Data & Research August 27, 2024

Compensation Gap Widens Between Companies, Workers

A growing disparity exists between employee expectations and the salary and support companies plan to provide, according to a new survey and a hiring expert.

Reported by

The latest findings from a survey conducted by recruitment consultancy Robert Walters Inc. highlighted a widening gap between employee expectations and what companies are prepared to offer in terms of salary, benefits and overall support. Meanwhile, there is also a growing disconnect between employees’ remote and in-office expectations and what employers are willing to offer, according to separate research and a workplace staffing expert.

Only 16% of employees feel their compensation fully reflects their qualifications, according to the Robert Walter survey group of 3,000 professionals. Beyond pay, many workers feel under-resourced in their roles, with 53% reporting they do not have the staffing or resources necessary to perform their jobs effectively.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

To maximize the impact of benefits and to stand out in the employment offer, Sean Puddle, Robert Walters New York’s managing director, recommends employers ensure their 401(k) offerings include competitive company matching contributions, customizable plan options and employer-funded contribution.

“401(k) benefits are increasingly seen as a standard part of a competitive benefits package,” says Puddle. “However, they can still be a powerful tool in attracting and retaining top talent if they are well-designed and communicated effectively.”

When dealing with a younger workforce or situations in which 401(k) benefits are just part of baseline expectations, employers should consider pairing them with other benefits that align with their workforce’s needs and preferences, suggests Puddle. Such benefits can include a wider compensation package, career development opportunities, company culture, wellness programs or flexible work arrangements.

“Communication and education are also key,” he says. “Employers who effectively communicate the benefits of a 401(k) and provide education on the importance of retirement planning can turn a standard offering into a more compelling incentive.”

Budget Constraints

The Robert Walters report also pointed to significant challenges on the employer side of the equation, particularly concerning budget constraints. Financial pressures have forced 71% of U.S. employers to hire underqualified candidates who may lack the necessary skills or experience for their positions, according to a panel of more than 500 employers.

Nearly half (48%) of that group cited budget limitations as the primary reason for their inability to attract the right talent, while 70% acknowledged that their compensation packages are not competitive in the current market.

As a result, many companies are finding themselves in a bind, the consultants noted. While 81% of employers recognize the need to hire better-qualified candidates to alleviate burnout and improve employee morale, the budget to do so is not available. Instead, some 37% of businesses are opting to invest in training programs to help underqualified new hires develop necessary skills.

This reliance on less-experienced employees is having a direct impact on workplace culture. In responding to the survey, 80% of current employees reported increased stress levels due to the influx of unqualified new hires. In many cases, these hires require additional time and resources diverted from their colleagues to get up to speed, placing an added burden on already overstretched teams, according to the survey.

Recruitment budget is also making it harder to get employees back to the office after a surge in remote work during the pandemic. Employees with experience working remotely are asking for an average of a 31% increase in salary to return to a fully in-office work environment, according to a separate study published by staffing firm Howdy, which polled only employees who self-identified as hybrid or remote workers. Additionally, the report found those employees are willing to accept on average a $7,728 pay cut to maintain their remote work lifestyle. 

Return-to-Office

Offering money as an incentive to return to the office is not a realistic option for many companies, notes Christina Cavalli, the chief human resources officer at Docupace. She says HR professionals should try to create experiences that are collaborative and worthwhile.

“From team meals to skills training, look to introduce activities that are motivating and encourage strengthening trust and team building,” she says. “Sometimes, just giving people meaningful reasons to be in the office, like a creative team session or networking with leadership, makes a big difference too.”

Cavalli recommends a hybrid work policy to offer employees more flexibility, a tactic implemented by many companies after the pandemic. However, Howdy’s study found that the mix of remote and in-office work isn’t a popular alternative for many workers. 

A majority of hybrid and remote employees (68%) preferred to work fully remote, with only 20% opting for a remote-first hybrid setup. Just 11% of hybrid and remote employees were satisfied with a traditional hybrid model, and a mere 1% wanted to be fully in-office.

Meanwhile, Howdy found that companies have steered away from hiring for remote positions, as 29% reported difficulty hiring quality remote workers in the U.S.

If companies must stick to recruiting for remote positions, hiring managers can start by refining the recruitment process, says Cavalli. She suggests advertising on specialized remote job boards and focusing on candidates with proven remote experience. 

“It’s important to look for people with strong communication and time management skills,” she says. “Also, setting remote employees up for success through solid onboarding and regular support can make a big difference.”

The findings from Robert Walters drew responses from 3,000 professionals, including both employers and white-collar employees, in July. Howdy’s report was conducted in June, surveying 502 employees who self-identified as either hybrid or remote workers.

Compliance August 27, 2024

‘Emerging’ Health Plan Litigation Signals Need for Plan Adviser Diligence

A Wells Fargo health plan lawsuit is a reminder for plan advisers and sponsors to carefully consider and document their health plan decisionmaking.

Reported by
Art by Klaas Verplancke
‘Emerging’ Health Plan Litigation Signals Need for Plan Adviser Diligence

In recent years, retirement plan advisers and ERISA attorneys have often discussed the potential for a rise in litigation related to health care plan fees. At the end of July, a complaint filed against Wells Fargo & Co. regarding its health benefits plan added another data point.

“This is the latest in an emerging series of lawsuits that center around whether employers are doing enough to contain health and pharmacy plan costs,” wrote Jess Hansen of OneDigital in a recent company blog post, noting another recent lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson regarding two of its employer-sponsored health plans.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Hansen, a senior employee benefits attorney in compliance services, says in a separate response to PLANADVISER that the cases are relevant to retirement plan advisers who are already familiar with working in a highly litigated, tightly regulated environment.

“Retirement plan advisers play a crucial role in ensuring plan sponsors are aware that ERISA fiduciary duties extend beyond retirement plans to include health plans as well,” says Hansen via email. “With plaintiff attorneys increasingly shifting their focus toward health plans, particularly in scrutinizing fees and fiduciary responsibilities, it’s essential for sponsors to proactively address these responsibilities before they become targets of litigation.”

As Hansen notes, regulation of the cost of employer-sponsored health care plans was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Those regulations included making plan fiduciaries responsible for price shopping for the best health plan for employees; requirements to report drug pricing and pharmaceutical information to government regulators; and the monitoring of the direct and indirect compensation received by health industry broker/dealers.

Next Wave

In a recent paper, “Health Plan Fee Litigation: The Next Wave Of ERISA Litigation?,” an insurance claims expert and ERISA attorneys from Groom Law compared the first plaintiffs’ bar forays into health plan lawsuits to the fall of 2006, when the law firm then called Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP filed a series of class action lawsuits alleging excessive fees being charged by retirement plans.

“The initial tranche of lawsuits targeted employers sponsoring billion-dollar plans, but the litigation subsequently moved downstream to smaller, public, private and not-for-profit employer plans,” wrote Neil Morrison, assistance vice president of commercial management liability claims at Sompo International; and Groom Law Group’s Lars Golumbic, a principal and litigation co-chair; and Groom’s Kara Petteway Wheatley, a principal and women’s initiative co-chair, in a July paper published by Mealey’s Litigation Report.

The authors went on to argue that there are “clear indications that another, related wave of litigation is now on the way—this time targeting employer plan sponsors of self-funded health plans.”

The recent lawsuit, Navarro v. Wells Fargo & Co., was brought by lead law firms Gustafson Gluek PLLC and Fairmark Partners LLP, while Lewandowski v. Johnson and Johnson, et al., was also led by Fairmark Partners.

The plaintiffs in Navarro allege that Wells Fargo’s plan fiduciaries agreed to pay its pharmacy benefits manager a higher price for generic drugs than what was available on the market. They also claim the result was the plan itself paying higher fees and participants and beneficiaries paying more in the form of increased premiums and out-of-pocket costs. The plaintiffs further allege that Wells Fargo paid too much in administrative fees compared with similar plans.

Wells Fargo did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

In Lewandowski, the plaintiffs also allege a breach of fiduciary duties due to the price paid to Johnson & Johnson’s health care PBM for generic drugs. That complaint also notes that Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical manufacturer and alleges that its mismanagement led to millions in higher payments, premiums, deductibles, co-insurance and other areas.

Johnson & Johnson did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

OneDigital’s Hansen says such litigation is “is not just a passing issue—it’s a growing trend.”

Handle with Care

Plan advisers, Hansen says, should be leveraging their experience operating under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to communicate and educate plan sponsors about treating health plans with the same rigor and care.

“The core responsibilities—acting in the best interest of participants and beneficiaries, exercising prudence, and adhering to plan documents—are consistent across both health and retirement plans,” Hansen says. “As plaintiff attorneys continue to explore health plan-related claims, advisers should use this trend as an opportunity to educate clients, helping them enhance their benefit plans and mitigate potential legal exposure.”

Hansen noted in his blog post that litigation is not always limited to the plan sponsors, but can also point to ERISA fiduciaries as responsible for plan decisions and management.

In the wake of the Wells Fargo lawsuit, Hansen suggested the following next steps for plan fiduciaries:

  • Review ERISA’s fiduciary requirements;
  • Ensure plan fiduciaries are following the terms of their plan documents; and
  • Frequently conduct plan and participant fee reviews.

«

You have reached your limit of two free articles

Visit Homepage | Login | Subscribe