wellness in October 2011.

7. Linnan L, Bowling M, Childress J, et al. Results of the 2004 national work site health promotion survey. Am J Public Health.2008;98(8):1503-1509.

If you would like to learn more about how to create and implement an effective wellness program for the benefit of employees and your organization, reach out to HRA by phone (818) 970 0730 or email us at hralliance@att.net.

 

 

From Michael Salisbury, Principal of the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) at www.hralliance.biz

 

Not Qualified For Obamacare's Subsidies? Just Lie

 

 

The following is an edited article from Forbes written by

Avik Roy, Contributor

If you thought the delay in the employer mandate was bad news for Obamacare, just wait. On Friday, Sarah Kliff and Sandhya Somashekhar of the Washington Post discovered that the Obama administration had buried in the Federal Register the announcement that the government won’t be able to verify whether or not applicants for Obamacare’s insurance exchange subsidies are actually qualified for the aid, in the 16 states that are setting up their own exchanges. Instead, until at least 2015, these states will be able to “accept the applicant’s attestation [regarding eligibility] without further verification.”

Without employer mandate, Feds to rely on applicant ‘attestations’

If you’ve been following the latest news around Obamacare, you know that on Tuesday evening, just before the Independence Day holiday, the White House announced that it would be delaying the implementation of the health law’s employer mandate—requiring all firms with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage to their workers—until 2015.

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down 

I, and several others at the time, said “wait a minute.” According to the law, you aren’t eligible for Obamacare’s subsidies if your employer has offered you what the government considers “affordable” coverage. But if employers are no longer going to report whether or not they’ve offered “affordable” coverage, how can the government verify whether or not workers are eligible for subsidies?

Now we know the answer. The government is going with what Kliff and Somashekhar call “the honor system.” “We have concluded that the…proposed rule is not feasible for implementation for the first year of operations,” say the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “The exchange may accept the applicant’s attestation regarding enrollment in an eligible employer-sponsored plan…without further verification, instead of following the procedure in §155.320(d)(3)(iii).”

And it’s not just there. The feds will also allow people to gain means-tested subsidized coverage on the exchanges without having to…test their means. “For income verification, for the first year of operations, we are providing Exchanges with temporarily expanded discretion to accept an attestation of projected annual household income without further verification.”

Presumably, since the IRS knows your income, it could claw back these excess subsidies afterwards, if it chooses to. But the IRS’ record of impartiality is, shall we say, contested. And people who don’t file tax returns—such as those with incomes below the poverty line—would probably not be subject to that enforcement mechanism. That’s a route to enhanced benefits for poor residents of states that don’t expand Medicaid.

Subsidize first, ask questions later?

The goal here is plain as day. The Obama administration is laser-focused on making sure that enough Americans enroll onto Obamacare-subsidized health insurance platforms, because if they do, it will be politically impossible for Republicans to repeal Obamacare in the future.

Politics ain’t beanbag, they say. But deliberately encouraging tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in order to achieve a political objective is profoundly immoral. It’s a breach of faith with the hard-working taxpayers whose paychecks are being harnessed to a cause many of them don’t support.

A key ramification of this announcement is what it means for uninsured people who were slated for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, who live in states that don’t expand Medicaid. Effectively, states no longer need to expand Medicaid, because this newly Medicaid-eligible population can now sign up for the exchanges, at no cost to the state, and know that their incomes won’t be verified by the IRS (because their incomes are too low to file tax returns).

That is to say, if your income is at 90 percent of the federal poverty level, and you live in Texas, where the state isn’t expanding Medicaid, all you have to do is write on the form that your income is actually 105 percent of FPL, and magically, you qualify for the exchange. I could easily envision certain activist groups signing people up for coverage this way. The upshot is that it could dramatically increase exchange subsidy spending, but also lower pressure for the Medicaid expansion.

Fast, accurate income verification presents a particularly serious difficulty. For one thing, ObamaCare requires subsidies to be based on family income, not individual income. So the process will have to include multiple family income streams, which means the government will have to check spousal salaries when determining eligibility. Tax returns are the most obvious verification method, but tax returns reveal only what someone made last year. They don’t reflect the mid-year shifts that ObamaCare was intended to address, such as job losses that mean people can no longer obtain insurance through their employers and are newly eligible for subsidies. Yet states will have to create systems to account for such changes. “States are supposed to have data systems in place that can figure out this person’s income and if they’re qualified for federal subsidies and then apply that federal subsidy quickly to the plan of their choosing,” [James] Capretta says. “That is a monumental undertaking. I don’t think anyone has any earthly idea how this is going to happen.”

Sharon Begley of Reuters quotes a number of experts who say that “the IRS will have a hard time policing that sort of conduct” [misrepresenting one's eligibility for exchange subsidies]:

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down 

 “The shift of employees to the exchanges could cost (the government) a boatload,” said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “Some people who are ineligible for subsidies, because their employer offers affordable insurance, may attempt to get subsidies on the exchanges. The IRS will have a hard time policing that sort of conduct.”

States running their own Obamacare exchanges are scrambling to figure out how to deal with the delay in the employer-reporting requirement.

California, said spokeswoman Anne Gonzales, “was planning to tap into information from large employers to verify employee health coverage. The exchange is currently evaluating how the delay in implementation of the large employer mandate will impact enrollment and verification.”

Of course, a good deal of the information Americans send the IRS, such as the value of the household goods they donated to the Salvation Army, already relies on the honor system.

“Obviously the government has made the decision that they’re willing to live with that,” said Kendra Roberson, a healthcare lawyer at law firm Covington & Burling LLP, referring to an honor system for these aspects of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The honor system may force the government to leave even more money on the table. The law imposes a penalty of $95, or 1 percent of household income, on people who fail to obtain coverage. But those whose employer-sponsored policy is unaffordable – defined as more than 9.5 percent of household income for purposes of penalty assessment – do not have to pay the penalty even if they do not buy insurance.

To check whether someone is truly exempt, the IRS has to know whether the employer offers coverage and at what price.

“If the IRS doesn’t have information about the plans large employers offer, it will be very hard to verify that. It will be an honor system,” said Michigan’s Bagley. “It could cost the government some money” if individuals elude the penalty through error or dishonesty.

It’s worth noting that this regulatory change applies to states that set up their own exchanges, not to the (mostly Republican-controlled) states that did not. In other words, the states that did what the Obama administration wanted them to do—set up their own exchanges—are the ones getting hosed here.

Obama Care - Prepare or Beware

How amazing,!!! I post this blog and Obama backs off on the implementation date. Coincidence ?     (I don't think so)

Are you tired of hearing about the onerous provisions of the new health care regulations but still struggling to figure out the organization’s strategy in response to Obama Care. If so, let me provide you with some insight.

As you know, a significant impact of the new health law will be felt in 2014. If that means your firm must have insurance coverage you need to begin the process in October of 2013 to satisfy the open enrollment restrictions. So, by any stretch of the imagination, you don’t have much time to get your act together. However, if your firm will have 50 qualified employees in 2014, you have three basic options:

1.      Comply with the law and provide the appropriate insurance coverage for the employees and their child dependents. If you do not offer such insurance now and your firm employs 100 full time employees, it is expected that your company will need to increase sales by $5,000,000 to achieve the same level of profit in 2014 as compared to 2013.

2.      Do not comply with the law and face penalties The penalty in most cases is $2,000 a year for every full time employee minus 30. You do the math.

3.      Do not comply, do not provide insurance and do not pay any penalties Yes this is a possibility and highly probable. HRA has constructed a series of strategies that will protect employers from the onerous cost impositions associated with Obama Care.

Now that you know the options, I encourage you to contract with HRA to assess the various alternatives that apply to your firm based on the organizations risk tolerance, financial situation and business priorities. We have uncovered several strategies that can save companies tens of thousands of dollars each year.

For example, one of our clients in the bio tech industry, exhibit two interesting characteristics. A) They employ a young work force, and B) they pay employees very good wages. As a result, HRA constructed a rather attractive health care plan. Due to the high cost of the available insurance premium, most employees declined to participate in the plan since they did not feel they needed health care coverage and the financial penalty associating with declining coverage was insignificant to them. As a result, the cost of supplying insurance as an employee benefit was low and the firm will avoid any penalties.

Whichever option you choose, HRA will guide the transition and protect you from penalties. HRA will:

• Research and identify the alternatives associated with each option
• Assess the pros and cons of each alternative including costs, savings and risks
• Recommend the best course of action based on your business priorities
• Assist with implementing and managing your decision
• Provide support, guidance and answer questions

HRA’s fee to evaluate the business alternatives is 20% of the avoided cost in health premiums for a year. As a result, the savings could be as high as 80% of your cost in health premiums for a year or up to a 500% ROI). But wait, as they say in the commercial, it gets even better:

•        If you choose to offer insurance and allow us to broker the new insurance plan, HRA’s fee will be discontinued.

•        If you choose to risk penalties, our fee will qualify for a credit up to the amount of any penalties that exceed our forecast.

Therefore, our offer includes virtually no risk, only the upside knowing that your business has examined the alternatives and has made good business decision in light of the new law. Furthermore, HRA will be available to assist with the ongoing administrative burdens associated with these regulations as well as any human capital management need that arises.

In summary:

•        HRA will explain your options

            •        HRA will save you money
            •        HRA will reduce your administrative burdens
            •        HRA will address legal and regulatory compliance concerns
            •        HRA will determine if your organization qualifies for health care tax credits  
            •        HRA offers an attractive ROI
            •        HRA becomes your human capital management partner
            •        HRA offers peace of mind and will work with your trusted advisors (CPAs, Attorneys, etc.)

If you have any interest in exploring your options under Obama Care or need assistance with any HR related issue, we encourage you to reach out to HRA at 818 970 0730 or via email at hralliance@att.net

 

We also encourage you to visit our web site at www.hralliance.biz for more information on our range of HR related services, solutions, and savings.

 

From Michael Salisbury, Principal of the Human Resource Alliance (HRA)