Losing a job is always traumatic, and that’s why stories like this one in the Chicago Tribune—titled “Are you prepared if you lose your job?”—can serve as a good jolt for anyone who thinks that they are immune from the incessant layoffs, buyouts and cutbacks that seem to be a fact of life in the modern American workplace.

What struck me about this article wasn’t the advice it offered, which was pretty straightforward and basic. What got me thinking were some of the statistics listed in the Tribune story, such as “Young workers face the prospect of changing jobs nearly nine times before they reach age 32, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ” and that in March, “the average length of unemployment for all ages was nearly 17 weeks, [and] workers over 50 face longer job searches.”

I’ve written here before about how stressed out workers are and the very different and modern approach some are taking as they cope with layoffs. Fact is, for all the talk about a “talent shortage” or a “war for talent,” it still is very much a buyer’s market when it comes to getting and keeping a job—especially now as we head into a recession.

The Tribune story makes the point that today’s workers always need to be preparing for the worst and that “there’s little excuse these days for not being ready to kick a job search into high gear at a moment’s notice.” That’s great advice to keep in mind, because no matter whether it is called a layoff, buyout, cutback or “Productivity Transformation Program,” the stability of the job you’re in today is a tenuous illusion at best.

I’ve learned this the hard way, as I’m sure many of you have too. It’s always great to hope for the best, but you’ll be better off and sleep better at night if you also make sure to prepare for the worst, because it generally happens when you least expect it.

Chicago-based Tribune Co. has been through some rocky times over the past few years, including lots of internal squabbling and infighting. The company was bought out last year by legendary wild man Sam Zell, but alas, things haven’t gotten a whole lot better given his less-than-stellar view of the people working for him.

But, give Zell his due on one thing—he took a very aggressive approach to the health and wellness of his workforce. Under his leadership, Tribune took the “stick” approach and started the new year by charging workers $100 more per month if they were smokers. Although it was a policy originally put in place by previous Tribune management, Zell and his new management team ran with it, probably because it was a classic Zell approach to a workforce issue: aggressive, in-your-face and heavy-handed. It also made Tribune one of a small but growing group of employers that have chosen to take a punitive approach to workers who engage in a less-than-healthy lifestyle.

Well, Tribune seems to have had second thoughts on the matter.
This week, Tribune rescinded its $100 per month penalty for employees who smoke. “While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing—we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you,” said a memo from Tribune management.

Notice the backhanded dig at Tribune’s previous management here? That’s complete BS, as far as I’m concerned. If Sam Zell has shown anything during his brief time as owner of Tribune, it is that he doesn’t feel bound by anything that previous management was doing. In fact, the opposite is true: Zell seems to revel in talking about how screwed up Tribune was/is and how different his regime is going to be.

Unfortunately, I think Tribune was on to something with the smoking policy. It is an interesting approach to a difficult problem and worthy of debate and discussion given the huge health costs that are associated with smoking.

Zell was, finally, taking a very different and groundbreaking approach to a tough problem. It’s unfortunate that he chose not to follow through. Unlike so many of the things he says and does, this one makes a little sense.

Getting workers to get a handle on health care costs can be a tricky business, but here’s an easy way to think of it: Basic employer-sponsored health care coverage for an average American family costs nearly one month’s salary.

That new finding comes from Aon Consulting’s 2008 Benefits and Talent Survey released here in Washington during the Fifth Annual World Health Care Congress. And, as with most surveys like this, the Benefits and Talent Survey comes with a lot of caveats:

• The median annual contribution for family health care coverage is $3,120.
• The income for a median household in the U.S. is $48,201 annually, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report “2006 Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” which Aon uses to reference the number.
• The $3,120 amount is obviously not one-twelfth of $48,201, but seems to assume about a 25 percent tax bracket overall, meaning take-home pay of about $3,000 per month.
• And, Aon’s report takes some literary license since it says that “the amount these families spend on employer-sponsored health care per year continues to edge closer to one month’s salary.” In other words, YMMV—your mileage may vary.

Clearly, the notion that health care coverage is edging “closer to one month’s salary” is a hot-button “hook” to the survey—one that I happily fell into—to get you to read more. That’s a good thing, because there are some other interesting findings beyond the dollar amount. For instance:

• Overall, Aon says that the 1,100 U.S. organizations taking part in the survey say that their health care costs have increased 10 percent annually since 2006.
• The cost to workers has gone up even more—15 percent in 2007 and 22 percent since 2006.
• Although employers have traditionally used cost shifting to reduce rising health care costs, organizations are now focusing on implementing employee wellness programs. “For example, 46 percent of employers today are implementing smoking cessation programs, up from 14 percent of employers in 2007,” Aon reports.
• Surprisingly, despite the push for more health and wellness programs, “the majority of employers do not have a process in place to measure program impact or track return on investment. For example, 92 percent of organizations do not have a data tracking process in place for overweight employees, and 87 percent of employers do not have a data tracking process in place for tobacco users.”

I was surprised by that last finding because one would think that organizations would be focused on how wellness programs do in furthering the ultimate goal—lowering health care costs by getting workers to focus on taking better care of their health.

The Aon study agreed, almost understating the obvious: “Tracking and benchmarking employee metrics must go hand in hand with implementing wellness programs and must be measured to determine the return on investment and changes in productivity.”

If America can’t ultimately solve the growing health care crisis, it won’t be for lack of talking about it.

I’m here this week at the Fifth Annual World Health Care Congress in Washington, where an intimate group of some 1,800 “prestigious leaders from business, health care and government” have gathered at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel to “have an honest exchange of ideas … to create a dialogue to advance quality, improve cost and expand access in health care, both nationally and abroad.”

That’s a lot of lofty talk, and the speakers are pretty lofty too. On Monday morning, I was treated to a discussion on “The Presidential Health Care Agenda” with representatives of the three leading presidential candidates, the chairman and CEO of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and former Secretary of State George Shultz. Their conclusion? It’s that 2009 “is the year something will happen” for health care reform.

Unfortunately, that’s the kind of analysis you sometimes hear when you get so many CEOs, big shots and health care muckety-mucks together to discuss something that everyone knows we need to fix—but just don’t know exactly how to do it.

What I was expecting here was more focused discussion and analysis, such as we recently had in Workforce Management with our special report on consumer-driven health care, or our story a few months ago when we wrote about health care transparency. Unfortunately, I didn’t get that in any sessions or hear it from any of the speakers.

In fairness to everyone at the World Health Care Congress, the high-flown discussions may all be moot, depending on who wins the race for the White House. My guess is that the new resident there will have a lot to say about how we tackle the health care crisis.

Stay tuned.

Are guns at work ever a good idea? Most sensible people would quickly say no, but good sense sometimes gets sidetracked, as it recently did in Florida.

Earlier this week, Gov. Charlie Christ signed a bill “that will allow Florida residents to keep guns locked in their cars at work.” The new law doesn’t take effect until July, and will likely be challenged in court, but according to a story in The Miami Herald,  “Under the new law, businesses cannot prohibit employees or customers from keeping a legally owned gun locked inside their cars, as long as the owner has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.”

Businesses in Florida are worried—rightly, I think—that letting workers have easy access to firearms in the workplace is not a good idea. In fact, both the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation have hired legal counsel to sue the state over the new law.

We’ve written before about the Florida debate over guns in the workplace, and also about the how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver ruled that there was no right in Oklahoma to have access to a firearm at work, so this isn’t a new issue. What is new is that Florida seems to be well on its way to joining Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi as states where the potential for workplace violence just got kicked up quite a few notches.

Carl Hiaasen, the great novelist and Miami Herald columnist, had his own unique perspective on the issue. “After years of wimping around, Florida lawmakers finally passed a law that will allow you to bring your favorite firearm to work, providing you leave it locked in your vehicle,” he wrote.

“In the past, deranged employees who wanted to mow down their boss and colleagues had to drive all the way home to fetch their guns. It was the waste of a perfectly good lunch hour, not to mention the gasoline,” he added.  “Soon, however, any simmering paranoid with a concealed-weapons permit will legally be able to take his firearms to work. If a supervisor rebukes him for surfing porn sites, or a co-worker makes fun of his mismatched socks, he can simply stroll out to the parking lot and retrieve his Glock or AK-47 (or both) to settle the grievance.”

I can see Hiaasen’s point, and it hits home to me because I used to work with a guy who did a lot of hunting who just happened to carry his rifle in the trunk of his car—that he drove to work. He wasn’t a bad guy, but he could get angry and scary on occasion, and that’s not a good combination for someone packing heat in their car.

My guess is that Florida’s new gun legislation, dubbed the “Disgruntled Workers’ Speedy Revenge & Retaliation Law” by Hiaasen, will get held up for a few years, or more, as the courts work it out. Maybe more sensible heads will prevail in the end—at least I hope so. But I’m not holding my breath. After all, Florida is a state where many people still haven’t figured out how to vote. And that doesn’t give me confidence that they will figure out why guns in the workplace just makes no sense at all.