Employer Strategies

A new Fidelity Investments study finds that noticeably more mothers than fathers have had comprehensive conversations about savings, planning and retirement with their adult children.

Sixty-six percent of U.S. employers report a bad-fit employee has had a measurable negative impact in a new survey from CareerBuilder. France reported the lowest level of instances, with 53%; Russia was highest with 88%.

Baby boomers are bucking the trends of generations before them, according to research released this week from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. When it comes to what they will pass on, 72% cite values and life lessons as most important, while just 32% said financial and real estate assets.

Laurence D. Fink thinks U.S. employers should be required to put money aside for their employees’ retirement, similar to Australia’s superannuation system.

Health Management was thrown into the spotlight in December when the CBS Corp. television program “60 Minutes” aired a report criticizing the company’s emergency room practices. The company at the time called the report inaccurate.

Perhaps few people are as intimately familiar with the 840-plus-page immigration bill as Rebecca Peters. The director and counsel for legislative affairs for ACIP, Peters has been following the act since its conception and, should it pass in its current form, she says it has lots of good news for employers.

People with health insurance saw increases in their medical costs slow from 2009 to 2011, signaling potential structural changes in the industry that could cut health care inflation and save the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars, according to two studies.

The Illinois House of Representatives approved a bill designed to repair the nation’s worst-funded pension system by raising contribution levels for state employees and delaying the retirement age.

However, just dealing with the current landscape (both in terms of importing and exporting wage-earners) can be challenging enough, even before reforms are taken into account.

Thus, in this case, the plaintiffs had an initial burden of showing they carried flex hours forward into a new work week (in violation of the FLSA), or went entirely unpaid for those hours – a burden they did not satisfy.