According to The New York Times’ college sports blog, “The university announced Monday that Locksley had been reprimanded for punching Jonathan Gerald, the team’s wide receivers coach, before the Lobos’ 37-13 loss to Air Force on Sept. 19. Gerald, who is known as J.B., has been on leave and missed Saturday’s 20-17 loss to New Mexico State.”
No one knows exactly what caused the fisticuffs, but New Mexico’s terrible 0-4 start this season may have factored into it. Coach Locksley has apologized for his actions (To wit: “I apologized to Coach Gerald, the coaching staff and our team for my poor judgment. I would also like to apologize to Lobo fans. Like I remind our players, when mistakes are made, you acknowledge them and deal with the consequences.”), but it looks like he will remain on the job for the time being despite his actions.
As I’ve written before, violence has no place in the workplace, and getting physical with a boss or co-worker is usually a surefire way to get fired in any universe. That’s what I thought was true, but now I would amend that statement and add, “unless you are a head football coach at the collegiate or professional level.”
“Boeing’s main white-collar union said … that the company’s plan to cut a generous education perk can’t be applied to its members without negotiations,” the Seattle Times reported, although it looks like the aerospace giant is going to fight with the union about that.
“The [Boeing] company, while acknowledging that union members will retain the benefit for now, said it does want the new restrictions that it’s imposing on college-course subsidies for nonunion employees to apply equally to union members, too,” the Times story said. That’s because “the benefit is not written into most of Boeing’s labor contracts,” according a company spokeswoman, and “whether Boeing can impose the change against the union’s will appears to be a gray area.”
I’ve dealt with unions over items not in the actual labor contract, and it is a marvelous little thing called “past practice,” which generally refers to a labor practice “that has been recognized and accepted by the parties and used several times in the past.”
Boeing management asserts that most of the company’s union contracts “include no specific reference to the [educational reimbursement] program but only a general clause stating that Boeing cannot impose benefit changes ‘without at least sitting down with the union.’ ” Boeing management plans to do that, they say, but the fact that this was all announced before the big sit-down gives you a pretty good clue as to where this is all going.
I’m all for educational benefits, and there’s no doubt that this is a great perk that has benefited a great many Boeing workers over the years, as I’ve seen firsthand. But, it may just be a perk that’s unsustainable in this severe and turbulent economic environment. Here’s hoping that Boeing and its unions can get together and discuss this in the context of how to help the company to succeed and get through this recession. That would be a win-win negotiation both sides could be proud of.
Back when I was in grad school at Pepperdine University, I was amazed at all the workers from Boeing who had decided to go back to college to get their MBA.
It wasn’t because Boeing employees were any more motivated or industrious than people working at other companies. No, the huge number of Boeing employees enrolled in grad school was due to one thing and one thing only—the company’s longstanding policy to pay 100 percent of tuition for any employee enrolled at an accredited educational institution.
“Until now, when a Boeing employee enrolled for any class at any accredited college, the company picked up the tuition—with no restrictions,” says a story in the Seattle Times. “But many of those enjoying free classes will lose that benefit at year-end, when Boeing starts limiting its subsidy to cover only courses that further an employee’s career at the company.”
This was not only a generous benefit, but a lot of Boeing employees took advantage of it—21,000 nationwide, according to the Seattle Times.
And that may have been part of the problem, at least when Boeing started looking at the cost-benefit analysis for this pricey perk in today’s turbulent economic environment.
“Boeing spokeswoman Karen Forte said the company’s support for employees’ continuing education previously was almost unlimited,” the Times story notes. “It was pretty much an open-checkbook program,” she said. In addition, “there was no requirement to stay with the company after finishing the coursework, no limit on what kind of classes were covered. … We’ve had everything from mortuary science to sports and hobby programs,” Forte told the newspaper.
In addition to getting rid of the “anything goes” approach to paying for employee education, Boeing is also limiting the program in other ways:
• Starting in October, Boeing will pay for new enrollments only in courses that are considered “strategic” to its business. “So no more free wine-appreciation classes, culinary-arts degrees or soccer workshops,” the Times says.
• In addition, the days of unlimited educational reimbursement by Boeing, even for a “strategic” educational program, are gone as well. The company’s contribution will be capped at $15,000 a year, period.
• Boeing will also require employees to stay at the company for at least two years after finishing a course for which they are getting reimbursed. If they don’t, the employee must reimburse the company.
This benefit change may cause problems for some Boeing workers who are in the middle of an advanced degree program that they were expecting the company to pay for, because if it’s not deemed “strategic”’ they now have to foot the bill. That may not be something workers who got into these educational programs can afford right now.
Unless you work for Boeing, I doubt you’ll be shedding a tear for anyone losing this generous (and some might say unsustainable) benefit, but it is another sign of the economic times we’re in. Benefits are going to cost employees more and they will be getting less in 2010, and that’s a trend that isn’t going to change.
Given all of that, you also shouldn’t be surprised at this: Your employer-sponsored benefit packages next year are going to hit you with more out-of-pocket expenses, a bigger push for wellness, fewer choices and options, and tighter cost controls.
• Higher out-of-pocket costs. More than four in 10 employers in a recent Watson Wyatt survey said they will raise deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket maximums due to the economic crisis. Some employers might raise doctor visit co-payments by $5. Others might no longer provide 100 percent coverage for in-network services, opting instead to introduce some level of co-insurance to encourage workers to be more aware of the cost of services. Deductibles for individual and family coverage are expected to increase by $50 to $100 or more among some employers.
• Greater use of incentives to stay healthy. Employers are continuing their push to improve the health of employees and their families. In addition to continuing the focus on wellness communication, employers are offering workers (and, in some cases, spouses) more incentives such as gift cards, cash and discounted premiums for undergoing a health risk assessment or participating in smoking cessation, weight management or fitness programs. They are also giving workers access to on-site health coaching as well as using health service providers to deliver Web-based and telephonic coaching.
• Consumer-directed health plans. More employers will offer CDHPs next year as they are increasingly viewed as an effective way to control rising costs. Those employers adopting new plans are generally adding a high-deductible plan, often with a health savings account. Most employers adding these plans will offer them as an option to workers rather than replacing their traditional health plans.
• Consolidation of health plan offerings. Some employers plan to reduce the number of health plan options they offer to workers. As more employers consolidate and change their health plans and networks for 2010, some employees might have to change physicians or pay higher out-of-network costs.
• Prescription drug benefits. Some workers will see changes to their prescription drug benefits in 2010. As part of an overall movement to CDHPs, a number of employers are introducing a CDHP prescription drug benefit option that typically offers workers 100 percent coverage on a list of preventive medications. Other companies are introducing value-based designs that include zero co-pays on certain prescription drug therapies that are known to help lower health costs and reduce hospitalizations.
• A closer eye on spousal and dependent coverage. Employers are increasingly revisiting spousal and dependent coverage in their efforts to control rising costs. Some employers are requiring spouses to complete health-risk assessments, while others are charging higher premiums for working spouses who have access to other health care coverage. More employers are also expected to audit their workers to eliminate dependents who are not eligible for coverage.
If anything is clear in all of this, it’s that the unrelenting double-digit increase in the cost of health care will continue to affect everyone—both employers and employees—no matter how you feel about the reform efforts coming out of Washington. And, it’s why the debate on the subject isn’t likely to be solved anytime soon.
Getting a handle on the ROI of any wellness program is always tough, and often the answer comes down to: “Yes, we know it is making our employees healthier, but we can’t really tell you how much we’re saving.”
That’s why I was intrigued by this story in Florida’s St. Petersburg Times about how a lot of businesses in the Tampa Bay area are not only investing in wellness but also have some ROI they can point to as well.
“The Tampa-based Employers Health Coalition,” the newspaper reported, found “that wellness programs saved money and improved productivity by 34 percent, [and] a 2007 American Heart Association survey found that employees in companies that encouraged healthy habits used fewer sick days, had greater job satisfaction and did better work.”
One company, Pepin Distributing Co., opted to cover the $1,800 to $2,000 per person cost of a program that would help encourage weight loss and prevent or reduce complications of obesity such as heart disease and diabetes.
“The plan is considerably more expensive than programs such as Weight Watchers, which some employers offer,” the newspaper noted. “But if Pepin participants gain back the weight within a year after finishing the program, they must reimburse the company in full.”
Here’s the kicker to all of this: “Pepin spends more than $2 million annually on health care for its more than 300 employees. The company expects to see a return of $3 to $4 on every $1 spent on the weight-loss program.”
I was surprised by two things here: the amount of Pepin’s investment ($2 million annually is a LOT of money) and the 3-1 or 4-1 ROI that the company reported. I don’t watch this closely, but I can’t recall seeing a return on investment like that from a wellness program anywhere.
This says to me that positive wellness programs focused on helping workers take better care of themselves can have a positive impact on both the workers and on the organization’s bottom line. And, they make more sense than some of those punitive, punishment-based programs that a few businesses have.
The bottom line, as you know from the highly charged national debate that’s going on right now, is that health care is a huge drain on a company’s bottom line. A smart and well-constructed wellness program, like the one at Tampa’s Pepin Distributing, can be just one more tool that smart-thinking managers can use to get a better handle on health costs while also doing something that will lead to healthier, more fully engaged employees.
Not that we needed it, but here’s some more fuel for the health care debate: An Aon survey of 60 health insurers “found that, on average, insurers expect to pay out 10.5 percent more in claims costs in the next year—slightly less than the 10.6 percent increase forecast last year,” according to a story in the Indianapolis Star.
I doubt that anyone at this stage is surprised by double-digit increases in health care costs, so you also shouldn’t be surprised by this: “The Indianapolis Star last week reported that according to a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, 42 percent of employers surveyed said they would increase the share of the premium their workers pay in 2010. That’s up from 38 percent last year.”
One silver lining (if you could call it that) in the Aon report is the notion that “some employers also might swallow the higher costs because workers this year already have had to contend with salary freezes, reductions and layoffs,” according to Tom Lerche, Aon Consulting’s health care practice leader. “There’s one school of thought that says, ‘Our employees have borne enough, let’s minimize or not pass any costs along to the employee,’ he said.”
This unrelenting increase in health care costs is what is driving the Obama administration’s puush for health care reform, but as you probably know, that effort seems to have run into a brick wall. Remember the health care bill that Congress was going to get before the August recess that one benefits industry publication kept predicting in spite of all evidence to the contrary? Well, given the partisan bickering that never seems to end, don’t expect any health care legislation coming up for a vote anytime soon.
But as someone who remembers the Clintons’ ill-fated attempt to change America’s health care system back in 1993, this summer’s contentious debate sounds vaguely familiar. Yes, double-digit increases in health care costs should get our attention. As a nation, we desperately need to get a handle on unsustainable increases in health care as our population ages and needs more of it, but this feels like a replay of another battle from another time when another administration in Washington bungled the issue and any chance for meaningful change.
= Member Only
