Here’s one that’s recently been adopted at the publishing company where I work: a progam called “See something good, say something good.”  It’s a way for employees to bring positive attention to things that their co-workers, managers and the company’s different departments do well. 

How it works: The company provides colorful index cards, placing them conspicuously in several commonly traveled areas in the building. When employees and supervisors want to publically recognize someone else’s efforts, they can grab a card and fill it out. It takes very little time.

When the index card is filled out, the employee drops it into a wrapped box (there are two in the building). The boxes are later collected and the cards displayed in a room the company uses periodically for meetings, presentations and quarterly employee appreciation events.

In order to build awareness and participation in “Say Something Good,” management put up fliers around the building, so people from every department can see them, as well as visitors and job applicants who’ve come in for interviews.

The program, which was originally thought up by the head of our product marketing division, doesn’t cost anything apart from the cost of the index cards and paper. There’s minimal administration time, and it takes employees only a moment or two to fill out a card on a fellow employee’s behalf. 

But the return is tremendous, and the recognition possibilities are endless. It’s a good way to boost morale, encourage productivity and differentiate the company culture from work environments where the negative things seem to get the lion’s share of the attention.

But should you tackle this issue aggressively or trust your employees to do the right thing?  Every employer wants to create an environment where employees feel trusted by management. But there’s also the need to stay protected legally, and it isn’t always easy to balance the two.

The cell phone issue is particularly delicate since most employees carry them nowadays, and improper use at work is a non-issue for the vast majority. But there are always a few bad apples in every bunch.

Growing number of complaints

There has been an explosion of lawsuits – and complaints to management – about employees taking inappropriate photos at work with their cell phone cameras.

Most cases revolve around embarassing or expliclit photos of co-workers (sometimes but not always posted on the Internet or e-mailed to others in the office). However, a handful of lawsuits have arisen from employees taking photos of confidential documents or other internal information.

As most benefits and HR veterans would tell you, the most valuable benefit an organization can offer its employees is a workplace where they feel trusted and valued. On the other hand, it only takes one “joke” gone too far to stir up a hornet’s nest of trouble. And no firm is immune from this risk.

Three options

One step every employer should take is circulating a memo or having a face-to-face meeting with employees about the need to restrict camera phone use at work, says labor lawyer William Hannum.

This is the time to answer questions and make clear that the policy is a matter of a legal concern, not a case of Big Brother watching over employees’ shoulders. For added legal protection, you may want to create a formal camera phone policy to be written employee handbooks.

Some employers have gone so far as to take the step of banning camera phone (or personal cell phone) use at work and prohibiting people from posting personal photos or videos from company computers. However, these policies are difficult to enforce and run the risk of alienating the majority of employees who use the devices responsibly.

As an alternative, a few firms that have not banned camera phones have had workers sign a policy that gives managers permission to review photos or videos on the phone if there’s a complaint. If you go down either of these routes, remember:

• the policy must be enforced consistently
• your policy must spell out specific steps for filing and investigating a complaint, and
• the policy should clearly spell out the disciplinary steps for violations.

The enforcement aspect is especially tricky. In cases where the phones are company property, employers clearly have the right to control non-work use — which includes requiring employees to turn over the contents stored on the phone in cases of suspected abuse. Employees have no legal expectation of privacy in such cases.  

However, there’s a slippery slope when the phone is an employee’s property. As a rule of thumb, employers generally have the right to inspect the contents as they pertain to alleged inappropriate behavior within the workplace.

Where it gets tricky is dealing with behavior that takes places on the employee’s private time, but overlaps with the workplace (e.g., employees go out socializing at a bar after work, and potentially embarassing camera phone photos get spread around the workplace). Legal experts caution employers to tread very carefully in these cases.

Where does your organization stand?

Does your organization have – or is considering a policy on employee camera phones? Do you think such policies are workable or even appropriate?

In my conversations with attendees at the SHRM conference in Chicago, HR and benefits managers appear to be divided on the issue. 

What’s out: Harping on the message that smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, etc.  Virtually every smoker knows the risks by now. That doesn’t mean you should ignore the issues of smoking and serious health conditions, but it shouldn’t be the only focus.  

What’s in: The employee education trend has moved toward teaching people strategies to overcome the barriers that keep them from quitting.

Common barriers

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality recommends that before smokers try another cessation attempt, they look at past quit attempts – what helped and what led to relapse. Three common relapse triggers:

• social drinking. Many smokers get their strongest cigarette cravings when they’re in social situations that involve drinking alcohol.
• smokers at home. Having other people in the household who smoke in the employee’s presence greatly reduces the chance of a successful quit attempt, and
•  the weaning approach. While some people can quit gradually, those who go cold turkey are usually better off once they get through the first few weeks of discomfort.

Identify non-health benefits

Your employees’ doctors likely already review the health benefits of quitting with their patients.
While it’s good to provide info that supports this message, you may want to make your focus the non-health rewards of quitting.

Example: Show smokers how much money they can save by quitting. Multiply the cost of a pack of cigarettes by the days or weeks of the year. Then add the cost difference between your health plan’s premiums for smokers and non-smokers.

One final step: Encourage people to set a personal “quit date,” preferably within two weeks. Many people respond best to deadlines – even when the deadlines are self-imposed.

Studies show that when it comes to choices about when, where and how to seek out care, most people make emotional decisions, not rational ones.  When people ask their doctors questions about their care, it’s far more likely to fall along the lines of “Will I be OK?” rather than “How much will it cost?”

There’s also a tendency for people to follow their doctor’s recommendations. Think about how long it’s taken to educate employees to ask about the availability of generic drugs and teach them that  generic provide the same benefits as name brands (especially ones that are advertised on TV).

When cost of care does enter into people’s minds, it often arises in ways that employers DON’T want: avoiding care altogether out of fear of not being able to afford out-of-pocket costs (i.e., deductibles).

Most employers are aware of these obstacles. The problem has been overcoming them. Usually the employee education burden falls directly on the shoulders of already overstretched HR/benefits managers.

It used to be that employee education meant teaching employees about the health (and other) benefits available to them and how to access them.  Today, the task also includes the responsibility of teaching folks how to research their own care and interact with their doctors. Finance types rarely appreciate just how difficult this chore really is.    

Sensitive subjects

Here’s an example of the difficulty HR/benefits faces in playing the role of teacher:  When discussing the need for preventive care (one of the hallmarks of consumer-driven healthcare), is it your responsibility to discuss potentially sensitive subjects?

Much like medical benefits themselves, medical practices constantly evolve. In the last couple years, several medical boards and regulatory groups revised their guidelines for preventive healthcare. One of the most controversial changes in the guidelines: providing routine sexually transmitted disease (STD) screenings for adolescents.

Not every carrier has elected to add STD tests as a standard preventive-care benefit for employees’ dependents. But, among others, many Blue Cross plans now provide first-dollar coverage for the screenings.  What should YOUR role be in teaching employees that the benefit is available to their dependents? Do you:

• simply pass the info along, without further context or explanation, in an e-mail or memo?
• rely on employees who need the info to find it in the benefits newsletter the carrier sends out?
• deal with the discomfort of telling employees to talk the sensitive issue over with their teenage kids and their doctors?

Any of these approaches has the potential to backfire. From a purely financial/consumerist point of view, we know that the first two options rarely work.  But what employer wants to risk resentment (or worse) from employees by recommending they tell their teenagers to get tested for STDs?  

Bottom line: It’s easy for the bean counters to stress the cost-saving advantages of preventive care. It’s easy for social advocates to say this sort of education is part of corporate responsibility. These people aren’t the ones who deal directly with your employees.   Frankly, we’d love to see one of THEM volunteer to lead a discussion on  STD screenings at your annual health plan meeting.

According to a World at Work survey, a significant percentage of employers have decided to provide at lease a cost-of-living increase in 2009. Some are going beyond, both as a means of improving productivity and retention as well as being a means to offset recent increases in health-cost shares. 

But with inflation at 3.9% this year and the economy still in a slowdown, many firms find it tough to stretch their budgets. Instead, companies are looking for ways to help employees cut their own expenses, especially commuting costs.

The No. 1 strategy has been an increase in telecommuting and flex-time programs. After years of declining reliance on such programs, there’s been a 40% jump this year in the number of organizations offering flexible schedules, either as an incentive program or a standard method of staffing.

In many cases, these programs are more valuable to employees than cost-of-living raises. The reason, of course, is that there’s been almost a 20% increase in food costs and a 30% increase in the cost gasoline. Offsetting at least some of the gas cost from commuting to work is often worth more in real dollars than a raise — and the money doesn’t have to come out of the employer’s budget.

While there’s no perfect schedule for all employees,  researchers at the Mayo Clinic’s Healthy Living Center have looked at the pros and cons of different exercise routines.

Morning exercise
Morning  exercisers are the most likely to make daily workouts a regular habit. These employees are often more productive during two notorious low ebbs – the start of the workday and shortly before meal breaks.

However, these workers often have a drop-off later in the day. Typical causes: lack of a good night’s sleep and/or starting exercise too early in the morning.

Afternoon exercise
There are numerous medical benefits to afternoon exercise. The most important is regular afternoon exercise has been linked to better sleeping habits and less risk of
late-day loss of energy.

But it’s hard schedule-wise for most firms when workers exercise during the workday. Even if people can only manage a brisk 20-minute walk a few days a week, they get some of the benefits of more intensive workouts.

Evening exercise
While evening exercise is the most convenient for workers and employers schedule-wise, encouraging people to exercise after work has three significant drawbacks:

• Follow-up. People who exercise at night are the least likely to feel “up to it”on a regular basis.
• Sleep patterns. Later exercise can raise adrenaline levels at night, making it tough to sleep, and
• Productivity. There’s little evidence to show evening exercise boosts people’s energy during the workday.

But no matter what time people exercise, they get the same health advantages if they stick to the schedule.

These benchmarks from the Milliman index and EBRI can shed light on where your firm’s cost-sharing arrangement stands against the national averages:

• The average yearly total medical cost for a married employee with two dependent children has climbed to all-time high of $14,400
• Among firms with traditional coverage (PPO, HMO, etc.), employees’ shares of the cost have increased an average 11.4% over the last three plan years
•  Between salary contributions toward premiums, copays and deductibles, employees now pay an average 38% of the total medical cost, and
• Employers fork out $8,909 (62%) toward the total yearly cost of family coverage.

Generic versions of high-cholesterol drug Zocor have been on market for two years now, but a fair share of employer pharmacy plans have yet to make the switch. If your PBM gives generic Zocor favored status on the formulary, now’s a good time to remind employees:

• most people on cholesterol-control meds will get the same therapeutic value from generic Zocor as from the label brand and the more potent – and still patented – Lipitor
•  they can save $10 to $50 (or more, depending on your drug plan design) on their co-pay by switching, but
•  they should ask their doctor first. People with cholesterol levels over 200 and/or family histories of  ultra-high cholesterol may be better off staying on Lipitor.

Reason: It takes four times the amount of a Zocor-type medication  to equal one dose of Lipitor. 

There’s a good chance that your company is paying to insure people who shouldn’t even be on your health plan.

It’s estimated that two-thirds of employers needlessly spend an extra 5% to 15% by carrying ineligible people on their health plan rolls. The problem usually springs up when your insurance company continues to charge you for enrollees who are no longer eligible for coverage but were never removed from the list of enrollees.

The issue often goes undetected until you initiate the steps needed to find and fix it. Insurance companies have no incentive to do anything about it. It’s not costing them money, after all. It’s costing you.

The usual suspects

There are four main groups of people who often manage to fly beneath the radar screen and remain covered under your plan even when they’re no longer eligible:

• ex-employees
• current employees who’ve changed from full- to part-time status
• divorced employees’ ex-spouses, and
• older dependent children.

Each category has its own set of challenges to fix, but that can be done with relatively little pain.

Track ex-worker coverage

Without knowing it, your company may still be paying for doctor’s visits made by ex-employees.
This doesn’t mean former employees who accept COBRA, paying 102% of the premium each month to keep their coverage and offset your administrative costs.

Rather, the concern here is to spot freeloaders, whose insurance cards were never canceled, while your firm continues to foot the bill. This problem happens more often than you may think.

Some firms generously offer to carry certain ex-employees for a certain period of time and then forget to cancel their coverage. But more often, it’s a clerical error by the insurer that goes undetected.

Be certain there’s someone at your company who tracks when people’s coverage period ends: both on the active rolls and on COBRA.

Ask Payroll about part-timers

Depending on the eligibility rules in the plan documents of your health policy, an employee who scales back on his or her hours may become ineligible for coverage under your health plan.

If that’s the case, ask Payroll to run periodic reports on the enrollment status of the folks whose hours have recently dropped. Remember: COBRA applies. But you needn’t pay for part-timers’ ongoing coverage.

Employees slow to report divorce

It’s an unpleasant fact of modern life: half of marriages end in divorce. Unfortunately, there’s often a
spill-over effect on an employer’s health plan after a divorce. Employees often fail to notify their employer about an impending divorce.

As a result, after the divorce, the firm continues to pay for coverage for the ex-spouse. There are two tactics that can help minimize this problem.

1. The “empathetic” approach: Pledge complete confidentiality.
2. The “hard ball” tactic: Add a spousal surcharge to employees’ monthly contributions, which greatly increases the odds of prompt reporting of a divorce.

Are you obligated to offer COBRA if a divorce is reported to you well after the fact? If you learn of the qualifying event within 60 days after the divorce date, you must send a COBRA notice. Beyond that, it’s not your firm’s responsibility to offer COBRA if the employee doesn’t report it.

Under FLSA, exempts receive their full salary no matter how many hours they work. But a growing number of firms say it pays to track exempts’ hours the same as those of hourly workers.

The No. 1 reason: productivity. Typically, employers either log attendance only for exempts or ask the employees to track their own hours on paper.

People usually log the same times every day for the sake of simplicity.
But it’s unlikely anyone arrives precisely at 8:30 a.m. and leaves at 5:00 p.m. on the dot, day after day.

Employers who’ve gone to the time-card system for exempts say they gain 10 to 15 minutes of productivity per employee every day. The-time-card system prevents people from starting unnecessarily early or staying late at off-peak hours.

Just as importantly, it helps curb excess breaks and long lunches.

OT-cost spillover

A second, related reason for tracking exempts’ hours: skyrocketing OT costs for non-exempts.

With the explosion of lawsuits tied to FLSA wage-and-hour laws, many firms err on the side of caution in counting hours and paying the necessary time-and-a-half.

To make up the gap, many try to cut hours worked by non-exempts. This also means greater reliance on exempts to stretch their own hours.

Expect resistance

If you’re thinking of cracking down on exempts’ hours, expect resistance.
Best practice: Give folks plenty of advance notice, explaining the need for the change. Usually, that helps reduce the grumbling and enables people to adapt.