Source: Natalya Shnitser, Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 574, Last revised: March 14, 2022
From the abstract:
Workers in the United States depend on their employers for a host of benefits beyond wages and salary. From retirement benefits to health insurance, from student loan repayment to dependent-care spending plans, from disability benefits to family and medical leave, U.S. employers play a uniquely central role in the financial lives of their employees. Yet not all employers are equally willing or capable of serving as such financial intermediaries. Larger employers commonly offer more and better benefits than smaller employers. In recent years, so-called Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs) have pitched themselves as a private-sector solution to the challenges traditionally faced by smaller employers. PEOs have pioneered and marketed a “co-employment” model pursuant to which a business and the PEO agree to share certain employer rights and responsibilities, with the PEO taking on all of the human resources matters and the client-employer otherwise retaining control over the business.
While PEOs respond to long-standing challenges faced by smaller employers and have the potential to increase access to workplace benefits, this Article argues that they also introduce new and significant governance concerns that are not adequately addressed by the existing regulatory framework. Empirical evidence suggests that as currently structured, PEOs may not, in fact, provide “Fortune 500” benefits to employees at smaller companies and may instead lock participating employers into costly benefit bundles and expose them to the risk of unpaid employment taxes and health insurance claims. To protect participants in arrangements where PEOs provide key workplace benefits, this Article recommends strengthening and uniformly applying registration, disclosure and oversight requirements for all non-employer intermediaries, including PEOs. In the longer term, comprehensive retirement reform is needed to account for the transformation of workplace benefits in the United States.
Source: Willis Towers Watson, February 5, 2021
Employees are seeking work flexibility, enhanced wellbeing, and greater retirement security. Discover more about their experiences during the pandemic. … In the future, almost four in 10 employees (38%) would prefer a mixed onsite/work-from-home experience. Over two-fifths (41%) desire to work onsite in the future all the time, and 21% are looking to work from home all the time. …
Source: Joseph Vonasek, Robert Lee, Compensation & Benefits Review, OnlineFirst, April 5, 2021
From the abstract:
This article is an analysis of 31 defined benefit police and fire pension plans of 20 municipalities in Florida. The authors conducted a similar assessment of these same plans ten years earlier to determine the fiscal impact of these plans due to state mandates that accompany state funding for each of these plans. The current study analyzes key measures of fiscal health over the last ten years for these same plans to ascertain whether the fiscal condition of these plans remained constant, that is, whether underfunded plans continued to be questionably managed and whether well-funded plans continued to be fiscally stable considering economic trends and the lessening of state mandates on the use of state funding for these plans. The findings show that the overwhelming majority of the plans neither significantly changed their financial condition nor their general ranking among the plans evaluated.
Source: Ann P. Bartel, Maya Rossin-Slater, Christopher J. Ruhm, Meredith Slopen & Jane Waldfogel, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 28672, April 2021
We designed and fielded a survey of New York and Pennsylvania firms to study the impacts of New York’s 2018 Paid Family Leave policy on employer outcomes. We match each NY firm to a comparable PA firm and use difference-in-difference models to analyze within-match-pair changes in outcomes. We find that PFL leads to an improvement in employers’ rating of their ease of handling long employee absences, concentrated in the first policy year and among firms with 50-99 employees. We also find an increase in employee leave-taking in the second policy year, driven by smaller firms.
Source: Robert P. Holley, Journal of Library Administration, Volume 61 no. 1, 2021
From the abstract:
A case study presents a public library director who has traveled lavishly with library funding to the annual American Library Conference while three librarians with professional obligations did not receive support. The initial analysis concludes that she did nothing illegal or even unethical and presents reasons why her expenditures may be less troubling than they seem. Nonetheless, she behaved unwisely because her actions may have a negative effect upon employee morale and her relationship with the community. The general principle for all library managers should be to evaluate the necessity of professional travel, especially to attractive locations, and to make sure that an administrator is the appropriate person to represent the library. Beyond travel, administrators should not be exempt from cost saving measures because of the current pandemic. One additional complication is a differing judgment between the administrator and staff about what is a perk and what is an obligation.
Source: John Kaelin, Jim DeWan, Rockefeller Institute of Government, December 2020
From the introduction: https://rockinst.org/issue-area/state-employee-health-insurance-assessing-the-scale-of-state-purchasing-power/
Across the nation, state governments are major purchasers of health insurance for their employees. According to the US Census Bureau, 100 percent of state governments offered health insurance benefits to their employees in 2018. The Census Bureau further reported that state governments provided health insurance benefits to 67.6 percent of their 5.4 million employees in 2018. This total of approximately 3.7 million employees does not include the number of dependents, retirees, or enrollees of local governments, and other public employers that also participate in states’ health insurance programs. In 2012, based on a report published by Pew Charitable Trusts and MacArthur Foundation, total spending exceeded $30 billion covering 2.7 million households.
Between employee benefits and Medicaid programs, states’ spending on health insurance represents a major budgetary item. In 2018, the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that health insurance spending for all state and local governments totaled $433.6 billion and that spending has experienced an average annual increase of 3.9 percent over the past five years. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the state of New York itself spent $22.1 billion on Medicaid and $4.3 billion on employee and retiree health insurance costs. To alleviate these escalating costs, some states have examined options to coordinate purchasing across state programs in an attempt to achieve economies of scale. Recently, California proposed policies to leverage their purchasing of prescription drugs by combining employee health insurance programs with other state programs such as Medicaid and Correctional Health.
The purpose of this policy brief is to examine the extent to which the states in their role of purchasers drive the evolution of the healthcare delivery system. This brief examines the availability of basic financial and cost data relating to state employee insurance programs. It assesses the scale of state health insurance purchasing using existing data and presents results from a preliminary survey of states. We also review the degree to which employee purchasing decisions are coordinated with other state health policy purchasing goals such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance marketplaces.
Source: Michael Madowitz, Anne Price, and Christian E. Weller, Center for American Progress, October 23, 2020
Public sector jobs provide economic security for Black households
Public jobs provide good wages, better benefits, and greater job security, all of which are critical components of economic security and help families build wealth. Moreover, the wealth gap in the public sector is much smaller. For example, in the private sector, white households have as much as $10 of wealth for each $1 Black households hold; in the public sector white households hold closer to $2 for every $1 of wealth for Black families.
Public employment can provide greater economic security for Black workers for several reasons:
- Public sector hiring is more accountable to citizen influence than private sector hiring, providing stronger checks on employment discrimination.
- Public sector jobs are more likely to provide a defined benefit pension, which guarantees lifetime benefits upon retirement.
- Public sector jobs offer more stable employment, providing economic security otherwise available only to households with wealth.
- Public sector jobs are more likely to be unionized. Unionized jobs are highly beneficial to workers, and Black workers in particular.
Source: Gary Claxton, Anthony Damico, Matthew Rae, Gregory Young, Daniel McDermott, and Heidi Whitmore, Health Affairs, Vol. 39 no. 11, 2020
From the abstract:
The annual Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey is the benchmark survey of the cost and coverage of employer-sponsored health benefits in the United States. The 2020 survey was designed and largely fielded before the full extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had been felt by employers. Data collection took place from mid-January through July, with half of the interviews being completed in the first three months of the year. Most of the key metrics that we measure—including premiums and cost sharing—reflect employers’ decisions made before the full impacts of the pandemic were felt. We found that in 2020 the average annual premium for single coverage rose 4 percent, to $7,470, and the average annual premium for family coverage also rose 4 percent, to $21,342. Covered workers, on average, contributed 17 percent of the cost for single coverage and 27 percent of the cost for family coverage. Fifty-six percent of firms offered health benefits to at least some of their workers, and 64 percent of workers were covered at their own firm. Many large employers reported having “very broad” provider networks, but many recognized that their largest plan had a narrower network for mental health providers.
Source: John G. Kilgour, Compensation & Benefits Review, OnlineFirst, August 5, 2020
From the abstract:
This article examines the funding of public pension plans through 2019. Particular attention is paid to the impact of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Standard No. 68. It addressed (1) discount rates, (2) amortization periods, (3) asset valuation and smoothing, and (4) the actuarial cost method used. The combined effect of these measures has been to increase the amount of public pension underfunding significantly. The actuarial funded ratio of the 126 plans in the Public Plans Database went from 101.9 in 2001 to 71.9 in 2019, on the eve of the COVID-19 recession. It will no doubt continue to worsen in the years ahead. The extent of that likely worsening is also explored.
Source: Laura D. Quinby, Geoffrey T. Sanzenbacher, State and Local Government Review, OnlineFirst, Published August 7, 2020
From the abstract:
Many state and local governments have responded to financial challenges facing their pension systems by cutting benefits or by shifting costs to employees. Will these changes make it harder for state and local governments to recruit highly skilled workers? This study explores this question by linking individual-level data from the Current Population Survey on worker transitions between the private and public sectors to measures of state and local pension generosity from the Public Plans Database. The results suggest that state and local employers with relatively generous pensions are better able to recruit high-wage workers from the private sector, but that this advantage is lost as workers are asked to contribute more from current paychecks to prefund those benefits. The findings help inform an ongoing debate over the role that state and local pensions play in shaping the public workforce.