Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

March 2013

YOUNGER WORKERS, OLDER WORKERS – WHO’S SAFER?

By Workplace Safety

With the workforce aging and people retiring later than ever, Workers Compensation experts have been concerned that older workers are more prone than their younger counterparts to suffer expensive injuries. However, new research from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) contradicts this conventional wisdom,

After studying the rate at which different age groups suffer injuries, NCCI concluded that, although there is a substantial cost difference between younger and older workers, the split doesn’t lie where you might expect. Workers between 20 and 24 create much lower costs (and fewer days out), but once they reach 35, the costs of their injuries are very similar. These results redefine an “older worker” as someone who grew up listening to Pearl Jam, as well as Elvis.

The bottom line: Your workplace safety program should focus on reducing injury costs for all employees, regardless of age, by following these steps:

  1. Develop a written job description for all positions.
  2. Give job candidates a “conditional offer of employment” that’s contingent on their physical or mental ability to do the job.
  3. Have candidates take a pre-placement medical questionnaire, which allows a physician to ask relevant questions that will let you know if they’re fit for the job
  4. Once employees are on the job, make sure that they do their work properly. Unsafe acts in the workplace cause far more injuries than unsafe working conditions. That’s because employees who feel pressured to meet deadlines are more likely to ignore safety guidelines – leading to preventable accidents.

For more information on creating, implementing, and enforcing a comprehensive workplace safety program, please feel free to get in touch with us at any time.

YOUNGER WORKERS, OLDER WORKERS – WHO’S SAFER?

By Workplace Safety

With the workforce aging and people retiring later than ever, Workers Compensation experts have been concerned that older workers are more prone than their younger counterparts to suffer expensive injuries. However, new research from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) contradicts this conventional wisdom,

After studying the rate at which different age groups suffer injuries, NCCI concluded that, although there is a substantial cost difference between younger and older workers, the split doesn’t lie where you might expect. Workers between 20 and 24 create much lower costs (and fewer days out), but once they reach 35, the costs of their injuries are very similar. These results redefine an “older worker” as someone who grew up listening to Pearl Jam, as well as Elvis.

The bottom line: Your workplace safety program should focus on reducing injury costs for all employees, regardless of age, by following these steps:

  1. Develop a written job description for all positions.
  2. Give job candidates a “conditional offer of employment” that’s contingent on their physical or mental ability to do the job.
  3. Have candidates take a pre-placement medical questionnaire, which allows a physician to ask relevant questions that will let you know if they’re fit for the job
  4. Once employees are on the job, make sure that they do their work properly. Unsafe acts in the workplace cause far more injuries than unsafe working conditions. That’s because employees who feel pressured to meet deadlines are more likely to ignore safety guidelines – leading to preventable accidents.

For more information on creating, implementing, and enforcing a comprehensive workplace safety program, please feel free to get in touch with us at any time.

WORKERS COMP CLAIMS; THE BEST DEFENSE IS A STRONG OFFENSE

By Workplace Safety

When you’re fighting a questionable Workers Compensation claim in court, you’ll need to base your defense on a strong administrative foundation.

Effective workplace policies and procedures should include – at a minimum:

  • legally compliant application for hire. What kind of information are you getting from the individual? Do you do background checks? Have you asked the right questions? Do you have enough good information about this individual on the application to help defend yourself, if needed?
  • Legally compliant interview process. Recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act mean that you’ll need to be careful during job interviews in asking questions about intoxication, for example.
  • Post-offer/pre-placement medical exam. Are you using these to look for drug use? Do you meet state or federal requirements? Do you have quality policies and procedures to enforce these standards?
  • Legally enforceable drug-screen program. Does your program comply with state and federal regulations? Can you require workers to take a drug screening after an injury? What are the permissible levels of intoxication?

In addition, having effective descriptions and job function analyses will help you in three ways:

  1. They work well in the initial hiring process because you can give them to the individual and define the job is to avoid misunderstandings – this will help filter out people who are not well suited for the job.
  2. You can give them to a doctor who can determine suitability to perform the job after an injury.
  3. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you can determine what restrictions a disabled employee might need, and whether this person can perform the essential functions of the job.

Our Workers Compensation specialists stand ready to offer their advice at any time.

LUMP-SUM PENSION PAYOUTS: PROS AND CONS

By Employment Resources

Last year, companies such as Ford, GM, and NCR Corp. gave their workers the option of converting their monthly pension benefits (annuities) into a lump-sum cash payment.

Look for more and more businesses of all sizes to follow in their footsteps, for a number of reasons.

A recent change to a federal pension funding reform law allows employers to use higher interest rates in calculating total benefit payouts, which reduces the size of the lump sum they offer. A series of IRS “private letter rulings” have permitted individual employers to convert their annuities into a lump sum within a specified period.

Lump sum payments reduce the size of the benefits obligation, as well as the financial risks of changing investment results that can make it hard for employers to predict future pension plan contributions. The smaller the plan, the smaller its assets, the lower the fees paid to investment managers. A reduction in plan assets and number of participants will also help lower overhead expenses — offsetting an increase in the annual base premium per participant from the current $35 to $48 by 2014.

On the other hand, converting from annuity payments to lump sum payouts can mean increased expenses. For example, employers will need to track down participants who have earned a benefit and left the business, but aren’t yet entitled to their annuity. What’s more, federal law requires a company pension plan to be at least 80% funded before it can offer lump sum payouts — which mean that some firms will have to pick up the cost for raising their plan funding level to this standard.

Do lump-sum pension payouts make financial sense for your business? Our benefits consultants would be glad to offer their professional advice at any time.