“2020 is just another year of chaos,” BAN’s Executive Director, Perry Braun said at the 2020 Workplace Benefits Renaissance conference. “If you want to be in the employee benefits space and advise employees, you should be packaging technology within the benefits framework.”
Category: Press / News
Money Talks: 5 Compensation Trends to Watch in 2020
Published by SHRM on January 2, 2020, with input from Perry Braun
As a new decade begins, employee-compensation specialists shared their expectations. Below are five trends that pay-watchers predict will gain ground in 2020 and beyond.
No. 1: States will continue to set their own compensation mandates.
On minimum wage and overtime requirements, “more states feel emboldened to establish their own direction and set their own policies that stretch beyond the policies established by the federal government,” said Perry Braun, executive director of the Benefit Advisors Network (BAN), a consortium of health and welfare benefit brokers. “Many states today have wage and labor laws that are richer than federal guidelines,” and more states are likely to follow these trendsetters, Braun said.
This trend will continue no matter which party leads the White House, House of Representatives or Senate after 2020, he predicted. “Governors feel emboldened by the actions of their peers to go beyond the guidance, policies or laws established by the federal government and believe that their local policies are in the best interest of their local citizens.”
Final Rule Released – U. S. Department of Labor
White-Collar Exemption and Overtime
Reporting that 1.3 million workers will now become eligible for overtime pay, the Department of Labor (DOL) has released its final rule to update the exemption requirements of the Executive, Administrative and Professional Employee (EAP) as well as Highly Compensation Executive (HCE) classifications.
After overcoming many hurdles, injunction enjoined and invalidation, the DOL released its final rules yesterday with an effective date of January 1, 2020. Additionally, the 2016 final rule that was declared invalid by the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been rescinded by the DOL.
Settling below the original published salary level and just slightly higher than the most recently proposed the DOL raised the nation’s exempt salary threshold from $455 per week/$23,660 annually to $684 per week/$35,568 annually. As a reminder, this is the first time since 2004 that the salary level has been increased. As previously published, these newest final regulations do not include any adjustment to the standard duties test for these “White Collar” Exemptions.
There are also no changes in overtime rules for Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Paramedics, Nurses, Laborers including non-management and production line employees, and non-management in maintenance, construction, and similar occupations. However, new or “special” salary levels have been released for both employees in the motion picture industry and certain U. S. territories.
Additionally, the new regulations will increase the salary threshold for certain HCEs from $100,000 to $107,000. It is important for employers to note that an HCE must be paid at least the weekly standard salary amount of $684.00 without nondiscretionary bonus, incentive pay or commissions. Non-discretionary bonus, incentive pay, or commission may be counted toward the annual salary requirement of $107,000.00.
Employers will still be able to use a nondiscretionary bonus, incentive pay, or commissions to satisfy up to 10% of the standard salary level for EAP classifications and as previously stated for meeting the annual salary requirement for HCEs. These payments must be paid annually or on a more frequent basis in order to be eligible. A one-time “catch-up payment of up to 10% of the total standard salary level may be made within one pay period of the end of the 52-week pay period for those employees who have not earned enough to maintain their exempt status. This makeup payment only counts toward the previous 52-week salary amount and not for the salary in the year that it was paid.
I continue to promote that the following actions steps can help employers determine the impact on their organization and encourage that they should be promptly initiated for the effective date of January 1, 2020:
- Identify employees currently classified as exempt who will fail the new salary test.
- Model potential costs based on possible response (e.g. raise pay to new threshold level, reclassify as nonexempt and pay overtime, or lower pay to offset overtime requirement).
- Review job descriptions and tasks of impacted positions to determine if certain exempt tasks and responsibilities may be reassigned or maintained with the current position.
- Consider how pay changes or other changes in job assignments may impact your organization (e.g., pay compression with next level, supervisory career paths).
- Develop administrative implementation plans including payroll and HRIS systems, in order to ensure compliance and maintain compliance with the three-year automatic update provisions.
If employers find that certain positions no longer meet the standards set out in the white-collar exemption, they are required to either (1) readjust duties and compensations to re-qualify their employee or, (2) the position(s) need to be reclassified as non-exempt and the employee(s) are required to receive overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.
Misclassifications in these white-collar exemption’s categories happen often. As employers apply the final salary guidelines, also know that salary level is just one criterion for exemption from overtime. The standards duties test can be hard to apply especially for administrative and lower-level management positions. These positions typically carry non-exempt duties and can be difficult to classify as exempt duties with the confines of the DOL regulations. Since, these groups consistently average over 40 hours a workweek – pushing upwards of 50- 60 hours, employers will need to ensure that the positions are correctly categorized as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA applying both the salary threshold and the standard duties test.
Penalties for misclassification of employees range from recovery of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages. The DOL may also litigate and recommend criminal prosecution. Employers who willfully violate or repeatedly violate the wage laws (Fair Labor Standards Act) may be assessed civil monetary penalties and more for child labor violations. Employees who file a complaint or who participate in a claim are also protected from retaliation.
Employers should also continue to monitor Wage and Hour laws as the DOL aims to update the salary requirements on a more frequent basis. This has been written into the final rules with the DOL using the notice and comment rule-making procedure.
Is the Worksite Disrupting our Employees’ Emotional Wellbeing?
Written by Bobbi Kloss, Director of Human Capital Management Services, Benefit Advisors Network. Published in the August/September issues of Los Angeles Advertising Human Resources Professionals and Entertainment Human Resources Network.
Mindfulness, employee engagement, employer of choice and holistic wellness are all relatively new adjectives being used to describe a 21st Century workplace culture. An employer can have a considerable amount of control when implementing marketplace solutions for creating these positive environments conducive to attracting and retaining employees (i.e. robust compensation package, an onboarding process, and communication tools). What though can an employer do to support a positive workplace culture when its own workplace behaviors are creating “high impact life events” for employees?
High impact life events differ from everyday life events that we as a general population rarely give a second thought to. We get up, we go to work. If the car has a flat tire, we stop and put air in the tire; we run out of milk, we make an extra grocery store stop. We move through our daily routines almost mechanically.
High impact life events are another story. When a high impact life event occurs, whether they be a joyous occasion or a somber event, they not only disrupt our daily routine, but an event can stop us dead in our tracks and affect us physically, financially and in many instances, emotionally. Many of these high impact life events take place outside of the workplace yet can bring disruption into the workplace when we as an employee attempt to navigate through the circumstances i.e. loss of a loved one, an unexpected illness, even those happy occasions such as marriage or the birth or adoption of a child. Any of these situations can cause stress, “a response of our body to any demand for change” to occur.
The workplace can even be the instigator of high impact life events, for example, events such as a loss of a job, failure to get a promotion, discrimination in the workplace, workplace bullying, unsafe
working conditions, unclear and inconsistent supervisor communication and directives, having too many responsibilities but little authority or control to… [Read the entire article]
The 10th Amendment’s Impact on Employee Benefits Today
Written by Perry Braun, Executive Director, Benefit Advisors Network. Published July 11, 2019 on ThinkAdvisor.com.
Maybe, over the next few years, states will have more influence over how your world works.
Remember that civics class you had to take in high school? If so, you might recall that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
This is the main principle of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. And for approximately 240 years, there has been a healthy tension between the states and federal government with respect to the authority and role of each.
(Related: How Health Policy Could Wobble (Forward?) Now)
A review of history teaches us that the founding fathers struggled with the tension that exists between states’ rights and a federal government. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both advocates for small and limited federal government. Both feared that a large central government would be too close to a monarchy. Alexander Hamilton, whom many suspected of being a monarchist at heart, favored a larger central government. Hamilton feared local democracy because it would allow control by the “masses.”
Since its ratification in 1791 there has always been issues between states’ rights and federal authority. However, over the past 10 years, the tension between the states and federal government has risen dramatically. We are now witnessing the impact of this tension on many policy issues, from sanctuary cities and immigration to health policy (Medicaid, Affordable Care Act) and pro-life/pro-choice policies.
How is this relevant to the employee benefits industry?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is illustrative. The federal government enacted a broad law imposing many new requirements on both individuals and states. Many states resisted the implementation of key elements of the ACA and sued in federal courts to either stop or limit the implementation. On one key issue the states were successful: the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA, which punished states for not adopting the federal rule by reducing other federal money.
Ruling with the 10th Amendment in mind, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the federal government is not permitted to “put a gun to the head” of the states to achieve federally mandated results.
The Supreme Court held that states could elect to participate in Medicaid expansion but could not be forced to do so. As a result of that decision (and other similar decisions), during the 10 years that have passed since the law was enacted, the ACA has been, in some observers’ eyes, significantly watered down, resulting in a divergence in implementing (or not implementing) key components of the law at the state level. For example, some states have refused to implement the Medicaid expansion requirements, and some have expanded the eligibility of individuals to participate in Medicaid. Other states took an active interest in the development and introduction of insurance exchanges, while others participated at the absolute bare minimum.
When signed into law, the ACA represented a significant expansion of the federal government into areas that have traditionally been left to… [Read the full article]