Archive for October, 2013

Why It’s Important to Help Your Employees Become Leaders

Thursday, October 31st, 2013

In today’s video post, CAI’s Learning and Development Partner, Linda Taylor, explains why organizations should dedicate time and resources for developing strong leaders. She also explores the Leadership Challenge® Workshop.

Because HR departments are running lean, global competition is increasing, and technology continues to advance, Linda says companies need all of their workers at every level to contribute and be leaders. She then explains each of the five exemplary practices of leadership used in the Leadership Challenge® Workshop, which are:

  1. Modeling the Way
  2. Inspiring a Shared Vision
  3. Challenging the Process
  4. Enabling Others to Act
  5. Encourage the Heart

In today’s society we often see elected officials or business executives espouse one set of values but conduct a contradictory lifestyle. Linda shares that this is the reason why Modeling the Way is important in the current business landscape. Organizations need people who will help them build positive reputations, be reliable, and do what they say they are going to do.

For more information on The Leadership Challenge® Workshop and CAI’s various training opportunities, please visit our website at and look under the training tab. You can also call us at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

5 Ways Managers Can Maximize Their Effectiveness

Tuesday, October 29th, 2013

manager effectivenessYour managers have important roles at your organization. They are responsible for reaching their assigned goals, while also managing a team of people that each have their own responsibilities and assignments. Research shows that the relationship between an employee and a manager is an important one. Managers who don’t practice good behaviors can quickly dampen a hardworking employee’s drive. The five tips below will help your managers lead more effectively and build strong relationships with their staffers.

Be Accessible

Good managers make themselves available to their employees. Answering questions and communicating expectations are important in helping your employees do their jobs well.  Employees lose motivation and don’t perform as efficiently when their managers don’t spend time checking in with them or offering them feedback.

Don’t Accept Mediocrity

Don’t be a push over. Managers need to be leaders and have confidence in their decisions and the standard of work that they accept. It is important for managers to communicate to their direct reports the quality of work their business should produce. Tolerating anything but good work is a surefire way to annoy your top performers and discourage your poor performers from improving their work ethics.

Show Appreciation

Employees perform better when they know their contributions are appreciated and impact the organization. Offering your employees positive feedback, praise and recognition is important in helping them feel connected to their work and their organization. Employees are more likely to be loyal to managers who notice and value the work that they do.

Use Delegation

Delegation serves two purposes for a manager. The first one is to help improve department efficiency, and the second is to help employees feel empowered. Delegating important tasks shows your employees that you trust them and that you think they are ready to take on more responsibility. Allowing them to grow their skills will help keep them engaged.

Offer Your Support

Employees are more confident in performing their job duties when they know they have the support of their manager. Showing your employees that you believe in their abilities to reach their goals will encourage them to perform better and take more pride in completing their assignments.

For more tips to help your managers improve their impact on your organization, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: Victor1558

Stop Demotivating Your High Performers

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

In today’s video blog, CAI’s Vice President of Membership, Doug Blizzard, asks employers to quit demotivating their top employees. Doug says whether or  not you believe you can motivate other people, one thing is clear: accepting mediocre performance from some employees is one of the most destructive things you could do to top performers.

He offers reasons for why leaders accept poor performance. Doug says some leaders blame the economy, are fearful of a lawsuit or think they need to treat each employee exactly the same. Another reason he lists is that, even with help, some very well-intentioned employees just can’t do their jobs well. Not dealing with low performers is often the easiest thing for a company to do.

Doug’s primary message is to be aware of how mediocre job performance is costing your organization, and work hard to address the poor performance in a fair and reasonable way. He says everyone at an organization knows who the low performers are, and they lose respect for their employer each time poor performance is not addressed.

Work hard to create a culture of high performance. Doug suggests starting by identifying and addressing your low performers. Some individuals can improve with training and others with performance improvement plans. However, some will have to take their talents elsewhere. When you implement a high performance culture, you’ll see company productivity, morale, and your bottom line rise.

If you’d like assistance with creating a high performance culture, please contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

OFCCP Announces Major Changes for Government Contractors

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013

CAI’s Manager for Affirmative Action Services, Kaleigh Ferraro, shares the latest updates from the OFCCP. Make sure you are compliant.

Kaleigh blogThe last couple of months have been busy for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). They have announced several changes that will affect the requirements and practices of federal contractors and subcontractors. What are the changes and how do they affect you?

The first change was the release of the revised Federal Contract Compliance Manual (FCCM). This is the guide that compliance officers at OFCCP use during audits of contractors. These revisions have been in the works for some time now. The FCCM does not contain new rules or requirements but rather provides guidance to auditors on how to conduct offsite and onsite audits. The FCCM may serve as a helpful document for contractors to review in order to understand the policies and practices of the OFCCP during audits. This revised manual is intended to standardize the investigations between regions, offices and even compliance officers. If you’d like to see the revised manual, visit

The OFCCP also announced on August 27, final rules for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). The initial proposed rules were issued about two years ago and the OFCCP had been saying that the final rules would happen soon. These final rules will require federal contractors to make significant changes to current practices and analysis. These rules were published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2013 and become effective 180 days after the publish date.

What this means to companies with Affirmative Action Plans is that AAPs in place prior to March 24, 2014 can be developed using the old (current) rules. AAPs developed after March 24, 2014 will need to incorporate the new requirements in the plans. Below are some of the major changes affecting government contractors. CAI will provide more information and training on these new requirements as well as provide suggestions on how organizations can implement necessary changes.

Changes to VEVRAA

  • Rescission of 41 CFR Part 60-250: The Final Rule rescinds the outdated 41 CFR Part 60-250 in its entirety. However, veterans that were formerly protected only under Part 60-250 will still be protected from discrimination under the revised 41 CFR Part 60-300.
  • Hiring benchmarks: The Final Rule requires that contractors establish annual hiring benchmarks for protected veterans. Contractors must use one of two methods to establish their benchmarks. Contractors may choose to establish a benchmark equal to the national percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force (currently eight percent), which will be published and updated annually by OFCCP. Alternatively, contractors may establish their own benchmarks using certain data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and Veterans’ Employment and Training Service/Employment and Training Administration (VETS/ETA) that will also be published by OFCCP, as well other factors that reflect the contractor’s unique hiring circumstances. The data will be posted in the Benchmark Database (coming soon).
  • Data collection: The Final Rule requires that contractors document and update annually several quantitative comparisons for the number of veterans who apply for jobs and the number of veterans they hire. Having this data will assist contractors in measuring the effectiveness of their outreach and recruitment efforts. The data must be maintained for three years to be used to spot trends.
  • Invitation to self-identify: The Final Rule requires that contractors invite applicants to self-identify as protected veterans at both the pre-offer and post-offer phases of the application process. The Final Rule includes sample invitations to self-identify that contractors may use.
  • Incorporation of the EO clause: The Final Rule requires that specific language be used when incorporating the equal opportunity clause into a subcontract by reference. The mandated language, though brief, will alert subcontractors to their responsibilities as Federal contractors.
  • Job listings: The Final Rule clarifies that when listing their job openings, contractors must provide job opening information to the state or local job service in the format required, so that the job service can make the jobs available to veteran job seekers.
  • Records access: The Final Rule clarifies that contractors must allow OFCCP to review documents related to a compliance check or focused review, either onsite or offsite, at OFCCP’s option. In addition, the Final Rule requires contractors, upon request, to inform OFCCP of all formats in which it maintains its records and provide them to OFCCP in whichever of those formats OFCCP requests.

Changes to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act

  • Utilization goal: The Final Rule establishes a nationwide seven percent utilization goal for qualified Individuals with Disabilities (IWDs). Contractors will apply the goal to each of their job groups, or to their entire workforce if the contractor has 100 or fewer employees. Contractors must conduct an annual utilization analysis and assessment of problem areas, and establish specific action-oriented programs to address any identified problems.
  • Data collection: The Final Rule requires that contractors document and update annually several quantitative comparisons for the number of IWDs who apply for jobs and the number of IWDs they hire. Having this data will assist contractors in measuring the effectiveness of their outreach and recruitment efforts. The data must be maintained for three years to be used to spot trends.
  • Invitation to self-identify: The Final Rule requires that contractors invite applicants to self-identify as IWDs at both the pre-offer and post-offer phases of the application process, using language prescribed by OFCCP. The Final Rule also requires that contractors invite their employees to self-identify as IWDs every five years, using the prescribed language. This language will be posted on the OFCCP website (coming soon).
  • Incorporation of the EO clause: The Final Rule requires that specific language be used when incorporating the equal opportunity clause into a subcontract by reference. The mandated language, though brief, will alert subcontractors to their responsibilities as Federal contractors.
  • Records access: The Final Rule clarifies that contractors must allow OFCCP to review documents related to a compliance check or focused review, either onsite or offsite, at OFCCP’s option. In addition, the Final Rule requires contractors, upon request, to inform OFCCP of all formats in which it maintains its records and provide them to OFCCP in whichever of those formats OFCCP requests.
  • ADAAA: The Final Rule implements changes necessitated by the passage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008 by revising the definition of “disability” and certain nondiscrimination provisions of the implementing regulations.

Please feel free to contact me directly with questions at or 919‑713‑5241.

Can Narrow Provider Networks Control Healthcare Costs?

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

The post below is a guest blog from Joy Binkley who serves as Principal, Health & Welfare Consultant  for CAI’s employee benefits partner Hill, Chesson & Woody.

HCW 10 16In July, leading computer chip company Intel Inc. announced that it had decided to contract directly with a single provider system rather than working with a national commercial health insurer for 5,400 employees at its manufacturing plant in Rio Rancho, N.M. This single provider system will administer Intel’s benefits for eight health plan options and better manage the firm’s healthcare costs, according to officials.

The decision to implement this system garnered national attention since it showed that one of the largest employers in the United States believes narrow provider networks is one solution to controlling healthcare expenses. This trend is also growing in popularity among some employers in North Carolina. The theory is that by establishing access to a small network of top-line providers for certain scheduled healthcare procedures and operations, employers will be offering medical services at a lower cost to both themselves and their employees (the patients).

Narrow networks have gained prominence in the wake of a recent government report detailing how even within the same region, hospital costs can vary more than $200,000 for same procedure. With narrow networks, employers and insurers can overcome such wide differences in expenses by directing employees to more affordable treatment options. Controlling these costs will keep employees and employers from overpaying for services and help manage claims and out-of-pocket expenses, while still producing the best outcomes for patients.

Tiered v. Limited Networks
There are two main types of narrow networks – tiered and limited. With a tiered network, employers can continue to offer a large carrier network to their employees, but out-of-pocket costs will vary based on chosen facility or service provider. Under limited networks, the number of providers and facilities the consumer will have access to is restricted. If a member elects to seek care from a non-participating location or provider, his or her claims may fall out of network at higher cost or be completely excluded from coverage.

Regardless of the type of network chosen, employers are learning that employees would like guidance regarding where to schedule surgeries. Employees are just as frustrated as employers about overpaying for services that can be found at considerably lower cost at nearby facilities. At the same time, employers are using more in-depth health management through member advocacy groups or trained health professionals. This allows the employers to further review treatment options with consumers and make them more aware of what is involved with costs.

Given these facts, can narrow provider networks used by Intel and other employers really save costs substantially for other businesses? Can their goals and results be adopted by other employees and replicated elsewhere?

Results May Vary
Narrow networks may serve well for limiting healthcare costs for employers through scheduled services such as a knee replacement or MRIs. Catastrophic injuries and illnesses are by definition going to services, such as a knee replacement or MRIs. Catastrophic injuries and illnesses are by definition going to require specialized assistance, however, so providing a list of predetermined locations approved for certain types of treatments or surgeries will not help when emergency care is needed.

Having said that, limiting the network of providers may not yield the same results for all employers. This is due to three primary factors:

  1. Location – Little to no competition in a specific area often means minor cost variance for services, so limiting access will not impact overall cost. Most carriers are able to run a network comparison based on home zip codes to determine if these limited networks will be beneficial. A general rule of thumb is that there is more competition in urban areas than rural ones, so companies based in the latter likely will see little benefit with narrow networks.
  2. Level of engagement – Members may have to understand there will be more responsibility expected from them for their healthcare costs. Perhaps they will have to utilize a member advocacy program to get certain types of service pre-authorized before seeking care, or conduct their own price comparison for certain services. Regardless, more guidance will be required in the plan itself to help clarify the variance in cost versus outcomes.
  3. How your health plan members consume care – Employers need to be more informed of how employees within their own group have used provider networks in the past. At HCW, we offer clients with 100 or more employees a tool to analyze group-specific data about high-cost, high-diagnosis procedures and determine how much they are costing the business. The results of either approach may support or rule out using narrow networks.

Even if your business meets these factors, realize that employees may view narrow networks as providing fewer healthcare options than previously offered. Remember that you are gently guiding your employees into understanding why they may have visit a new healthcare provider to save costs. Some may have to travel further than in the past in order to meet the terms of these networks.

Data mining tools can be used to provide an analysis of where plan members are consuming the most cost. At HCW, we use such a tool to aid the discussion on determining if a narrow network may work in our client’s favor. We can also work with various carriers to determine if the limited network aligns well geographically to incent savings as well. Contact HCW if you have questions or would like more information on these services.

Image courtesy of sippakorn /

8 Fall-Inspired Ways to Show Your Employees Appreciation

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

Making an effort to show your employees that you value their work will help you keep them engaged. Staffers who understand that their contributions are helping their company reach overall goals are more likely to perform better and stay loyal than employees who are unaware.

Now that the cooler weather is here to stay, companies have several opportunities to show their employees gratitude in a fun way.

fall funTry out some of the fall-inspired ideas below:

  • Hold an office tailgate. With college and NFL football back, the fall months are perfect for this outdoor activity. Make it fun by providing typical tailgating food, like hot dogs and BBQ, and planning a few games, like corn hole and ladder golf.
  • Organize a staff trip to a local pumpkin patch or apple orchard to collect fall supplies.
  • Plan a group hike at a park near your facility. This is a great way to also incorporate fitness. Make sure participation is optional.
  • Create a spooky atmosphere at your workplace for Halloween. Add cobwebs to meeting rooms, put pumpkins on tables, and have candy corn available for your staff and visitors.
  • Coordinate a fun family activity, such as a hay ride or corn maze, at a local park or farm.
  • Invite your employees to participate in after-work soccer or football games for a more rigorous group activity.
  • Treat your staff to a breakfast full of fall flavors. Items can include apple cider, pumpkin flavored coffee, pumpkin bread, apple muffins and turkey biscuits.
  • Host a Thanksgiving themed lunch at your office. Supply the turkey, but encourage staffers to sign up to bring a favorite holiday dish.

Enjoy the fall season with your staff! For additional ideas to show your staff members that you value their contributions, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: Forest Wander

Best Practices for Form I-9s When Managing a Remote Workforce

Thursday, October 10th, 2013

In today’s video post, Advice and Counsel Team Member Renee’ Watkins offers best practices for completing Form I-9s when workers are in remote locations. She says that many times employers face logistical challenges when complying with Form I-9 verification for staffers who don’t work in the office.

USCIS provides an employer handbook, the M274, to assist with completing form I-9. However, Renee’ says the guidance on the information for remote workers is limited. She then gives information about the details the M274 provides, such as employers are allowed to designate someone (ex. foreman, personnel officer or agent) to assist them in filling out Form I-9s.

Renee’ says an employer may designate any person to be their agent to complete Form I-9 for remote employees. She also notes that you may use a notary as your agent but Form I-9 does not need
to be notarized. If you decide to use an agent to assist in completing Form I-9s for your remote workforce, Renee’ says they must be credible, trustworthy, and trained in properly completing Form I-9s. You’ll also want to establish standard operating procedures for the agent and employees completing the forms.

For additional questions regarding Form I-9s and remote workers, please call a member of CAI’s Advice Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Woman is Fired for Being Old and Ugly – A Win for the EEOC

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013

The post below is a guest blog from Robin Shea who serves as Partner for Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, CAI’s Partner for the 2013 Triad Employment Law Update.

Robin Shea

Robin Shea, Partner at Constangy, Brooks & Smith

Let’s say your CEO fires a 53-year-old woman and says he’s doing it because she’s “old and ugly.”

If she finds out about it, can she sue for age discrimination?

My guess is 100 percent of you would say, “What are you, stupid? Of course she can!”

The following is a true story: A property management company in Oklahoma hired a new CEO. After his first month on the job, he terminated seven employees, as new CEOs tend to do. The next day, he fired an eighth — a 53-year-old property manager named Ms. Strength.  According to three people, the CEO privately told them that he terminated Ms. Strength because she was “old and ugly” and that he wanted someone “younger and prettier” in her position, and that he didn’t think she could meet potential tenants and entertain existing tenants after work because she was “older.” (The CEO denies having made any of these comments.)

Oh, and the company gave Ms. Strength a letter saying her job had been eliminated, when it actually hadn’t.

As you can imagine, the lawyers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having taken a few hits recently, found the case somewhat attractive from a litigation standpoint. In fact, they were like a wild dog smelling red meat.

So the EEOC sued the company on behalf of Ms. Strength for age discrimination, and the company filed a motion for summary judgment. You have to admit, that took nerve. Actually, it probably wasn’t nerve so much as desperation. Juries are notorious for sympathizing with older workers, and the company did not want this case to get to a jury.

I don’t know if there is anything called a “Hail Mary” motion for summary judgment, but there should be, and I believe this was one.

What in the world did the company argue? OK, I’m not saying these are good arguments, but here is what they said:

1. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires the plaintiff to show that “but for” a discriminatory motive, she would not have been fired or otherwise subjected to adverse employment action. Assuming that the CEO really made these comments (as the company was required to do at the summary judgment stage), he said that Ms. Strength was fired not only because she was old, but also because she was ugly. Therefore, age discrimination was not his only motivation — “looksism” was the other. And since he had two motives, the company should get summary judgment on the age discrimination claim.

Of course, the court shot this down. First, the court said, just because age has to be the “but for” cause, that doesn’t mean that it has to be the only cause. It’s more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. You can have other causes, but if the discriminatory cause is the one that puts the camel in traction, then the discriminatory cause is still the “but for” cause. My esteemed colleague Donna Ballman pointed this out not too long ago, after the Supreme Court’s decision requiring “but for” causation in retaliation cases.

Second, the court said, the CEO may have thought Ms. Strength was “ugly” only because she was “old.” You know the type, amIrightoramIright?

Strike one!

2. Then the company’s lawyers got even more creative. They were like, Oh, well, even if we have to go to trial on the age discrimination claim, the EEOC shouldn’t be allowed to get more than $100,000 because Ms. Strength admitted in her deposition that she would take $100,000.

(Under the ADEA, a prevailing plaintiff can recover back pay and benefits, front pay and benefits, plus that much again as liquidated damages, and — assuming she had her own attorney — attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and costs. In all likelihood, for a 53-year-old with a responsible position, significantly more than $100,000.)

Here’s what happened in the deposition. The company’s lawyer asked her, “If I could write a check to you, what amount would make you happy?” After some objections and argument between the lawyers, Ms. Strength said, “To be treated fairly . . ..” The lawyer said, “I’m asking for a figure. I want to know the amount. . . . You walk out of here today and have a Merry Christmas, what amount would that be?” Ms. Strength said, “100,000.”

Settlement negotiations are normally inadmissible. The EEOC (correctly, in my opinion) said that this was an inadmissible “settlement negotiation,” and also that the EEOC wasn’t limited to seeking what Ms. Strength might have accepted. The court agreed.

Strike two!

3. Finally, both the EEOC and the company moved for summary judgment on Ms. Strength’s alleged failure to mitigate her damages. The court granted the EEOC’s motion and denied the company’s.

(Does that make four strikes? And have I mixed enough metaphors in this post?)

I think the moral of this story if you’re an employer, and especially if you’re in HR or in-house counsel, is to do your best to make sure your executives don’t do stupid things, like firing people because they’re over the age of 50. (Or, for that matter, because they’re ugly — appearance discrimination is against the law in many jurisdictions, plus it’s mean to pick on people just because they’re homely.) Once somebody at the CEO level (allegedly) pulls a stunt like this, there is very little that you can do as a company except to give the plaintiff that check for $100 grand fast, before she changes her mind.

Robin Shea is presenting at the 2013 Triad Employment Law Update on November 5th at the Grandover Resort in Greensboro. In addition to receiving best practices for hiring and firing employees, attorneys from Constangy, Brooks and Smith, LLP will provide you with the most recent updates in state and federal employment law. Register today at

Behaviors that Define Positive Leadership

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

George PortsCAI’s Advice and Counsel Team answers several questions from members daily. Many questions the Team receives concern leadership and how people in power should interact with their employees. Here’s a question that many employers have:

Can leaders demand respect simply because of their position or title?

In today’s post, Advice and Counsel Team Member George Ports offers guidance for this employer issue:

The obvious answer to this question is NO!!!

Leaders earn respect leading by example, “Do as I do” rather than “Do as I say.” They earn respect by being up front and honest with their employees, treating them with “dignity and respect.” Dignity and respect goes both ways.

Observations that I have made over the years of behaviors that define “positive leadership” are as follows:

  • Positive leaders are people builders, they are in the construction business, not the demolition business.
  • Positive leaders are fair and consistent when administering organization policies and procedures.
  • Positive leaders encourage an open two-way flow of communication.
  • Positive leaders do not leave their employees in the dark creating an atmosphere of anxiety and insecurity.
  • Positive leaders recognize the need for responding to employee issues and concerns in a prompt manner.
  • Positive leaders work in conjunction with HR to ensure that internal pay equity is maintained among employees.
  • Positive leaders take up for their employees, stand behind and support them when necessary.
  • Positive leaders never take credit for employee accomplishments and ideas—they always give credit and praise where such is due.
  • Positive leaders work diligently to create an atmosphere of teamwork, a culture where every job and person is important, avoiding a “we/they”  relationship.

“A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the equality of his actions and the integrity of his intent.”

— General Douglas MacArthur

If you have any questions regarding leadership, please contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919‑878‑9222 or 336‑668‑7746.

7 Things You Need to Know from the 2013 Compensation and Benefits Conference

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

2013C+B_Flash3 cropNearly 300 HR professionals and company leaders participated in CAI’s 2013 Compensation and Benefits Conference on Thursday, Sept 19 and Friday, Sept 20 at the McKimmon Center in Raleigh. The annual conference focuses on trends and best practices in total rewards.

This year’s event featured four keynote presentations ranging in topics from strategies for a more engaged workforce to a current analysis on 2013 marketplace trends. The conference also had three specific tracks of breakout sessions: Health Care, How-to and Advanced HR.

Highlighted below are some of the key takeaways shared during this year’s presentations:

1)      Involve employees and encourage initiative from them to increase engagement

  • Dr. Bob Nelson’s research revealed that 89 percent of employees want to be involved in decision-making and 92 percent of employees want to be asked for their opinions or ideas.

2)      Regarding total rewards programs at different companies, the following are trending: welcoming work environments, retaining and rewarding top performers, paying for performance, variable pay plans, flexible schedules, and corporate cultures that attract and retain employees.

3)      Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have an obligation to play or pay

  • If you are playing, you must provide coverage that is “affordable” and of “minimum value”
    • “Affordable” = employee contribution for lowest cost employee plan is less than or equal to 9.5 percent of employee’s compensation
    • “Minimum value” = actuarial value of coverage is 60 percent of “essential benefits”

4)      Some common mistakes HR professionals make when executing or preparing for performance evaluations include: not being prepared, giving a higher rating than earned, procrastinating, one-sided dialogue, failure to set aside personal feelings, not taking enough time, and comparing employee performance to other employees.

5)      If health insurance costs seem to be managing your company instead of the other way around, make sure to:

  • Do what you can in your area
  • Educate all key decision makers in your company on the important pieces of health care reform
  • Align yourself with credible, reliable benefits advisors or partners

6)      Top mistakes regarding Wage and Hour regulations include: thinking any person may be an independent contractor, considering salaried employees exempt, averaging work hours and recording work schedule.

7)      Employees who are very satisfied with their workplace benefits are three times more likely to be highly satisfied with their jobs and more loyal to their employer. Only 25 percent of current employees are satisfied with their benefits communication and 55 percent of all employees don’t find benefits materials to be clear and comprehensive (according to Dr. Bob Nelson’s research)

If you’d like more information on the Compensation and Benefits Conference, please go to