The NCAA tournament is just around the corner and offices are abuzz with friendly banter and cries of team loyalty. Along with plenty of excitement and new found bragging rights among fellow colleagues, March Madness brings forth a torrid fear of lost productivity in the workplace. Though accurate numbers are incredibly difficult to pinpoint in such instances, outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, estimated in a 2008 press release that lost productivity during the tournament could cost businesses an estimated 1.7 billion every year. While these numbers are seen only as an estimate and in some opinions as a heavily aggrandized estimate, it would be foolish to think that there is not a significant impact on time and productivity for the duration of the tournament.

While an employer’s first reaction may be to try and limit March Madness related activities in the workplace, there are definitely a few things to consider before taking any action against tournament involvement. First, denial of participation could be seen by employees as overbearing and in opposition to a fun work environment. Employee morale is crucial for productivity, and would therefore seem counter intuitive for employers hoping to retain a high level of productivity to discourage participation in an activity considered somewhat of a sports holiday. Instead of discouraging involvement and risking a discontented office, consider using March Madness to your advantage. There are many different ways an employer or manager could use the NCAA tournament as a way to improve employee morale and create a stronger sense of camaraderie throughout the workplace:

1. Create an online, office-wide bracket.
Creating a bracket on a website such as ESPN.com or Yahoo! Sports would eliminate the need to create, hand out and fill in paper brackets. Encourage people to participate only if they would like, and if the employees would like to have a buy-in for competitive purposes, we suggest the money go towards a charity or non-profit organization of the winner’s choice.

2. Offer small, fun and/or personalized prizes for top placers.
An already stated prize would not only encourage friendly competition and participation, it would also help to discourage against illegal gambling in the workplace. Some example of appropriate prizes may include gift certificates, a favorite team souvenir, or perhaps a meal on a supervisor’s tab.

3. Offer flexible hours and dress code allowances when appropriate.
A possible solution to the distraction of an early evening game could be a flexible work week. Also, since Fridays are often considered a more causal day in the workplace, employees could be encouraged to wear a tie, jersey or even socks to show where their hopes and loyalties lay within the tournament.

4. Encourage watching the tournament as a group.
Many workplaces allot for short breaks throughout the day. Encourage employees to gather to the TV in the break room (or at single designated computer as to not take up too much bandwidth) during those times. One could even promote a potluck lunch, catering or group gatherings after work to watch the game together.

5. Designate times to stay involved and keep the competition alive.
A bi-weekly e-mail or short announcement at the end of an informal meeting discussing up-to-date results would help to discourage employees from constantly tracking brackets while at work and would also help the manager or supervisor to stay involved.

While this list is not at all exhaustive, these are a few simple ways to take what is consistently seen as a drag on productivity and turn it into a way to promote a healthier and more enjoyable work environment. For more information or any questions, contact Staff One at 1-800-771-7823 or visit www.staffone.com.

Founded in 1988, Staff One is a leading Human Resources Outsourcing firm with an ESAC accredited and bonded PEO service offering. Staff One operates as a full-service human resources department and delivers a comprehensive range of solutions that provides our clients with a level of support and value previously only available at much larger companies. By aggregating the buying power of hundreds of firms, we provide premium benefits, risk management, compliance management, payroll outsourcing, tax administration and strategic HR services to our customers, so they can focus on growing their core business.

In their quest to hire reliable and trustworthy employees for open positions, many employers have turned to credit reporting agencies for applicant background information. Although such information may be readily available, obtaining it could lead to possible liability if the appropriate policies and procedures are not in place.

Discrimination Claims
Under Title VII, employer practices – such as basing hiring and other employment decisions on credit history information – that weigh more heavily on individuals within protected categories could lead to discrimination claims. For instance, if an employer’s use of credit reports has the effect of excluding women or minorities from certain positions, that practice could lead to liability.

In addition, a number of states have enacted or are considering enacting laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of credit histories. For instance, Illinois’ newly enacted Employee Credit Privacy Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2011, prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history and from ordering or otherwise obtaining an applicant’s or employee’s credit history or credit report from a consumer reporting agency. Despite the potentially broad reach of Illinois’ new Act, there are several exceptions including:

• Situations where an employer can show that a satisfactory credit history is a “bona fide occupational requirement” for a position, which is further defined in the statute;
• Employers who are banks, savings and loans, or certain other financial institutions; insurance or surety businesses; state law enforcement or investigative units; state or local government agencies that otherwise require use of the employee’s or applicant’s credit history or credit report; and entities that are defined as debt collectors under federal or state statute; and
• Background investigations that do not include a credit history or report as permitted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Employers that violate the Illinois Act could face damages, injunctive relief, and liability for attorneys’ fees and costs and could also face liability for any retaliatory conduct under the Act.

Along the same lines, legislation has been introduced in, among other states, Michigan and Ohio as well. In Michigan, House Bill 4528, also known as the Job Applicant Credit Privacy Act, would prohibit an employer from failing or refusing either to hire or recruit an individual because of the individual’s credit history and from inquiring about a job applicant’s or potential job applicant’s credit history. As with the Illinois Act, certain exceptions would apply for individuals who hold positions with identified types of companies including, for instance, banks or other financial institutions.

In Ohio, House Bill 340, which was introduced on October 28, 2009, would make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use a person’s credit rating or score or consumer credit history as a factor in making decisions regarding that person’s employment. House Bill 340would allow a person to file a charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and would provide similar penalties for violations.

As these examples show, a blanket policy of requiring credit reports for all employees or applicants could lead to possible discrimination claims under state or federal law or both.

The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
Moreover, even when employers are permitted to obtain applicant or employee credit reports, liability can still attach if the detailed procedures set forth in the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) are not followed. Specifically, the FCRA requires employers to inform applicants that a credit check will be performed and to obtain the applicants’ written permission in a stand-alone document that is not part of the employment application.

In addition, if an employer decides to take an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant based on the credit check, the employer must first give that individual a “pre-adverse action disclosure” that consists of a copy of the credit report and a written summary of rights under the FCRA before taking the adverse action. Presumably, this requirement is intended to allow an employee or applicant an opportunity to attempt to correct any inaccuracies on the report. Once the adverse action has been taken, the employer must provide the applicant or employee with an “adverse action notice.” This notice must alert the recipient that the employer, not the credit reporting agency, made the adverse decision; inform the recipient that he or she has a right to a free copy of the report; and provide the name, address and phone number of the agency that provided the credit report so that the recipient can dispute any inaccurate information.

Employers that fail to comply with the FCRA may face liability for actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages. Criminal penalties are also possible for any employer that obtains a credit report under false pretenses.

Minimizing The Risks
Some of the ways you can minimize the risks of obtaining employee or applicant credit reports are by:

• Determining whether state laws govern your use of applicant/employee credit reports;
• Evaluating whether the benefits of obtaining credit reports for various positions outweigh the risks of doing so;
• Developing appropriate policies and procedures to govern procurement of credit reports; and
• Ensuring compliance.

The growth of social media use on sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace has prompted many employers to broaden their electronic communication policies to address employee participation on such sites when that participation includes employment-related information. There are limits, however, to how far employers can go to regulate employee communication, as illustrated by a recent complaint issued by Region 34 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The NLRB’s complaint claims that American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. fired one of its employees because she posted less-than-flattering comments about her supervisor on Facebook. In particular, the employee used expletives and implied that her supervisor suffered from psychiatric problems. Some of the employee’s co-workers expressed support for her in their comments in response to the posting. Although the employer contends that the employee was terminated because of complaints about her performance – rather than anything the employee posted on Facebook – the NLRB nonetheless issued a complaint and scheduled a hearing for early next year.

At the heart of the NLRB’s case is the well-settled principle that employees generally have a right to communicate with one another about the terms and conditions of their employment. Such so-called protected concerted activities cannot form the basis for any adverse employment actions without running afoul of federal labor law. According to the NLRB, the fact that the communications in this case took place on a social media site does not in any way lessen the protections afforded the employee. Indeed, Acting General Counsel for the NLRB, Luke Solomon, suggested Facebook is akin to a “water cooler.” As a result, the NLRB took into account the employer’s policy of prohibiting employees from making negative comments about supervisors or “in any way” depicting the company on the Internet without permission in reaching its decision to issue a complaint.

Although it remains to be seen whether the NLRB will prevail, its decision to issue the complaint serves as a timely reminder to all employers. Regardless of whether employees are represented by a labor union or not, the National Labor Relations Act applies to all employers, and employers may not interfere with employee-protected concerted activity. Policies that purport to prohibit employees from engaging in “all” or “any” communication regarding the employer can draw unwanted attention from the NLRB. It is no defense that the prohibition applies only to social media or was not intended to chill employee rights.

A well-drafted, comprehensive electronic communications policy is the key to avoiding similar problems. Such a policy allows employers to protect their legitimate interests without unlawfully interfering with protected concerted activities or other employee rights.

On September 27, 2010, President Obama signed the Small Business Lending Funding Act, referred to by its Tax title as the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (the “Act”).  The Act includes a number of important tax provisions for individuals and businesses (small and large).  A number of important changes are summarized here:

• Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions: With funds provided in the bill, SBA will begin funding new Recovery loans within a few days of the President’s signature, starting with the more than 1,400 businesses that are waiting in the Recovery Loan Queue.  In total, the extension of these provisions provides the capacity to support $14 billion in loans to small businesses.
• A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs:The bill also increases the maximum loan size for SBA loan programs, which in the coming weeks will allow more small businesses to access more credit to allow them to expand and create new jobs. The bill will permanently raise the maximum size for SBA’s two largest loan programs, increasing the maximum 7(a) and 504 loans from $2 million to $5 million, and the maximum 504 manufacturing related loan from $4 million to $5.5 million.  In addition, it will temporarily increase the maximum loan size for SBA Express loans from $350,000 to $1 million, providing greater access to working capital loans that small businesses use to purchase new inventory and take on their next order.
• A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund:The bill would establish a new $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund which – by providing capital to small banks with incentives to increase small business lending – could support several multiples of that amount in new credit.
• An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending:The bill will support at least $15 billion in small business lending through a new State Small Business Credit Initiative, strengthening state small business programs that leverage private-sector lenders to extend additional credit – many of which have been forced to cut back due to budget cuts.
• Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest:
  • Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments:Under the Recovery Act, 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments this year were excluded from taxes. The Small Business Jobs Act temporarily puts in place for the rest of 2010 a provision eliminating all capital gains taxes on these investments if held for five years. Over one million small businesses are eligible to receive investments this year that, if held for five years or longer, could be completely excluded from any capital gains taxation.
  • Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments: The bill increases for 2010 and 2011 the amount of investments that businesses would be eligible to immediately write off to $500,000, while raising the level of investments at which the write-off phases out to $2 million. Prior to the passage of the bill, the expensing limit would have been $250,000 this year, and only $25,000 next year.
  • Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation:The bill extends a Recovery Act provision for 50 percent “bonus depreciation” through 2010, providing 2 million businesses, large and small, with the ability to make new investments today by accelerating the rate at which they deduct capital expenditures.
  • A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed:The bill allows 2 million self-employed to get a deduction for the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members in calculating their self-employment taxes. This provision is estimated to provide over $1.9 billion in tax cuts for these entrepreneurs.
  • Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions:The bill changes rules so that the use of cell phones can be deducted without burdensome extra documentation for virtually every small business beginning on their taxes for this year.
  • An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses:The bill temporarily increases the amount of start-up expenditures entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes for this year from $5,000 to $10,000 (with a phase-out threshold of $60,000 in expenditures).
  • A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits:The bill would allow certain small businesses to “carry back” their general business credits to offset five years of taxes, while also allowing these credits to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  • Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business:The bill would change, beginning this year, the penalty for failing to report certain tax transactions from a fixed dollar amount to a percentage of the tax benefits from the transaction.

As described above, both businesses and individuals are affected by the Act.  More information on the Act can be found here

by National Underwriter Company

A majority of large U.S. employers are planning to change their 2011 health care benefit programs in the wake of both health care reform and expected large health care cost increases, according to a new survey by the National Business Group on Health (NBGH).NBGH, Washington, found that 53% of employers taking part in its survey were still planning to make changes to their benefit plans despite uncertainty about how to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Another 19% are going to scale back changes they had planned to make, while an equal number are making no changes. Remaining respondents were still undecided as they continued to review the final regulations.

Among employers that said they would be making specific changes to their health benefit plans to comply with the new law, 70% said they would remove lifetime dollar limits on overall benefits, while 37% said they would change to annual or lifetime limits on specific benefits.

Also, 26% would remove annual dollar limits on overall benefits, while 13% would remove pre-existing condition exclusions for children.

The survey, covering 72 of the nation’s largest corporations with more than 3.7 million employees, was conducted in May and June.

Health care reform has forced employers to assess their health care benefit strategies and decide whether to comply with the law or lose grandfathered status, said Helen Darling, president of NGBH. But they are still mindful that controlling rising costs is among their highest priorities.

“They have to foot the bill, not the government,” Darling commented.

Surveyed employers estimated their health care benefit costs would rise an average of 8.9% next year, compared with an average increase of 7% this year. To help control those increases, 63% plan to boost the percentage employees contribute to the premium, up from 57% who did so this year, while 46% plan to raise out-of-pocket maximums next year, compared with 36% this year.

Other survey findings:

—61% will offer a consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) in 2011.

—64% will offer is a high-deductible plan combined with a health savings account.

—Among employers offering a CDHP, 20% will move to a full replacement plan in 2011, from 10% this year.

—5% plan to drop retiree health coverage in 2011, while 60% are considering doing so.

—41% offer premium discounts for completing health assessments, while 22% offer premium discounts for participating in stop-smoking programs.

—25% plan to raise the copay or coinsurance for retail pharmacy prescription drug benefits, while 21% plan to do the same for mail-order pharmacy benefits.

A copy of the survey by NBGH can be found here

by BHZ

Payroll legal obligations can put companies and managers at great risk in many ways. If you have anything to do with employee payroll and related matters, be aware of the following 11 mistakes and corresponding penalties.

Mistake #1: Failing to deposit withheld income taxes, Social Security and Medicare contributions, and employer matching amounts on time. The government wants its money by strict deadlines. Penalties accrue quickly if your business or organization misses deposit deadlines.

The penalty for not making deposits on time is:

• 1 to 5 days late, 2 percent of amounts due.
• 6 to 15 days late, 5 percent.
• 16 or more days, 10 percent.
• 15 percent if notice from the IRS is ignored, plus interest on the amount not deposited, plus 100 percent of the uncollected amounts if the failure to deposit is willful.

Note this grave, personal danger: These penalties can be levied personally against all responsible individuals in a business or organization. The corporate veil is no shield in these situations. Any individual with a responsibility for getting the money to the government on time faces possible exposure to penalties and fines.

Mistake #2: Under-withholding and failing to match required amounts.

The employer’s obligation is to withhold income tax, Social Security, and Medicare contributions from employees’ pay, as well as match the Social Security and Medicare contributions. Failure to do so subjects the employer to late deposit penalties of up to 15 percent of the under-withheld and under-deposited amounts. If the IRS deems the under-reporting or under-depositing willful, the penalties can be up to 100 percent of the uncollected amounts.

As with failing to make deposits in a timely manner, under-withholding and failing to match amounts creates a personal risk to individuals with a responsibility for getting the correct sums of money to the government on time.

Mistake #3: Failing to pay — or under-paying — state and federal unemployment taxes. The greatest portion of unemployment insurance (UI) taxes is levied by the state. And state-levied penalties vary. Since state UI funds are being exhausted in this period of high unemployment, states are aggressive in collection efforts.

Mistake #4: Failing to process wage garnishments correctly. Federal and state laws obligate employers to accurately withhold from employee pay, and remit, court-ordered garnishments, levies, and child support.

Violating these laws can result in penalties, depending on state laws. Also, federal law limits the amount of earnings that can be garnished, and protects employees from being terminated from their jobs because of a first-time garnishment. A violation can mean reinstatement of a discharged employee, payment of back wages, and restoration of improperly garnished amounts. Employers who willfully violate the discharge provisions of the law can be prosecuted criminally and fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for not more than one year – or both.

Mistake #5: Making unauthorized deductions from an employee’s pay. Employers can legally deduct from an employee’s pay only amounts authorized or required by law (such as tax withholding), by court order (such as garnishments), and amounts authorized by the employee (such as the employee’s share of health insurance).

What are unauthorized deductions? State laws vary and it can be tricky. In addition, federal wage and hour law requires payment of agreed upon and earned wages (with the allowed deductions listed above.)

Do you ever feel compelled to dock an employee’s pay if he or she breaks or damages company products or equipment? Check first with your attorney to see if this is permitted by your state law — even with the employee’s permission

Mistake #6: Treating some workers as independent contractors when they’re not. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors exposes employers to substantial legal costs and penalties.

In an effort to increase collections, the IRS and state agencies have ramped up investigations of misclassified employees. When a misclassification is discovered, the employer becomes obligated for unreported and undeposited withholding taxes, Social Security and Medicare contributions, penalties, and possible liability for employee benefits. When the IRS deems the misclassification to be negligent, the penalties can be up to 100 percent of the uncollected taxes.

And the payment of unreported taxes and contributions isn’t just for the past year. When the IRS and state agencies discover the misclassification of just one or two employees, this can trigger audits of the employer’s employment for prior years.

Mistake #7: Failing to include the value of awards, bonuses, and fringe benefits (when required) in employees’ taxable incomes. This action then results in the failure to withhold sufficient amounts from the total reportable income and not reporting the total reportable income to the IRS. The risk: The employer is subject to under-reporting penalties of up to 15 percent of the under-withheld and under-deposited taxes. If the failure is willful, the penalties can be up to 100 percent. And the employer could also be subject to information return penalties for incorrect W-2 forms (up to $50 penalty for each incorrect W-2).

Mistake #8: Using bogus or incorrect Social Security numbers for employees on their W-2 Forms and failing to accurately complete I-9 Forms. The risk: The employer can be subject to information return penalties for incorrect W-2 Forms, of up to $50 for each incorrect W-2. This mistake or failure by the employer also creates issues for the employees involved because they aren’t receiving proper earnings credits through the Social Security Administration.

Mistake #9: Failing to pay at least the higher of the federal or state minimum wage to non-exempt employees… as well as overtime in any seven-day workweek in which they work more than 40 hours. The risk: If this error is discovered, the employer is required to compensate the employee for back pay, plus fines and penalties. In addition to the fines and penalties imposed by the Department of Labor, the employer likely will be subject to federal and state wage and hour audits and owe additional amounts

Mistake #10: Not preparing and filing W-2 forms, and failing to send them to employees. The risk: The employer can be subject to information return penalties for incorrect W-2 forms, penalties of up to $100 for each incorrect or unreported W-2. For intentional failure, the penalties can go up to $200 for each incorrect statement.

Mistake #11: Failing to abide by state laws. It’s not just the federal wage and hour rules that employers must comply with. Employers need to be aware of, and comply with, the laws in the states where they have employees.

PEOs can help prevent these mistakes

To help avoid these costly blunders, more companies are turning to a professional employer organization (PEO), like Staff One.  A PEO serves as a human resources department for small and medium-sized businesses.  By entering into a co-employment relationship with a PEO, companies have access to experienced specialists who can help with many time-consuming activities in areas such as Human Resources Management, Payroll Management (including 940 and 941 filings), Employer Liability Management, Risk and Safety Management and Benefits Management.

by GBS

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a COBRA premium reduction for eligible individuals who were involuntarily terminated from employment through the end of May 2010. Due to the statutory sunset, the COBRA premium reduction under ARRA is not available for individuals who experience a qualifying event of involuntary termination of employment after May 31, 2010. However, individuals who qualified on or before May 31, 2010 may continue to pay reduced premiums for up to 15 months, as long as they are not eligible for another group health plan or Medicare.

On July 6, Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis C. Borzi issued a statement regarding the COBRA premium reduction under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): For a copy of Assistant Secretary Phyllis Borzi’s statement, click on the following link:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/2010/ebsa070610.html

The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 signed by the President on July 22, 2010, did not include an extension of the COBRA premium reduction.

A model general notice and a model election notice for individuals with a qualifying event after May 31, 2010 can be obtained from the COBRA section on the DOL’s website at:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/COBRA.html

These notices are virtually unchanged from the pre-ARRA models provided by the DOL in 2004.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final regulation (75 FR 42575, July 22, 2010) concerning the use of electronic signatures and storage for Form I-9s.

Although the changes in the final rule are relatively minor, they provide clarification of some ambiguities contained in the initial rule. The primary changes implemented by this rule are as follows:

• employers must complete a Form I-9 by the third business (not calendar) day after an employee started work for pay;
• employers may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems;
• employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations;
• employers need not retain audit trails of each time a Form I-9 is electronically viewed, but only when the Form I-9 is created, completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected; and
• employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of a Form I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy.

By TJ Carter

Being an effective manager takes work. Also, if you are new to the role with little or no training, you will discover there is a difference between being a great employee and managing great employees.

Being a manager takes courage, drive and a little insanity. Many managers know what to do; they are just overwhelmed with the volume of what they need to do.

Here are 5 tips managers most likely know but tend to forget, so lets review what you already know so you can put that knowledge into practice immediately.

1. Determine Who’s Who. Know the personalities on your team, and who you are. The 4 different ‘playground personalities’ will help you do this. Ask, “What type of kid was I on the playground?”

• The one who made sure everyone got a turn at bat? This is the Peacemaker.
• The one who made everyone line up and count off? The Organizer.
• The one who changed the rules midway through the game? The Revolutionary.
• The one who wanted to play it my way? The Steamroller.

Once you figure out your playground personality, determine whos on your playground. Don’t miss the signs. People are very clear with their body language, word usage and intentions.

Peacemakers appreciate communication and collaboration. If a staff member’s eyes bulge when others argue, that’s a clue.

Organizers are structured and decisive. If an employee comes to a meeting with charts or color-coded paper, he’s an organizer.

Revolutionaries hate routine and prefer to adapt to the moment. You’ll know a revolutionary when you ask, “Where did that come from?”

Steamrollers are smart and opinionated and can solve complex problems. They take opposing views and keep ideas floating at 30,000 feet.

2. Show Respect. Respect starts with the manager. Saying “hello” or “thank you” goes a long way. To show respect:

• Brainstorm ideas with Peacemakers
• Provide meaningful work with deadlines to Organizers
• Assign emergency tasks to Revolutionaries
• Ask Steamrollers for their opinions

3. Face Facts. Not everyone collects facts the way you do, so ask questions, be open to learning and don’t shut down discussions too early. When you think you have the facts, ask again to make sure.

4. Find the Humor. Humor should never be personal, but try to find the absurdity that invades everyone’s workspace and lighten the mood. Humor helps employees relate to you and builds camaraderie for difficult tasks.

5. Put it all Together. Managers get paid to get work done. Just when you have a plan, something goes wrong. Don’t immediately go to Plan B. Leverage personalities and the way each approaches a problem.

Understanding employees and empowering them to tackle their work in a manner that suits them will help you blossom into a confident, seasoned professional.

From aarp.org

In the past few years, a growing number of employers have added automatic features, especially automatic enrollment, to their 401(k) plans.  This national telephone survey of large employers with 401(k) plans was conducted in order to better understand large employer attitudes toward and experiences with two automatic 401(k) features: automatic enrollment and automatic escalation.

The survey’s key findings include the following:

• The vast majority (94%) of employers surveyed report that they are either “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans.   While familiarity with automatic escalation is lower than familiarity with automatic enrollment, a majority (78%) of employers also report that they are familiar with automatic escalation.
• Although nearly all large employers with 401(k) plans are at least somewhat familiar with automatic enrollment, the majority have not adopted it for their own 401(k) plan.  Specifically, less than half (42%) of respondents report that their 401(k) plan includes automatic enrollment.  Fewer (28%) report that their 401(k) plans have an automatic escalation feature.
• The majority (58%) of employers with automatic enrollment report that they automatically enrolled only new hires when they first adopted automatic enrollment.  Just over one-third (35%) automatically enrolled all non-participating employees who were eligible for the plan.
• Of those employers who automatically enrolled only new hires at adoption, only about one in ten (11%) report that they have automatically enrolled all non-participating employees at least once since adopting automatic enrollment.
• Employers were most likely to identify the following as “major reasons” that companies offer automatic features: it helps employees save more for retirement (74%), it is easier to pass nondiscrimination testing (49%), and it demonstrates that we are a socially responsible company (35%)
• When asked why they do not have automatic enrollment for their 401(k) plan, employers without automatic enrollment most frequently cited employee-related challenges such as a concern that employees would not like automatic enrollment (30%), costs (20%), contentment with the status quo (14%), and a lack of information (10%).
• When employers without automatic escalation were asked to explain their reasons for not including this feature in their 401(k) plan, the most frequent responses also related to employees and included the company thinks employees would not like it (66%) and the company thinks employees would find it confusing (52%). Additionally, one-third of employers without automatic escalation (35%) indicated that the company is concerned about matching costs.
• Employers that automatically enroll only new hires were asked why they do not automatically enroll all non-participating employees who are eligible for the plan.  As with the reasons expressed for not having automatic features, employee-related challenges were also the reasons most frequently expressed for limiting automatic enrollment to new hires.

AARP commissioned Woelfel Research, Inc. to conduct this telephone survey of 806 large employers with 401(k) plans.  Partial funding was provided by Retirement Made Simpler, a coalition formed by AARP, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and the Retirement Security Project (RSP).  For more information, visit www.RetirementMadeSimpler.org.  The survey was fielded from December 15, 2009, to February 24, 2010, and results were weighted by company size.  For more information on the survey, please contact S. Kathi Brown of AARP Research & Strategic Analysis at 202-434-6296.

More Information at http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement-planning/info-06-2010/auto401k.html