Open enrollment 2015 starts *yawn* ...now.

<< My kids!  

I love kids.  And pets.

Turns out, you do, too.  You kind of adore them.  Just look at how your Facebook newsfeed is dominated day in, day out by pictures of kids and pets.  Kids and pets, kids and pets.  They’re at the center of it all, as they always have been, in one medium or another, even for those who may not have kids or pets.  Protecting those sacred loved ones is innately important, and so—wait for it: cue the HR tie-in—our employers let us add our spouses, kids, and (typically) domestic partners to our healthy insurance coverage.  

Here's a little-known fact: as of this writing, U.S. employers' health insurance plans are actually not required to have the option of covering employees' family members.  Even though the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which broadened the definition of who can be considered an eligible dependent for coverage, was signed into law in early 2010, the fact remains: employers can still opt to offer insurance coverage to just their employees (or, for that matter, not offer health insurance to anyone at all, albeit at the price of a monetary penalty).

Would you think it odd if a company were to only allow employees to join their health insurance plans, and not open it up to dependent family members?  Would you infer some kind of underlying message...  like, one of exclusion or maybe one of financial hardship?  In a world where insurance plans and legislation are evolving and growing to include coverage of same-sex spouses and domestic partners, might it feel like a step backward to join a company that excludes even 'conventional' dependents?

HR peeps, this is a bit of 101, so you can skip this paragraph if you like.  Employers use their benefit offerings to entice and retain employees; in essence, benefit offerings—the bounty and generosity of them—make up an important extension of the employer’s brand.  Yet year after year, when it comes to benefits strategy, HR folks tend to place their emphasis and energy almost purely on financials: how to change plan designs or cost share to keep costs down.  Even in 2014, when HR decision makers have for so long contemplated and studied how to thrive in the “war on talent”, I’m not convinced that most companies seem compelled or committed to think creatively or act dynamically in terms of benefits package design.  Good!  That makes it even easier for companies with interesting benefits to stand out.

Well, HR, here’s an easy win: familiarize with pet insurance if you haven't ever done so.  If you like what you learn, present a real and strong value proposition to your decision makers well in advance of open enrollment period preparation. 

Hardly anyone is doing it.  So maybe you should.  One can make an argument that these numbers demonstrate some real disparity.

32% of U.S. households have children under the age of 18.1	57% of U.S. employers offer health insurance benefits to employees and family members.3
At least 62% of U.S. households have pets.2	9% of U.S. employers offer pet insurance to employees.4

Here’s how pet insurance works, in a nutshell: 

• Pet insurance is essentially medical Insurance which covers: well visits, surgical procedures, hospitalizations, diagnostics, prescriptions, dental care, and more.  Pet life insurance also exists.
• Most plans renew every year.
• Pre-existing condition clauses do exist, and individuals may end up paying more for care due to pre-existing conditions.
• Unfortunately, premium is not paid on a pre-tax basis.  However, an employer can certainly contribute toward premium cost.
• Coverage is priced on a per-pet basis (probably a no-go for your fishtank).
• The cost structure is just like human health insurance: premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, etc.

More than one in three pets will need emergency veterinary treatment every year.  Two out of every three pets will experience a significant health problem during their lifetimes. What's more, cats have nine #$%#@%@ lives.  Costs associated with pets’ health can quickly spiral into thousands of dollars.  Veterinarian costs are rising on par with the costs of physician care.  The case for promoting fiscally responsible pet ownership and treating pets similarly to our human family members is an easy one to make, and a good pet insurance plan can make all the difference.

Now, pet insurance is not a silver bullet to cure all of your workforce talent deficiency woes, but it can truly help differentiate your employer brand as one of strong moral character and progressive thought leadership.  Were it not for employer-sponsored pet insurance, many pet owners would not even think to purchase insurance for their pets.  Envision the positive impression pet insurance could have on new hires (not limited to owners of pets), and then weigh the relatively low cost of offering pet insurance; you almost owe it to your employees and their loved ones to research this!

Lastly: pet insurance is just one example of a relatively uncommon benefit.  The sky is the limit!  Do your brainstorming and research well in advance of your company’s annual enrollment period, and you might surprise yourself with some great, fresh ideas your employees will appreciate. Open enrollment starts now!

¹ US Census 2013:Table H2. Households, By Type, Age Of Members, Region Of Residence, And Age Of Householder.  https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013H.html

² The Human Society of the United States. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html

³ Deloitte.  Health care costs, benefits, and reform: What’s the next move for employers?  Results of Deloitte’s 2013 Survey of U.S. Employers.
https://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Health%20Plans/us_lshc_2013employerstudy_111213.pdf

⁴ Crain’s Chicago Business.  Pets with Benefits: Companies Find It Pays in Spades.  http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131019/ISSUE03/310199991/pets-with-benefits-companies-find-it-pays-in-spades#  October 21, 2013.

Transparency, Transparency, Transparency!!!

They call it the "No Fun League".

Beginning this football season, NFL football game attendees are forbidden from bringing virtually all purses and other bags into stadiums; small, transparent bags are now the favored means of carrying items in.  Surely, many fans will take issue with this significant shift, as it complicates things a bit, especially for families with small children.  Some will find the new practice to be overly invasive.  Others won't think twice about this—to them, security measures such as these that are intended to protect people are harmless and helpful.

Both perspectives hold some merit, and there's a point to be acknowledged from either perspective: the new practice was communicated properly.  A full-blown public relations campaign to national news outlets months in advance.  A comprehensive, easily understandable policy.  A quick-and-easy explanatory video on Youtube.  The 2013/14 NFL season begins in September, and the new security measures went into effect in June 2013.  Sure, by June, season ticket owners had already renewed for the coming season, but the timing allowed the information to propagate among football fans and other potential stadium-goers.  Further, it allowed teams take additional fan-friendly measures.  The New York Jets, for example (yes, the Jets will have done one thing right in 2013), distributed one clear tote bag to each season ticket owner.  Nice gesture to foster some goodwill.

Things could be worse, NFL fans.  College football follows NFL trends fairly closely; rules implemented at the professional level tend to be adopted at the college level within a year or two.  As a football season ticket owner for a major-conference college team, I was surprised to learn today, three days prior to the start of the college football season, that the university just adopted today the same bag policy that the NFL created in June.  I heard it on the radio.  No mention of the policy via email, postal mail, or phone.  No mention in the various literature that came with my season ticket packet (and certainly no complementary clear bag, though the latter is, of course, a non-issue).

When implementing a new policy, especially one that some people are bound to find constraining, it's immensely important to give proper care and forethought to how the policy should be implemented.  Good, thoughtful communication maintains and enhances loyalty; communication is a critical and often-overlooked part of policy implementation.  Those who hold the responsibility of creating and enforcing policies hold the responsibility of ensuring: a) the information is presented in an accessible and timely manner; and b) those who enact the policy demonstrate ownership and full transparency.

Some would argue that matters such as this particular policy should be voted upon by season ticket owners, and I disagree.  The university's Division of Administration and Public Safety made the call, and, timing aside, I can live with the change.  Judging by how strict the policy is, coupled with the fire-drill timing of the policy enactment, it's clear that the university is conveying that it views this as an important policy.  By that same point, however: why not roll this delicate policy out the following season and give it the amount of time and care it deserves?  Though to some extent fans should appreciate that the university is taking measures to protect their safety, the credibility of the new policy gets lost in that it was slipped in at the last minute.  Game attendees are right to feel slighted, especially those unknowing stadium-goers who will shuttle to the football stadium on Busch Campus from the main lot on Livingston Campus and wait on line to enter the stadium—just to be refused due to their bags being larger than clutch-size or being made of material other than clear plastic.

Weight!

Setting out to lose some weight over the next few months!  Will update this post weekly with updates.

As of June 18, 2013: 260 lb.
          June 25, 2013: 248 lb.
            July 2, 2013:  242 lb.
            July 9, 2013:  242 lb.
          July 16, 2013:  239 lb.
          July 23, 2013:  239 lb.
          July 30, 2013   239 lb.
-------------------------------
     August 18, 2013: carbs back in full effect!

Image origin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/dominos-japan-heart-pizza_n_2662538.html

The Easter Bunny and the $70,000 background check

All the nasty news about Rutgers University's Athletic Department has been hard to miss of late, and rightly so.  First, there was the disciplinary action and eventual termination of Basketball Head Coach Mike Rice for some very immoral and inappropriate conduct toward his players.  Athletic Director Tim Pernetti footed the remainder of the blame and was out shortly after Rice.  The next bit of turmoil and publicity arose when it came to light that Rice's replacement was touted in the university's press release as being a graduate of Rutgers (he attended but did not graduate), an occurrence that would seem to reflect some disjointedness on the part of the university.  Five weeks after Pernetti's resignation, Rutgers brought on Julie Hermann, an accomplished candidate who offers a glut of coaching and athletic administration experience with other top-tier universities.  Well, as it turns out, Julie has quite a past of her own, with a series of legal settlements founded upon accusations that rival the deplorable actions of none other than Mike Rice. 

This could easily be an entry pecking at the unfortunate and avoidable events that have transpired at Rutgers over the past several months.  I can certainly voice an informed opinion on these matters, as I'm: a) a Human Resources professional; b) an annual donor to the university; and c) a great fan and longtime season-ticket-holding follower of the Rutgers Football program.  This could easily be an opinion piece arguing that Tim Pernetti took swift action and did more due diligence than he gets credit for, being that he orchestrated a process which sought out and utilized formal involvement from the university's President, its HR professionals, and a host of internal and external counsel.  Or this could be an entry about Julie Hermann and the host of wildly alarming accusations and settlements attached to her name. 

 

No, this is really mainly about background checks.  It has been widely reported this week that When asked how it came to be that many of the reported incidents from Julie Hermann's storied past that have recently come to light did not get discovered or scrutinized during Rutgers' hiring process, university officials, in support of their process, stated that the background checking that was done on Julie Hermann was so thorough that it cost $70,000. 

A $70,000 background check?

I've very thoroughly and very recently shopped background checking vendors, and I can report that a background check — even an excruciatingly detailed and time-consuming one, virtually never costs more than $300 and more typically costs less than $200.  So a $70k background check is rather hard to fathom.

he $70k that the university spent was more likely spent on the recruiting effort; the university likely paid $70k to a third-party recruiter, and perhaps as part of the service provided, that recruiting agent held responsibility for conducting or initiating background screening.  

In a scenario whereby a third-party recruiter is tasked with background checking, it's reasonable to assume that the recruiter might have a stronger interest in placing a candidate than in scouring to find reasons not to place the candidate.  After all, the monetary incentive does not pay out if the hire is not made; further, a recruiting agent generally wants to please hiring managers by delivering quality candidates quickly.  By doing otherwise, the recruiter runs the risk of losing out on the contract entirely.  That's not to say this is a challenge solely inherent to third-party recruiters, nor is it to say that recruiters tend to act unethically more often than not.

But even a background check would not necessarily show the types of occurrences that have now come up post-hire as black marks for Julie Hermann.  The offenses we're reading about in the news media would not typically yield any criminal arrests, nor any convictions, motor vehicle offenses, or sex offender list entries.  If, however, Hermann had lied about her college degree or dates of employment, or if she used a false social security number or had bad credit, she would have been caught.  Without a doubt.

No, background checking does not tell the tale of one's character, and theoretically, the only way Rutgers would know about Julie's past incidents would be via conducting uncommonly thorough reference checking.  Reference checking is widely regarded in the corporate world as a low-value process.  A prospective employer asks the applicant to provide the names of two to four references, and maybe one or all must be professional references.  The applicant chooses folks who will sing loud praise in their favor, and HR or a third-party vendor contacts those references.  After some proper chasing, and after several references are collected (complicated further in that many companies forbid employees from providing references), the offer is made.  This is the reality of traditional reference checking; it is time-consuming and tedious, and, mainly because the sources of information are scant and selected by the applicant, the resulting information is virtually never negative.  In my ten years of HR experience, I've literally never received one bad reference.

In recent years, some organizations have gone all-in and implemented incredibly thorough reference checking with the assistance of sophisticated third-party coordination tools like Checkster.  This sort of practice is not suited for every organization or every job.  Realistically, though, this is the sort of thing Rutgers, with its highly visible, highly scrutinized Athletic Department, needed to do.  In this new-style reference checking, the hiring organization demands a thorough cross-section of references from folks who have worked with the candidate — perhaps 25 to 50 references altogether, and all sign non-disclosure agreements.  In the example of a former coach and Assistant Athletic Director like Julie Hermann, the process would ideally involve a wide variety of players, coaches and administrators from each of her prior employers.  Needless to say, this adds exponential complexity and time to the hiring process, and the risk of her current employer finding out she is interviewing is heightened.  But if executed correctly, the end result of this disciplined process is a valuable and extensive compilation of information that serves to support good hiring decisions and raise flags at questionable ones.  Given that Rutgers stuck to its guns and decided against the bold and unlikely course of doubling back to initiate reconciliation with Tim Pernetti, the university should have amassed as much supporting evidence as possible about the character and background of candidate Julie Hermann, as the scrutiny that transpired was foreseeable given the recent Athletic Department hiring history.  Rutgers is a world-class university, and this process deserved diligence to the utmost extent, if for nothing else, to disprove the inevitable naysayers.

Note that the $300 figure referenced above includes thorough reference checking — but if you or someone you know ever needs a $70,000 background/reference check, please don't hesitate to call me.