Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc.
faces
HELPING MANAGE YOUR COMPANY'S MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE
                     ...from the HR Perspective
Human Resource UpdateOctober 2010
In This Issue
EBSA Clarifies GINA Provisions
The Fix Is In: Common Plan Mistakes
Insurance Mandate Fight Proceeds
Fee Disclosure for 401(k) Type Plan Participants
eLaws Quick Link
Plan Reporting Calendar
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs
Track Government Spending
Unemployment Report
Worth Repeating
Terms of Use
 
 
 
 
Invitation to MFYCO Facebook
facebook 
Log in now! 

EBSA Clarifies GINA Provisions for Group Health Plans

The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has issued guidance in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that explain how the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) impacts employer-provided group health plans and insurance providers. Please see our February 2010 Newsletter for our original article on GINA. Among other things, Title I of GINA prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers from discriminating based on genetic information, and prohibits the collection of such information, including family medical history, prior to or in connection with plan enrollment or for insurance underwriting purposes. As explained in the FAQs, unlike the provisions of Title I of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) that exempt very small health plans with less than two participants who are current employees, the nondiscrimination provisions of GINA apply to all group health plans.

The guidance provides responses to 14 GINA-related questions, ranging from general GINA definitions to specific inquires about how GINA impacts wellness programs and under which circumstances a health plan may obtain the results of a genetic test. The guidance also provides examples of certain tests that are not considered genetic tests.

Click HERE to be directed to The Department of Labor's website showing the 14 FAQs.

Greetings: 

A Changing Dynamic

 

If you are going into union negotiations next year, the most demanding force on the other side of the table may not be your local union's membership. That force may be the international organization - and it will be acting out of its own self-interest and not that of the local membership.

 

Due to economic conditions and their usually visible effects on the employing company, many local union members may be sympathetic to the company's needs and willing to make concessions to gain any form of pay increase, or to preserve benefits or the jobs of fellow members. But they may also wonder what value the international brings to the party for the dues they are paying. These wondering thoughts have caused some local members to explore switching unions or even decertification. The international's new found exuberance is in direct reaction to these "misguided" thoughts.

 

If we apply a business model to the unions, we can see what is happening. The union has expenses - its staff, benefits, office space, etc. The union has its income - the source of which is the dues it collects from its members. But income is down. The companies employing the union's members are temporarily laying off members, permanently reducing workforces or closing facilities. Unions eagerly awaited the "Card Check" bill (briefly, the elimination of a secret ballot to organize a company) to add to their membership, but that has not been passed. Locals which defect to another union or decertify the union also reduce income.

 

In a business model, if income decreases, expenses are decreased. This has caused unions to take the same actions for which they criticize the employers - reduce staff, cut pay, tighten up operations, strictly enforce policies, etc. One union business agent I know recently asked me for advice on how he might handle his union's changes to their vacation accrual policy. He usually took only one or two of the four weeks vacation he had earned, and took the balance in cash at the end of the year. The union eliminated the cash out policy and also eliminated any carry over from one year to the next. This was not the first of such actions; they followed a staff reduction and no pay increases.

 

To protect their interests, unions now have to work harder to impress their membership and preserve their allegiance. They also wish to impress other union's members who might switch to them and the employees of companies they wish to organize.

 

The best way to accomplish these new goals is to get more for the local's members. While the local may be willing to agree to a reasonable contract, the international may prod them to demand far more. Even if the demands are unsuccessful, the international has proven "its worth". Recently, this was demonstrated in Wichita where the aircraft industry has suffered severely. The international organization of the IAM urged the local lodge's membership to strike. While nearly all of those who voted wanted a strike, too few turned up to authorize one. Interestingly, this meant that the contract was adopted by default. Some negotiators are looking at the poor turnout as a case of passive resistance on the part of the local lodge's membership.

 

What we are seeing is a change in the collective bargaining dynamic - it is the international which needs to win for its own sake - to stay in business - while possibly forsaking the wellbeing of the local membership. We should keep this in mind while planning for, and during, the negotiations.

 _______________________________


If you find value in this newsletter please let us know. Feel free to call me with a comment and/or ask a question at any time (908-689-4200) or send me an email (myates@mfyco.com). We offer this timely information as another benefit of your relationship with our company. If you feel a friend or colleague would benefit from receiving our newsletter, please feel free to forward a copy.
    

Sincerely,
    Mike
Michael F. Yates
President

PS: You can view all of our newsletters by clicking the 'newsletter archives' link at our company website (www.mfyco.com).
 
We invite you to share our newsletter. 
(It's a lot to think about!) 
 
 Forward to a Friend
 
 

The Fix Is In: Common Plan Mistakes

Periodically the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes an article that it calls "The Fix Is In: Common Plan Mistakes" that present common mistakes that happen in retirement plans.  These articles describe a common problem, how it happened, how to fix it and how to lessen the probability of the problem happening again.  Over the course of the next several months, we will be reproducing some of those articles that we believe would be helpful to you in the day-to-day administration of your plan.

Hardship Distributions in a 401(k) Plan

The Problem

A 401(k) plan permits participants to receive hardship distributions. The distributions, however, do not satisfy the plan provisions relating to hardship distributions.

Example: George is the 100% owner of the George Company. The company sponsors a 401(k) plan which provides that a participant may take a distribution on account of hardship. The plan document requires that a participant may only receive a hardship distribution for the following reasons:

(1)        to purchase a principal residence;

(2)        to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, the principal residence;

(3)        to pay certain medical expenses incurred by the participant, participant's spouse, or dependents; and

(4)        to pay certain educational expenses incurred by the participant, participant's spouse, or dependents.

In addition, the plan document requires that the participant use all other sources of financing including proceeds from insurance, liquidation of other assets, and loans from other commercial sources before applying for a hardship distribution. Jim, a plan participant, asked for and received a hardship distribution of $20,000 from the plan. He did not provide a reason for the distribution and did not establish that he had used other sources of financing before applying for the hardship distribution.

Finding the Mistake

In order to find the mistake, review:

(a)        the plan document to determine when distributions may occur;

(b)        each plan distribution and its related documentation showing the reason for the distribution (e.g., distribution form signed by the participant indicating the reason for the distribution); and

(c)        whether distributions designated as "hardship distributions" were made in accordance with the terms of the plan.

In the example above, Jim did not complete any distribution forms. The only documentation in the file was a note requesting a hardship distribution for $20,000. It was found that Jim used the money to buy a car. There was no evidence that he investigated other sources of financing.

This was an isolated instance. For each of the other hardship distribution requests, the participant was required to complete a distribution form. The distribution form required the participant to specify the purpose for the distribution (e.g., medical expense, education expense, purchase of residence) and to certify that other sources of financing (including insurance proceeds, disposition of other assets, or other loans) were not available to the participant. The distribution form was then submitted to the employer's accountant, who evaluated the form before approving the hardship distribution to the participant. When Jim applied for a distribution, however, he went directly to George, who authorized payment without requiring Jim to complete the distribution form. Also, George was not familiar with the terms of the plan. As a result, he approved a distribution that did not comply with those terms.

Fixing the Mistake

The company should take reasonable steps to ensure that Jim returns the erroneously distributed amounts to the plan. Jim should also be advised that to the extent any amounts are not returned, they are not eligible for tax favored treatment (i.e., the amounts are not eligible for rollover to an IRA or other retirement plan). In addition, the plan's administrative procedures should be revised to ensure that the error does not occur again. (See "Avoiding the Mistake" below.)

Correction Program(s) Available

The plan may use the correction programs described in Revenue Procedure 2006-27 to correct the mistake. If the plan is not the subject of an IRS examination, then the plan will generally be able to correct the mistake using either the Self-Correction Program (SCP) or the Voluntary Correction Program (VCP). If the plan is under IRS examination, then mistakes are generally corrected pursuant to a closing agreement under the Audit Closing Agreement Program (Audit CAP). However, if the mistake is an isolated instance (as is the case in this example), the mistake may still be eligible for correction under SCP.

Avoiding the Mistake

George should be familiar with the terms of the plan. A formal approval process had been installed to ensure that hardship distributions comply with the terms of the plan, including documenting the reason for the hardship and certification of the unavailability of other sources of money. George should be aware of the purpose of such a process, and understand the risks of approving distributions without following it. George should not approve distributions based on verbal or informal written requests, but instead, should follow the formal approval process before authorizing a hardship distribution.

For more details on how to find, fix, and avoid this mistake, you may also refer to the online 401(k) Fix-It Guide.

For details on the correction programs, please visit "Correcting Plan Errors".

 

Page Last Reviewed or Updated (by the IRS): January 05, 2010

Call: 908-689-4200 to contact a
MFYCO professional consulting associate.
happypeople

Insurance Mandate Fight Proceeds

 

As you may know the Attorney Generals for twenty states including Florida have filed suit against the Federal Government contending that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not permit Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.  The State of Virginia has filed a separate suit.

 

A Michigan judge dismissed a similar challenge brought by the Thomas More Law Center, but on October 14, 2010, Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled in favor of Florida and Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington  and two private citizens in two of the six causes of action in their amended complaint under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, amended by Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Act"). 

 

The following four causes of action related to taxation and requiring states to enforce the law were dismissed:

  • The individual mandate and penalty violate substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment.
  • "Alternatively," if the penalty imposed for failing to comply with the individual mandate is found to be a tax, it is an unconstitutional unapportioned capitation or direct tax in violation of U.S. const. art. I, § 9, cl.4, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
  • It coerces and commandeers with respect to the health benefit exchanges in violation of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
  • The employer mandate interferes with the states' sovereignty as large employers and in the performance of government functions in violation of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The following two causes of action that may violate the Constitution were allowed to continue:

  • the individual mandate and concomitant penalty exceed Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause and violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; in other words does the requirement that individuals obtain insurance coverage or pay a penalty go beyond Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution and;
  • the Act coerces and commandeers the states with respect to Medicaid by altering and expanding the program in violation of Article 1 and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Judge Vinson laid out a timeline last month.  The parties have until 11/4/2010 to move for summary judgment (and the (defendants) may file their answer at the same time); the opposing party will have until 11/23/2010 to respond; and the moving party will have until 12/6/2010 to file any Reply.

 

To read the judgment in its entirety click on link. CLICK HERE

 
 
 What would you like to see in a future issue?

Contact our office with your suggestions.

  email: info@mfyco.com
 

The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Issues Final Rule on Fee Disclosure for 401(k) Type Plan Participants

On October 15th, the EBSA released, in DOL News Release No. 10-1432-NAT, a final rule that will help America's workers manage and invest the money they contribute to their 401(k) type plans.  In addition to a new level of fee and expense transparency, the rule will ensure that:

·         workers in this type of plan are given, or have access to, the information they need to make informed decisions, including information about fees and expenses;

·         investment-related information is provided in a format that enables workers to meaningfully compare the investment options under their 401(k) type plans; and

·         plan fiduciaries use standard methodologies when calculating and disclosing expense and return information, thus facilitating "apples-to-apples" comparisons among their plan's investment options.

BACKGROUND

EBSA is responsible for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting, and disclosure provisions of Title I of ERISA.  The agency oversees approximately 708,000 private pension plans, including 483,000 participant-directed individual account plans such as 401(k)-type plans.  A "participant-directed plan" is a plan that provides for the allocation of investment responsibilities to participants or beneficiaries.  While workers in these plans are responsible for making their own investment decisions, current law does not adequately ensure that all workers are given the information they need or ensure that information, when provided, is furnished in a format useful to workers, particularly information on investment choices including associated fees and expenses.

OVERVIEW OF FINAL RULE

The final rule provides that the investment of plan assets is a fiduciary act governed by the fiduciary standards in ERISA, which require plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.  The final rule also provides that when a plan allocates investment responsibilities to participants or beneficiaries, the plan administrator must take steps to ensure that such participants and beneficiaries, on a regular and periodic basis, are made aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to the investment of assets held in, or contributed to, their accounts and are provided sufficient information regarding the plan and the plan's investment options, including fee and expense information, to make informed decisions with regard to the management of their individual accounts.  A plan administrator must provide to each participant or beneficiary certain plan-related information and certain investment-related information. These categories of information are (a) Plan-Related Information and (b) Investment-Related Information, each of these categories is described in detail below.  In addition, there is a Comparative Format Requirement, which is also described below.  The EBSA has developed a Model Comparative Chart, click the link to go to the Model Comparative Chart.

(a)         Plan-Related Information

The first category of information that must be disclosed under the final rule is plan-related information.  This general category is further divided into three subcategories as follows:

(i)           General Plan Information

General plan information consists of information about the structure and mechanics of the plan, such as an explanation of how to give investment instructions under the plan, a current list of the plan's investment options, and a description of any "brokerage windows" or similar arrangement that enables the selection of investments beyond those designated by the plan.


(ii)         Administrative Expenses Information

An explanation of any fees and expenses for general plan administrative services that may be charged to or deducted from all individual accounts. Examples include fees and expenses for legal, accounting, and recordkeeping services.

 

(iii)       Individual Expenses Information

An explanation of any fees and expenses that may be charged to or deducted from the individual account of a specific participant or beneficiary based on the actions taken by that person.  Examples include fees and expenses for plan loans and for processing qualified domestic relations orders.

The information in these three subcategories must be given to participants on or before the date they can first direct their investments, and then again annually thereafter.

In addition to the plan-related information that must be furnished up front and annually, participants must receive statements, at least quarterly, showing the dollar amount of the plan-related fees and expenses (whether "administrative" or "individual") actually charged to or deducted from their individual accounts, along with a description of the services for which the charge or deduction was made.  These specific disclosures may be included in quarterly benefit statements required under §105 of ERISA.

(b)         Investment-Related Information

The second category of information that must be disclosed under the final rule is investment-related information. This category contains several subcategories of core information about each investment option under the plan, including:

(i)           Performance Data

Participants must be provided specific information about historical investment performance.  1-, 5- and 10-year returns must be provided for investment options, such as mutual funds, that do not have fixed rates of return. For investment options that have a fixed or stated rate of return, the annual rate of return and the term of the investment must be disclosed.

(ii)         Benchmark Information

For investment options that do not have a fixed rate of return, the name and returns of an appropriate broad-based securities market index over 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods (matching the Performance Data periods) must be provided. Investment options with fixed rates of return are not subject to this requirement.

(iii)       Fee and Expense Information

For investment options that do not a have a fixed rate of return, the total annual operating expenses expressed as both a percentage of assets and as a dollar amount for each $1,000 invested, and any shareholder-type fees or restrictions on the participant's ability to purchase or withdraw from the investment.  For investment options that have a fixed rate of return, any shareholder-type fees or restrictions on the participant's ability to purchase or withdraw from the investment.

For investment options that have a fixed rate of return, any shareholder-type fees or restrictions on the participant's ability to purchase or withdraw from the investment.

(iv)       Internet Web Site Address

Investment-related information includes an Internet Web site address that is sufficiently specific to provide participants and beneficiaries access to specific additional information about the investment options for workers who want more or more current information.

(v)         Glossary

Investment-related information includes a general glossary of terms to assist participants and beneficiaries in understanding the plan's investment options, or an Internet Web site address that is sufficiently specific to provide access to such a glossary.

COMPARATIVE FORMAT REQUIREMENT

Investment-related information must be furnished to participants or beneficiaries on or before the date they can first direct their investments, and then again annually thereafter.  It also must be furnished in a chart or similar format designed to facilitate a comparison of each investment option available under the plan.  The final rule includes, as an appendix, a model comparative chart, which when correctly completed, may be used by the plan administrator to satisfy the rule's requirement that a plan's investment option information be provided in a comparative format.

MISCELLANEOUS

The rule provides plan administrators protection from liability for the completeness and accuracy of information provided to participants if the plan administrator reasonably and in good faith relies upon information provided by a service provider.  After a participant has invested in a particular investment option, he or she must be provided any materials the plan receives regarding voting, tender or similar rights in the option.  Upon request, the plan administrator must also furnish prospectuses, financial reports and statements of valuation and of assets held by an investment option.  The general disclosure regulation at 29 CFR § 2520.104b-1 applies to material furnished under this regulation, including the safe harbor for electronic disclosures at paragraph (c) of that regulation.  The final rule would also make conforming changes to the disclosure requirements for plans that elect to comply with the existing ERISA section 404(c) regulations.

 
EFFECTIVE AND APPLICABILITY DATES

The final rule will be published on October 20, 2010. The final rule will become effective beginning on December 20, 2010.  The final rule will become applicable to covered individual account plans for plan years beginning on or after November 1, 2011. For calendar year plans, compliance will be required on January 1, 2012.


 
 
 
Plan Reporting Calendar
 

 

2010 FILING DUE DATES FOR
CALENDAR YEAR PLANS
 
This calendar is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of every due date under the Code or ERISA, but rather reflects some of the most common due dates.

View Calendar 

Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs

  

On September 20, 2010 the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration along with the Treasury Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (the Departments) issued the first of three, to date, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (FAQs) regarding the Affordable Care Act and how to implement the various provisions. The Departments approach to implementation has an emphasis on assisting (rather than imposing penalties on) plans, issuers and others that are working diligently and in good faith to understand and come into compliance with the new law.

 

The first set of FAQs answers general questions covering grandfathered health plans, claims, internal appeals, and external review, dependent coverage of children, out-of-network emergency services and highly compensated employees.

 

The second set of FAQs covers the market reform provisions and addresses grandfathered health plans, dental and vision benefits, rescissions, preventive health services and clarification relating to policy year and effective date of the ACA for individual health insurance policies.

 

The third set of FAQs covers the market reform provisions and addresses exemption for group health plans with less than two current employees.

 

Please click on the link for the FAQs issued on September 20, 2010, October 8, 2010 and October 12, 2010 (we omitted the multiemployer questions).  CLICK HERE

mh group
 How to Track Government Recovery Spending
 
"The Board shall establish and maintain...a user-friendly, public-facing website to foster greater accountability and transparency in the use of covered funds. The website...shall be a portal or gateway to key information relating to the Act and provide connections to other government websites with related information." 

 

NEWS JUST IN:

 

A government report shows that in 23 states the unemployment rate declined in September, if not by much, while joblessness increased in 11 states. The unemployment rates of the other 16 states didn't change.

 

The West region reported the highest regional unemployment rate, 10.9 percent, while the Northeast region recorded the lowest rate, 8.6 percent:

 



 
 
about MFYCO ...

  • Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. can help you with a variety of services ranging from retirement plans to providing results-oriented survey instruments, training and development programs for your employees. Our products and services are intended to help you maximize the effectiveness of your Human Resources function.

  • These products and services incorporate our years of experience so that you receive rapid results and exceptional value. From onsite consulting, to strategic business integration, to Web enablement, we understand how Human Resources can be applied to solve your problems and achieve your goals. As a result, we can help you get the most out of your investment and turn your most precious resource into a competitive advantage.

  • We offer Consulting, Retirement Planning, Pension and 401(K) both qualified and non qualified Plans, Welfare Plans, Communications, Computer Systems, Executive Plans, Compensation, Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestitures and Other Services. 

    We offer a true and honest, Client Partnership.

Take the Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. challenge!

Call us today ... 908-689-4200 


 
 

  
Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc.
_________________
 
101 Belvidere Avenue
P.O.Box 7
Washington, NJ 07882-0007 
 
908-689-4200

fax: 908-689-6300
 
email: info@mfyco.com

 
 
Worth Repeating
(Courtesy of Yahoo! Health)
 
The average American gobbles down 24 pounds of candy a year. A big chunk of that falling to our waistlines in the days before and after Halloween. These stats could very well turn you as white as a ghost:

  • three miniature Reese's Peanut Butter Cups fill your belly with more sugar than a glazed doughnut.
  • half a pack of Skittles have more sugar then one scoop of Haagen-Dazs Cookies and Cream Ice Cream.
  • nine Twizzlers carry as many calories as a Wendy's Double Stack Burger.

 Worst "Fun Size" Candy Bar

Butterfinger Bar (fun size)

100 calories

4 grams fat

10 grams of sugar

 

 

 Worst Fruity Candy

Brach's Airheads (3 pieces)

140 calories

1.5 grams of fat

19 grams of sugar

 


 Worst Miniature Candy Bars

Twix Miniatures (3 pieces)

150 calories

8 grams of fat

15 grams of sugar

 

 

Worst Chewy Candy

Brach's Milk Maid Caramels (4 Pieces)

160 calories

4.5 grams of fat

16 grams of sugar

 

 

Worst Novelty Candy

Reese's Pumpkin

170 calories

10 grams of fat

16 grams of sugar

 

It is a shame they all taste so good! Did any of your favorites make the list? Some of ours did!

 
 
Our staff and firm are proud
members
of the following professional organizations:

Society of Actuaries
 
American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries

Society for Human Resource Management

WorldatWork

 American Management Association
 
National Federation of Independent Business

Better Business Bureau
 
 

Terms of Use
COP

The site ("from the HR perspective" hence herein referred to as MFYCO.com) is made available by Michael F. Yates & Company Incorporated. All content, information and software provided on and through 'from the HR perspective' and MFYCO.com ("Content") may be used solely under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use").

YOUR USE OF THIS WEBSITE CONSTITUTES YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE YOUR USE OF THIS SITE.  
 
Mike's Best Friend 
 
"Human Resources  provides the leadership, supportive services, guiding principles, policies, structures and standards needed for a quality organization to survive in today's business environment."
 
 MFYCO PRIVACY POLICY

 
Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. 
believes strongly in protecting the privacy of its users.


Join Our Mailing List