(Published March 16, 2009)
We've all had this happen. An employee comes in to ask a question. You answer the question. But the employee doesn't accept the answer because he or she "has heard" a different answer somewhere else.
We had it happen recently. An employee whose husband was just laid off asked about bringing him onto our plan, which is fine. We're perfectly prepared to do so, provided that the employee brings in the required documentation showing the date coverage was terminated and completes the in-house change form within the 31 days allowed. The employee spent 10 minutes giving the rep who took the call (it wasn't me) a hard time because she "had heard" that her husband's employer is required to cover him until the end of the month. There is no such law in our state. And even if there were, it wouldn't change the requirements to join our plan. At best, it might change the effective date. If the documentation from the other employer or carrier said that coverage didn't term until the end of the month, fine, we'd establish coverage the first of next month. What's the big deal? Take it up with the other employer. But the woman was prepared to argue the point if it took until summer.
I've been expecting more such calls all day. A couple of weekends ago, a major metropolitan newspaper (I won't identify which one, but no matter where you are in the country, the likelihood is that at least some of your employees read it regularly) published an article about maintaining your health insurance after a layoff. There was one paragraph that had me pounding my head against the wall. To put the kindest interpretation on the way the information was presented, it was somewhat misleading. (Another way of putting it would be that it was grossly inaccurate, but we won't go there.) To be fair, the information would be correct for any health insurance plan that is not under Section 125. However, the very large majority of plans that exist today are under Section 125 (I realize that I will now be getting e-mails from those of you who still are not under a 125 plan); those few that are not generally follow 125 provisions.
The misleading information: "Your spouse's employer can add you to the plan at any time during the year," but goes on to remind the readership that they should be aware of deadlines "because many employers will require documentation that you've been laid off" and that some employers "will only add members to the plan within 30 or 60 days of a qualifying event." This will lead many readers, who are not up on their IRS code, to believe that such limits are optional on the part of the employer and that these limits can be waived if the employer chooses. It frightens me to think how many employees, reading this in a trusted newspaper, may assume that they can add themselves or their dependents more or less whenever they like and that if the employer refuses, it is due to stubbornness on the part of the employer and not a legal requirement. Even before that article was published, I still found myself stating on an almost daily basis, "No sir/ma'am, that's not a university regulation; it's federal law."
I've used health insurance examples because they happen to be hot topics right now. But I've also heard frequently:
"My friend told me it's illegal for them to fire me over the phone."
"I've been on short-term disability for six months. My job is still protected by law, right?"
"Isn't it the law that my employer is only allowed to confirm dates of employment?"
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm sure you're all expecting me to come out with my watchword of communication right about now. No matter how well we communicate, there are other influences that are going to get in the way of getting the correct information to employees. All we can do, I guess, is be prepared with the right answers when the questions get asked, and have patience with the employees who are determined to listen elsewhere.
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
