January 5, 2015 at 5:53 pm
I wonder about this, especially with HP. The suburb I live in is sort of a call center mecca. One of those call centers is owned by HP. They've been laying people off like crazy. I think things might have settled down, but it's been very brutal the last few years. I bet HP wasn't using that Flight Risk software here.
Rod
January 6, 2015 at 6:23 am
Doctor Who 2 (1/5/2015)
.... I bet HP wasn't using that Flight Risk software here.
Probably have used it to decide who to dump. Too bad for you if you're a false positive.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 6, 2015 at 6:35 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/5/2015)
...I understand, though for the most part, this isn't an HR thing. The health insurance companies ask for this in order to lower rates for the company. It would be good, though, to ensure there is confidentiality for employees, as HR certainly doesn't need to see this.
It makes little difference whether it's the insurance company or the employer doing it. Essentially financial leverage is pressuring invasion of private lives. It applies pressure as to whom the company hires, whom they chose to lay off.
And consider the subtle pressure on employees who want to 'opt out'. They can be perceived as being unsupportive of the cost savings incentives.
[Unfortunately the concept of employer sponsored health care is a historic legacy of a real blunder. But we're stuck with it.]
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 6, 2015 at 6:38 am
I've had good situations and bad ones. To me, the difference usually comes down to the level of respect flowing from the top down. Where management has shown respect for their employees in the areas of wages and benefits, perks, PTO, flexibility, etc. I have found that the employees tend to want to stay.
Where wages are low, benefits poor, and there's a 'take it or leave it' attitude, people tend to drift away if better gigs are available.
I once worked at a non-profit public law firm that represented the poor. The wages were low, but the morale was great because we all loved coming in to do the work every day and the managing attorneys never failed to remind us how great we were for doing such good work for so-so pay.
My granny, (source of all wisdom) said it, "You get more flies with honey..."
Respect, respect, respect. If it flows downward, it will flow upward.
Sigerson
"No pressure, no diamonds." - Thomas Carlyle
January 6, 2015 at 7:14 am
I think that the majority of people are not entirely forthcoming, in significant ways, when they submit healthcare assessments. That also applies to employee surveys, political polls, customer reviews, and first dates. That's why there are limits to what analytics can tell you, not only at the individual level but also for the aggregate whole.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 6, 2015 at 9:53 am
Doctor Who 2 (1/5/2015)
I wonder about this, especially with HP. The suburb I live in is sort of a call center mecca. One of those call centers is owned by HP. They've been laying people off like crazy. I think things might have settled down, but it's been very brutal the last few years. I bet HP wasn't using that Flight Risk software here.
It was only used in small areas, mainly salespeople.
Call centers might be another choice, but really hiring is way more important in call centers than retention. Often if you've made a bad choice, you'll just have turnover.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 6, 2015 at 9:55 am
jay-h (1/6/2015)
It makes little difference whether it's the insurance company or the employer doing it. Essentially financial leverage is pressuring invasion of private lives. It applies pressure as to whom the company hires, whom they chose to lay off.
And consider the subtle pressure on employees who want to 'opt out'. They can be perceived as being unsupportive of the cost savings incentives.
[Unfortunately the concept of employer sponsored health care is a historic legacy of a real blunder. But we're stuck with it.]
Not necessarily. In one company I had benefits with, there were financial changes if you opted in, other changes if you didn't. That can be perceived as pressure, or just business. If you don't take care of yourself, then should you pay more? An argument to be made.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 6, 2015 at 10:21 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/6/2015)[hr..
Not necessarily. In one company I had benefits with, there were financial changes if you opted in, other changes if you didn't. That can be perceived as pressure, or just business. If you don't take care of yourself, then should you pay more? An argument to be made.
Actually it's more a case 'if you don't surrender your privacy, then you should pay more'. Do you find that acceptable? What about asking about your sex life? Your personal activities? Personality profile (are you a 'risk taker')?
The law has aready ruled against questions like 'are you thinking of getting pregnant' (which involves a big financial factor for the insurer). How are these other invasive inquiries functionally different?
Financial charges, particularly by an employer, are indeed a form of subtle or not so subtle coercion and probably more likely to be illegal than simple nanny style nagging.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 6, 2015 at 10:42 am
I live in the US and the county government where I live has an extensive health 'watch' program. If you participate you get reduced rates and deductibles. It has been in place for 10ish years so that doesn't sound against the law.
January 6, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/6/2015)
jay-h (1/6/2015)
It makes little difference whether it's the insurance company or the employer doing it. Essentially financial leverage is pressuring invasion of private lives. It applies pressure as to whom the company hires, whom they chose to lay off.
And consider the subtle pressure on employees who want to 'opt out'. They can be perceived as being unsupportive of the cost savings incentives.
[Unfortunately the concept of employer sponsored health care is a historic legacy of a real blunder. But we're stuck with it.]
Not necessarily. In one company I had benefits with, there were financial changes if you opted in, other changes if you didn't. That can be perceived as pressure, or just business. If you don't take care of yourself, then should you pay more? An argument to be made.
That's also the easy argument to make, but flawed. A lot of the metrics are anything but easy to interpret, especially at an individual basis. Take a look at the churn surrounding BMI: while it might be somewhat ok as a predictor on an aggregated basis (i.e. large groups with aggregate elevated BMI have a marginally higher incidence of high blood pressure), there are a LOT of documentation pointing out that it is very flawed to use as an absolute predictor on an individual basis (i.e. lots of people with "perfect" BMI dropping dead of heart attacks, and many folks otherwise classified as obese per that metric with perfect cardiac and HBP health).
It's the classic misinterpreting of the data: even qualified individuals fall into the trap so amateurs (e.g. HR) will more likely than not use in incorrectly. and when they do - some people get to suffer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
January 6, 2015 at 1:07 pm
jay-h (1/6/2015)
Actually it's more a case 'if you don't surrender your privacy, then you should pay more'. Do you find that acceptable? What about asking about your sex life? Your personal activities? Personality profile (are you a 'risk taker')?
The law has aready ruled against questions like 'are you thinking of getting pregnant' (which involves a big financial factor for the insurer). How are these other invasive inquiries functionally different?
Financial charges, particularly by an employer, are indeed a form of subtle or not so subtle coercion and probably more likely to be illegal than simple nanny style nagging.
I disagree on some of these. Certainly I pay more for private insurance if I scuba dive, ride a motorcycle, and engage in other risky activities.
Where do we draw a line? Not sure. Pregnancy is different from voluntary activities. If you never exercise, there is a greater risk. If you eat fast food, there are risks for greater costs.
I'm not sure where we draw all the lines, but I certainly think that we should differentiate in some cases. Not all, but some.
Personally I'd like to get health care away from employers, because it could be used to affect employment.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Matt Miller (#4) (1/6/2015)
It's the classic misinterpreting of the data: even qualified individuals fall into the trap so amateurs (e.g. HR) will more likely than not use in incorrectly. and when they do - some people get to suffer.
misinterpretation of the data is separate from whether gathering data has value.
Again, this data shouldn't be used by HR, but it makes sense in aggregate for insurers to charge more. The alternative is easy for them to assume most people smoke and charge accordingly.
Not saying their shouldn't be limits, but looking at this as "no data should be used", is equally problematic, in my opinion.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 6, 2015 at 4:12 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/6/2015)
Matt Miller (#4) (1/6/2015)
It's the classic misinterpreting of the data: even qualified individuals fall into the trap so amateurs (e.g. HR) will more likely than not use in incorrectly. and when they do - some people get to suffer.
misinterpretation of the data is separate from whether gathering data has value.
Again, this data shouldn't be used by HR, but it makes sense in aggregate for insurers to charge more. The alternative is easy for them to assume most people smoke and charge accordingly.
Not saying their shouldn't be limits, but looking at this as "no data should be used", is equally problematic, in my opinion.
We're having a disagreement about "they": In mine "they" was the *company* who was going to charge the employee more because their specific metric was higher. While the insurance carrier is probably using the metric appropriately because it's being used in aggregate (assuming the group is even large enough), the company using that very same measurement at an individual level is misusing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
January 7, 2015 at 6:21 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/6/2015)
Matt Miller (#4) (1/6/2015)
It's the classic misinterpreting of the data: even qualified individuals fall into the trap so amateurs (e.g. HR) will more likely than not use in incorrectly. and when they do - some people get to suffer.
misinterpretation of the data is separate from whether gathering data has value.
Again, this data shouldn't be used by HR, but it makes sense in aggregate for insurers to charge more. The alternative is easy for them to assume most people smoke and charge accordingly..
But what's happening here is aggragate data is being used to target individuals. So this is exactly what the earlier post is referring to. And it still comes down to employers using this as a reason to invade privacy where they simply do not belong.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
February 6, 2015 at 12:39 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/6/2015)
...Personally I'd like to get health care away from employers, because it could be used to affect employment.
In the UK we achieved this in the 1940's by forming the NHS. It is fair and it works. It is not perfect and lots of people elsewhere disagree with its principles especially on the basis that it is a little bit "communist" for their liking. As an above average tax payer I am happy to subsidise the care of those less fortunate and\or advantaged e.g. if a low income worker breaks their leg I want them to have the proper care so that they can return to work and their families to continue being a productive member of society NOT end up with a lethal infections and leaving behind a single parent family that struggle to support themselves.
Just for background, my Dad left Hungary in 1956 when USSR invaded. I grew up in a non-leftie household. Egalitarians? Yes. Social responsibility? Yes. Socialism? No.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply