CVS to employees: “Get on the scale or pay.”

By Kimberly April 20, 2013 benefits, healthcare reform 2 Comments

 CVS

By now you’ve probably heard about CVS pharmacy asking its employees to have their doctor complete a voluntary health screening (Health Risk Assessment) by May 2014 or they’ll be required to pay an additional $50 a month for their group health insurance.  Of course many sources have blown this up by saying that CVS wants to get their hot little hands on employees’ health information so they can start firing unhealthy people.

This is an excellent example of how much the media doesn’t know about group healthcare by portraying CVS like the big, bad wolf.   I’ve already written about this topic and if you speak with any insurance broker, they’ll tell you that the process of adding a voluntary Health Risk Assessment to a group health plan isn’t new.  Nor is this an evil plot by CVS to ransack employee health records so they can fire sick people.

Dr. Deborah Peel, a national advocate for patient privacy is quoted saying this process is “technology-enhanced discrimination on steroids.”  Huh?  Surely Dr. Peel is fully aware that this health information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

If you know me, you know that I’m a bit of an HR rebel and don’t mind calling out Corporate America when humans get mistreated in the workplace.  In this case, I’m okay with this decision by CVS because they’re preparing for their own financial survival with the upcoming provisions of Healthcare Reform rolling out in 2014.  Answer this:

Why should any company be forced to pay for an employee’s irresponsible health choices?

Choosing to drive home after happy hour that results in a DUI will ultimately cause auto insurance rates to go up.  Should those who choose not to drink and drive pay higher auto insurance premiums than those who do drink and drive?

Choosing to smoke cigarettes will ultimately cause repeated and ongoing illnesses and doctor visits.  Should those who choose not to smoke pay the same medical insurance premium as those who do smoke?

Choosing not to exercise and eat unhealthy foods can cause obesity that can result in various diseases and increased health issues.  Should those who choose to take care of their body pay the same medical premium as those who don’t take care of themselves?

It’s no secret that America is unhealthy and we are all paying for it.  We have an obesity epidemic with one out of every three adults being obese.  In an attempt to attack this, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the well-known Let’s Move program to combat childhood obesity.  New York’s Mayor Bloomberg was unsuccessful in trying to ban 16 ounce sodas from being sold.  The reason was because this is considered an issue of “personal responsibility.”

But what if there isn’t any personal responsibility?  Will a hit in the wallet entice people to be responsible?  Who knows.  But to borrow Einstein’s words:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What is certain is that our society cannot continue on this unhealthy and expensive path.

Rant over.  Back to CVS.

The Health Risk Assessments that are issued to employees are done by a third party — not the employer, the insurance carrier or the insurance broker.  The content and health information is never shared — with anyone.  So the notion that CVS will have access to this information and use it to fire unhealthy workers is ridiculous.  The third party companies who administer this process aren’t interested in getting involved in litigation and take precautions to ensure this medical information stays protected — as they should.

But here’s where the challenge lies:  can the assessments be formulated in a way to determine if someone’s poor health is due to bad choices or just bad DNA?

I reached out to a good friend and colleague, Bill Stedman, who is a producer with Trion.  He agreed that the Health Risk Assessment would only be the tip of the iceberg to address this issue.  To get more accurate information, the process would need to evolve to a blood draw to take the health assessment further.

During our conversation, Bill raised another good point.  Instead of charging employees more for not completing the health assessment, why not charge them less for completing the assessment?  Trion is working diligently to keep clients informed of each new provision and how it impacts organizations and employees.

Overall, we agreed that the worlds of group employer insurance and individual employee health will be colliding in a very intricate way over the upcoming months and years.

Are you ready?

I’m an HR hater today

By Kimberly February 15, 2013 Career

I was having a quiet morning minding my own business when I stumbled across the SHRM Facebook page and saw the following question:

“HR Pros:  What’s the one thing a job applicant should NOT to do in a job interview? We will share your best answers in the SHRM Blog!”

After reading many of the comments, it was embarrassing to be included in a profession that had the word “HUMAN” in it.  While we all know that personal biases exist, isn’t it one of the primary roles of HR professionals to put aside biases and interview someone to determine their ability to do the job?

If HR is the first point of contact for job seekers, the poor schmucks interviewing with some of these folks don’t have a chance of ever seeing a hiring manager.

Here are some of the things these HR professionals listed that candidates should NOT do on an interview.

  • don’t mention interviewing at other places.
    Why not? You might have a stellar candidate on your hands.  
  • sit up straight.
    Thanks mom.
  • never ask about the salary.
    No it’s much better to waste everyone’s time instead.
  • don’t yawn.
    Maybe you’re boring.
  • don’t ask how long the interview will take.
    Forget the fact that maybe the candidate has to catch a train or bus to get home.
  • don’t be tense.
    Tell that to the job seeker who’s been out of work for months.
  • don’t roll your eyes at the interviewer’s questions.
    Right because you wouldn’t dream of asking uninteresting, canned questions.
  • don’t provide short answers.
    There’s this new thing out now — it’s called “follow up questions.”
  • don’t show up on time because being early is “on time” and being on time is “late”.
    I can’t say what I really want to say about this here.
  • don’t reschedule the interview for another time.
    Sorry that your kid was puking all night or you woke up to a flat tire — you are OUT! 
  • don’t touch your face.
    Just wiggle your nose if you have an itch, that’ll be less distracting.
  • don’t invade my personal space.
    And that is where? 
  • don’t talk negatively about a prior employer under any circumstances.
    Bad stuff happens and there is a difference between an emotional rant and providing honest facts about a prior negative experience.  It happens everyday and interviewers know that.

The list went on and on.  If these people were ruling out candidates because of these reasons, it’s no wonder career advisors always urge job seekers to bypass HR.  This is also a good example of why recruiters aren’t crazy about working with HR.

On the flip side, there were some excellent comments that job seekers should pay attention to.  Some were pretty funny so I included them too.

  • don’t answer or look at your cell phone.
    It’s rude. Don’t put it on vibrate, turn if off.
  • don’t bring your mother.
    Enough said.
  • don’t bring your children.
    Same as above.  If you’re stuck for child care, reschedule.
  • don’t answer the questions with a bag of puppets.
    While I find it creative and funny, I don’t think it will score points unless you’re interviewing for a puppeteer gig.
  • don’t wear flip flops.
    Well, unless you’re told to.
  • don’t list God as a reference.
    Um, right. 
  • don’t drop the F-bomb.
    Do that after you’re hired.
  • don’t wear fragrance.
    It’s distracting from the conversation.

Job seekers are people — human beings — not robots.  Good and bad life events happen around us every day.  Recognize that.

If you work in HR, please — I beg you — learn about empathy.  It just might be you sitting in that candidate seat one day.

Bring it.

10 years in your current role? You’re stale.

By Kimberly December 5, 2012 Career

And stagnant.  Your resume probably reads like a job description.

When recruiters and hiring managers stop being human, they’ll stop having biases.  Biases are all over the place, legal and illegal — we just don’t know about them.

My biases are centered on wanting to see candidates who have gotten bored in their roles and made the choice to move on.  Not because they were laid off and had to move on.  I’m looking for the folks who are hungry to do more — striving to be that rock-star with an organization.  (I broke my own rule there — I hate the word “rock-star.”  Sorry ’bout that.)

Now if you’ve spent 10 years with the same organization but have progressed within the company and held different roles — that’s good to see!  Please read carefully:

When you don’t step out of your comfort zone, you don’t grow. Period, end of story.

When you get too comfy in a job, that’s all it is — a job.  You show up for work every day, do what’s expected of you, don’t make waves and your bills get paid.  It’s all good.

Or is it?

It just shows that you can do what many Americans are already doing every day.  But as a prospective hiring manager I’ll take the liberty of stealing Ms. Jackson’s lyrics and ask you, “What have you done for me lately?“   Or what have you done for your current organization that you can bring to mine?  Can you show what your accomplishments are?  If you can, you’re on track.

You’re only as good as your last gig and the accomplishments under your belt within that gig.

Am I condoning job hopping?  No.  And my definition of job hopping might be different from yours.  I view job hopping as folks who change jobs within a one-year period.  I think people who change jobs every 2 to 3 years is a good sign.

Here’s why different job experiences are good for you:

  • You’re exposed to different working styles and personalities of several managers and co-workers.  
    This comes in handy when navigating the waters of corporate politics — which you will encounter at some point.
  • It’s good for your self-esteem and will keep you sharp within your industry. 
    When you bring your awesome talent to a new organization, you bring fresh eyes and new ideas.  They’ll appreciate that and you’ll feel valued because you’ll be valued.
  • Varied workplace environments give you the best education — experience. 
    You can be in the same occupation and industry but it doesn’t mean that every company does the same thing in the same way.  They don’t.  Learning new ways of doing your work and being more productive is always something you can build on with a new organization.  Staying at one place too long puts you in a silo and you risk being viewed as not being flexible or easily adaptable to change.  It’s no secret in business that the only thing that stays the same is CHANGE.
  • You can decide what types of companies you like to work in.
    Do you like big corporate organizations or do you prefer smaller companies?  Being exposed to several organizations that have different protocols will allow you to continue learning.  And while some employees never catch a glimpse of their company’s CEO, others can mosey on in to their CEO’s office and chat about the weekend.  You decide which one fits you best.
  • This goes for CEOs too. 
    Just because you’re the head honcho doesn’t mean you don’t get stale.  You do.  You can ride on the coattails of a successful project for only so long before you’ll be looked upon to come up with the company’s next big thing.  My personal bias is that CEOs should be flushed out every 5 to 7 years just for the perspective of bringing fresh eyes to the table.

Bring it.

 

 

Don’t spend time on fluff please

By Kimberly April 19, 2012 Career

While reading my LinkedIn updates, a discussion grabbed my attention.  An HR professional (15 years of experience) was asking peers for ideas on how to offer preferred parking spots to employees via a lottery.

Really?  My immediate thought was I couldn’t believe someone was spending time crowdsourcing this and that they actually needed help figuring this out!   This is exactly the stuff that keeps the negative stigma about the uselessness of HR sticking.

So I threw it up on Facebook for some opinions.

Several colleagues and of course there were a few funnies — like maybe she should bring in a third-party lottery expert or do an employee survey on parking.

There were a few comments that led to a consensus that perhaps “perk management” was a part of her role.  If that’s the case, why isn’t it incorporated into the company’s total rewards program and handled once a year?

The troubling part of this was that an HR veteran is spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out a process for “perk management.”  This is exactly the stuff that sets HR back 20 years to the days of being a taskmaster for “fluff management”.

What do you think?

 

Bash HR? Be Uninformed.

By Kimberly Roden April 14, 2010 Career

It seems there’s no shortage of HR bashing or critical comments about the value of HR lately.  I really enjoy the articles from the academic community who have never worked in an HR capacity at any level.

The article that fired me up was Company Says You Should Thank Us, Employees Barf. The gist of the article was that benefit statements were mailed to employees’ homes.  One of the points raised was that employees felt their intelligence was insulted because they can figure out this information for themselves, thank you very much.  In addition, because the final number of the “hidden salary“ was displayed in the document in bold and a larger font than the rest of the document, employees felt there was an underlying “you should be thankful you work here” message.  The exact word describing this document was “propaganda.”  Since HR generated and mailed the document, then it would be suitable to kill the messenger.  The thought that’s left with the reader is that by sending the benefits statements to employees, HR was attempting a global schmooze before revealing their sinister plan of… well, something bad.  Because these employees were just too smart, HR’s schmooze attempt had failed.

Recruiters complain about HR — there are webinars and blog posts for job seekers on how to get the attention of a hiring manager and avoid HR.  Although I agree with networking processes for jobseekers to communicate directly with hiring managers, using words, like “avoid” just pushes HR deeper into a negative stereotype.

Take this example:  A young professional is introduced to HR during their onboarding and become acclimated with relevant issues related to their employment as well as the goals and mission of the organization.  Outside of meetings and hallway greetings, the next time this person encounters HR is when a new group health plan is being introduced to the organization and, by the way, the rates have gone up and the benefits have been decreased.  In addition, if this person is part of a downsizing or disciplinary investigation, or even knows someone who has been, they know that HR is involved.  It doesn’t matter how well HR carries out these actions — they can be life altering and destructive to a human being.  Our young professional’s only memorable reflections about HR are negative actions and events.

If you’re an HR hater, open your mind and understand there are parts of the role you’ll never know about that often require timely reactionary measures – I like to call it the “clean-up” crew and it usually involves managers who shirk their own leadership responsibilities to their employees.  Although it’s best to be proactive, working with humans does not always permit that luxury so there’s a lot of listening coupled with empathy and objectivity.   In the end, it can be a very gratifying experience to improve the communication between employees and managers so that everyone plays nice in the sandbox.

The final thought is that HR does not sit around making unilateral, company-wide decisions on ways to demean or placate employees with things like benefit statements.  Most company-wide initiatives are made in collaboration with the CEO.  The CEO then delegates the execution of the initiative to HR – that’s called Management 101.  It may not always be the most rewarding part of the job, but it’s part of the job.

Feel free to share your thoughts.