University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design … · University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design...

1

University of Wisconsin-MadisonHR Design Recommendations – Benefits Team

Appendices(Spring 2012)

Benefits Team

Appendix 1. Decision-Making Process

Consensus building processa participatory process, includes multiple perspectives/voices in the decision

• could result in unanimity (100% agreement)• could result in simple majority (6 of us agree)• prefer to reach a super majority (8 or more of us agree)

Respectful majoritycommitment to record pros & cons of each position, degree of agreement

Preliminary polls

1. Thumbs up/sideways/down (e.g., decide to continue discussion, “vote to vote”)

2. Sticky dots (preliminary, record position that may change given further discussion or new data:benchmarking, trends, information from campus)

3. Flashcard poll

green = go, yes

yellow = caution, reservations

red = pause, major reservations

11 green = unanimity(record vote & move on)

8 green + 3 yellow = respectful majority(identify & record reservations)

1 or more red cards(identify & record reservations, further discussion)

Process before taking a preliminary poll on a recommendation:

• discuss emerging idea(s)• identify decision points.• written proposal/choices• list pros & cons

Recording votes

Appendices: votes recorded as described above

Recommendations; Cover page for Submitting Changes to Recommendations:

• green recorded as “voted yes,” yellow recorded as “voted yes with reservations,” and red recorded as “hadserious reservations and voted no”

• “sticky dot” vote counts replaced with descriptive language• where draft recommendation changed -OR- team recommendation remains the same following questions or

concerns during campus engagement opportunities, both votes, any reservations, and the reason(s) why thevote changed (or stayed the same) are included.

2

Appendix 2. Key Resources

Data: Note: Additional data cited by topic area

University of Wisconsin-Madison

2010-2011 Data Digesthttp://apa.wisc.edu/DataDigest/DATA_DIGEST_11.pdf

2011-2012 Data Digesthttp://apa.wisc.edu/DataDigest/DATADIGEST_12.pdf

October 2011 Job Headcount and FTE data

• headcount totals in jobs, by employee classification, bargaining unit, FLSA status, salary administration plan, and grade (payschedule and range)

• FTE totals in jobs, by employee classification, bargaining unit, FLSA status, salary administration plan and grade(pay schedule and range)

Sources: Note: Additional sources cited by topic area

Wisconsin Statutes

Chapter 20. Appropriations and Budget Management.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/20.pdf

• 20.923 (4g) University of Wisconsin System Senior Executive Positions – repealed effective 1 July 2013 by Wis. Act 32.

Chapter 36. University of Wisconsin System.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/36.pdf

• 36.05 Definitions.• 36.05 (1) Academic Staff• 36.05 (6) Classified Staff• 36.05 (8) Faculty• 36.05 (9m) Instructional Academic Staff

Chapter 40. Public Employee Trust Fundhttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40.pdfhttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/

Chapter 230. State Employment Relationshttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/230.pdf

• 230.08 (2) (cm), (d), (dm), (k) Unclassified Service – repealed effective 1 July 230 by Wis. Act 32.• 230.08 (3) (a) Classified Service

Wisconsin Administrative Code

Employment Relationshttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/er

Employee Trust Fundshttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/etf

University of Wisconsin Systemhttps://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/uws

2011-13 State Compensation Planhttp://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=7341

University of Wisconsin System

Regent Policy Documentswww.wisconsin.edu/bor/policies/rpd/

Employee Benefits (index)www.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/index.htm

3

2012 Benefits Summary: Classified Employeeswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/cben.pdf

2012 Benefits Summary: WRS-Eligible Limited Term Employeeswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/lteben.pdf

2012 Benefits Summary: Faculty, Academic Staff, and Limited Employees(Excluding short-term appointments and unclassified senior executive employees)www.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/uben.pdf

2012 Benefit Summary: Graduate Assistants, Postdoctoral Appointees, and Short-term Academic Appointmentswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/gradben.pdf

UW System Unclassified Personnel Guidelineswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/upgs/upg.htm

University of Wisconsin Madison

Classified Policies & Procedureswww.ohr.wisc.edu/cpo/polproc2.htm

Unclassified Personnel Policies & Procedureswww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/UpppTableofContents.htm

Academic Staff Policies & Procedureshttp://acstaff.wisc.edu/policies.htm

Faculty Policies & Procedureswww.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/index.htm

Benefit Trends

Appendix 3. Benefit Trends

Discussion:

• Who will “employees of the 21 century” be, and how might the nature of our work change?st

– Will more employees be living outside the borders of the state? (required for job, not by choice)

Continue to offer:

Standard Plan Health Insurance. Currently, employees who are required to live outside of the State canselect the Standard plan and pay Tier 2 rates. Costs a little more, not a lot; offsets the ability to select anydoctor; costs depend on network/provider selected (in/out); can be used anywhere in U.S. or world.

MEDEX. Currently provided at no cost to employees who travel for business reasons (as opposed toliving elsewhere). MEDEX ensures access to competent health care as promptly as possible in situationswhere health care may not be available or is not up to US standards. It is a travel insurance program anddoes not replace health insurance or Worker’s Compensation. The program includes 24/7 toll-freeemergency assistance services, medical evacuation and repatriation coverage, and limited accidentaldeath and dismemberment coverage.www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/medex_program.html

International Health Insurance. Currently available for faculty, staff, and students participating in studyabroad/exchange abroad programs, with an option for coverage of enrolled participants. Costs$34.00/month or, for shorter programs: $9/1-7 days; $17/8-14 days; $26/15-21 days.www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/international health insurance.html

4

Cultural Insurance Services, International (CISI) World Class Coverage Plandesigned for Board of Regents University of Wisconsin SystemStudy Abroad and Exchange Abroad Programs (2011-2012)www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/CISI%202011-12.pdf

– Will there be more telecommuting? Distance education?

Employees living farther away may not have equal access to benefits (e.g., provider choice may belimited in rural areas; campus programs may be out of reach)

We continue to value traditional, face-to-face learning.

– Will there be more employees whose tenure here is relatively short? What percentage of employees canbe expected to stay for a traditional, 20-30 year career?

– What benefits are offered by private sector employers? Are there international employers whose benefitstructures would make sense in higher education, here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison? (Can weborrow from IT?)

Sources:

Benefits Trends

Heneman, Robert L., with Erin E. Coyne. Implementing Total Rewards Strategies.Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation (2007):www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Documents/07RewardsStratReport.pdf

Benefit Trends and Employee Satisfaction.SHRM (1 March 2007):www.shrm.org/Research/FutureWorkplaceTrends/Pages/0307c.aspx

2010 Employee Benefits: Examining Employee Benefits in the Midst of a Recovering Economy. Executive Summary.SHRM (2010):http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/10-0280 Employee Benefits Survey Report_ExecSum.pdf

2011 Employee Benefits: Examining Employee Benefits Amidst Uncertainty. Research Report. SHRM (2011).

Lytle, Tamara. “Benefits for Older Workers.” Human Resources Magazine (March 2012): 53-58.

Context – Current State of Benefits at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Commission on Faculty Compensation & Economic Benefits Annual Report for 2011-2012.University of Wisconsin-Madison Faculty Document 2327 (5 March 2012):www.secfac.wisc.edu/senate/2012/0305/2327.pdf

Note: Peer group for purposes of faculty salary comparison, established by the Governor’s Commission on FacultyCompensation, 1984: University of Michigan, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Berkeley,University of Texas at Austin, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, TwinCities, Indiana University-Bloomington, University of Washington (Seattle), and Purdue University.

The Wisconsin Retirement System is One of the Healthiest in the Country.Center on Wisconsin Strategy (March 2011):www.cows.org/pdf/bp-wrs.pdf

Chaptman, Dennis. “Reaccreditation creates vision for campus.”University of Wisconsin-Madison News (18 November 2009):www.news.wisc.edu/17375

Zimm, Nicole. An Analysis of the Competitiveness of the Benefits Package Available to UW System Employees.UW System Administration Office of Human Resources (4 November 2008).

MEDEX Program.www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/medex_program.html

5

International Health Insurance.www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/international health insurance.html

Cultural Insurance Services, International (CISI) World Class Coverage Plandesigned for Board of Regents University of Wisconsin SystemStudy Abroad and Exchange Abroad Programs (2011-2012)www.bussvc.wisc.edu/risk_mgt/CISI%202011-12.pdf

Appendix 4. Paid Time Off (PTO) Model for Leave

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison move to a “paid time off” model for leave – combining personalholidays, vacation, and sick leave into a single allocation?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• ASLCC & SHICC rely on accumulating sick leave• ICI premiums for classified staff currently based on accumulated sick leave hours• Our current recommendations related to leave rest on the assumption that employees need/want to bank

sick leave and convert accumulated leave to pay for health insurance in retirement. In the absence of thisneed, it would be possible to consider a “paid time off” model combining personal holiday, vacation, andsick leave.

Sources:

University of Wisconsin-Madison Administrative Excellence Study: Paid Time Off.Huron Consulting Group (October 2011).

Cyboran, Steven F., and Thomas M. Morrison, Jr. “Paid Time Off: Giving Employees More Control Over Leave.”Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (12 November 2006).

Victor, Justina. 2006 Workplace Vacation. Poll Findings.SHRM and CareerJournal.com (September 2006).

Paid Time Off Programs and Practices. A Survey of WorldatWork Members.WorldatWork (May 2010):www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=38913

Appendix 5. Cafeteria of Benefits Model for Leave

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison adopt a “cafeteria of benefits” approach?(No)

Discussion:

• gives employees $ value or points to select desired benefits• IRS – tax rules complex• university currently makes an employer contribution for State Group Health insurance, WRS Retirement,

Income Continuation Insurance (ICI); some life insurance; paid leave• no “opt out”for retirement; WRS requires high participation for health of system

Concerns:

• system advantages married/partnered employees; single employees have less flexibility/choice• employees with low income would not be able to afford additional benefits (in either system)• approach makes it easier for the state to chip away at benefits (each costs increase each year, points

would decrease in value or employees would receive fewer points)

6

Questions:

• Is this a feasible approach at UW-Madison?• Benchmarking: Do any of our institutional peers offer a “cafeteria of benefits” plan?

Sources:

IRS Section 125 Tax Codewww.coredocuments.com/irs_section_125.php

IRS Publication 15-B (2012). Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits.Internal Revenue Service (2012):www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/

FAQs for government entities regarding Cafeteria Plans.Internal Revenue Service (4 April 2012):www.irs.gov/govt/fslg/article/0,,id=112720,00.html

Chapter 40.85 Employee-funded reimbursement account plan.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/VIII/85

Please see also: 1987 Wisconsin Act 399.

1987 WI Act 399 authorized an employee reimbursement accounts program to help state employees pay uninsured health careand day care expenses from pre-tax income.http://etf.wi.gov/boards/gov_manual_retirement/29_history_etf.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions: Employee Reimbursement Account (ERA) Programhttp://etf.wi.gov/faq/era.htm

The Employee Reimbursement Account (ERA) program is an optional benefit authorized under Section 125 of the InternalRevenue Code and Wis. Stats. §40.85-40.875. A Section 125 plan, also known as a cafeteria plan, allows an employee’s healthand life insurance premiums and deposits to reimbursement accounts (also known as flexible spending accounts) to be made withpre-tax dollars.

Leave

Appendix 6. Paid Leave Data, Benchmarking, Sources

Data:

Federal Data

USDL-12-0450. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – December 2011.U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (14 March 2012):www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

Benchmarking:

University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design Project: Vacation & Sick Leave Benchmarking.Huron Consulting Group (27 February 2012).

CIC/Big Ten

University of Chicagohttp://hrservices.uchicago.edu/benefits/timeoff/vacationholidays/index.shtml

University of Illinois-Urbana/Champagnehttps://nessie.uihr.uillinois.edu/cf/leave/index.cfm

Indiana Universitywww.indiana.edu/~uhrs/benefits/pto.html

7

University of Iowa (sick leave, vacation)www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/iii/22.htmwww.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/iii/23.htm

The Ohio State Universityhttp://hr.osu.edu/benefits/pu_leaves.aspx

Michigan State Universitywww.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadpolproc/index.htm

University of Michigan (PTO – health system employees, paid leave)http://hr.umich.edu/staffhandbook/paidtimeoff/index.htmlwww.hr.umich.edu/

University of Minnesotawww1.umn.edu/ohr/benefits/leaves/vacation/academic/index.html

University of Nebraska (vacation)http://nebraska.edu/faculty-and-staff/benefits/paid-unpaid-time-off.html

Northwestern University (vacation)www.northwestern.edu/hr/policies-forms/policies-procedures/absence-from-work/vacation.html

Penn State Universityhttp://ohr.psu.edu/benefits/time-off

Purdue University (index, see leaves of absence)www.purdue.edu/policies/staff.html

Additional Benchmarks

University of California (index)http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/index.html

Drexel Universitywww.drexel.edu/hr/benefits/vacation/duvacation/

University of Pennsylvania (PTO model)www.hr.upenn.edu/Policy/Policies/607.aspx

Vanderbilt University (vacation)http://hr.vanderbilt.edu/policies/HR-005.php

Sources:

Wisconsin Statutes and Wisconsin Administrative Code

Chapter 36.30 Sick Leave – repealed effective 1 July 2013 by Wis. Act 32.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/36/30

Chapter 230.35 State office hours; standard workweek; leaves of absence; holidays.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/230/II/35

• 230.35 (2) Sick Leave.

Chapter ER 18. Absences.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/er/18

• ER 18.03 Sick Leave.• ER 18.04 Personal and Legal Holidays.• ER 18.08 Military Service.• ER 18.10 Jury Duty.• ER 18.11 Voting Time.• ER 18.15 Catastrophic Leave.• ER 18.17 Bone Marrow or Organ Donor.

8

UW System: Paid Leave Benefits

UW System Paid Leave – Vacation and Holiday Benefitswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/leave/vacation.htm

UW System Paid Leave – Sick Leave Benefitswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/leave/sick.htm

University of Wisconsin Classified Leave Provisions, as of 1 January 2012.https://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/am-classified-leave-provisions.pdf

UW System Unclassified Personnel Guideline #9. Unclassified Staff Paid Vacation, Holiday and Catastrophic Leave Policy.www.wisconsin.edu/hr/upgs/upg09.pdf

UW System Unclassified Personnel Guideline #10. Unclassified Staff Sick Leave Policy.www.wisconsin.edu/hr/upgs/upg.htm

University of Wisconsin-Madison: Paid Leave Benefits

University of Wisconsin-Madison Policies & Procedures for Classified Employees 16.02. Leave with Pay.www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/CPPP/cppp_chapter16-02.pdf [directs employees to Staff Benefits Booklet]

University of Wisconsin-Madison Unclassified Policies & Procedures 16. Leaves of Absence and Leave Benefits.www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1602.htm

Reporting Leave

Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook. Ch 520. Administration of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) andWisconsin Statutes Pertaining to Hours Worked and Overtime Provisions for State Classified Employees andCertain Unclassified Employees.http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=4271

University of Wisconsin-Madison Classified Human Resources Policies & ProceduresChapter 11. Overtime/Overloads: 11.01. General Provisions for Overtime (September 2002):www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/CPPP/cppp_chapter11.pdf

Appendix 7. Holidays

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison continue to provide nine existing paid legal holidays?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Current Legal Holidays

Independence DayLabor DayThanksgiving

Christmas EveChristmas Day

New Year’s EveNew Year’s Day

Martin Luther King, Jr. DayMemorial Day

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison provide the Friday following Thanksgiving as an additionalholiday?(Vote: Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• prefer flexibility for employees to take vacation when they want/need personal or family time – possibleto use vacation for the day after Thanksgiving

• may affect (increase) comp time

9

Discussion:

Friday following Thanksgiving holiday

Pros Cons

• many employees already take vacation on this date• for essential employees (24/7 units), could offer an

opportunity to guarantee one day of leave• furloughs in two previous years demonstrate that

this is a popular and useful time to offer a holiday(vs. shutting down mid-week, re-opening one day)

• cost savings (light, heat)

• coverage & overtime issues• HRS – consistency with UW System• people complain that they need to get things done

by the end of the year

3. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer President’s Day as an additional holiday?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• closing the university for an additional day would affect academic calendar, exam scheduling• falls very close to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day• possible for employees to take a vacation day on this federal holiday

4. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison close between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Christian holidays are already privileged by our current holiday system• prefer to allocate vacation that employees can use when they need/want to take leave• payroll week

5. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison allow employees to substitute other religious holidays for paidlegal holidays?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• closure of state agencies by statute• management issue associated with substituting other religious holidays

Question:

How can we honor holidays in religious traditions other than Christianity?(We recommend adopting language supporting diversity of religious observances: UPPP 16.05.)

Sources:

UW Service Center: Legal Holidayshttps://uwservice.wisc.edu/calendars-schedules/legal-holidays.php

Unclassified Personnel Policies & Procedures 16.05. Religious Observances.www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1605.html

Unclassified employees represent many different religions, and the University seeks to be sensitive to individual needs bybalancing work requirements and the private free exercise of religious beliefs.

If an employee would like time off for a religious observance, he/she should ask the supervisor or department chairperson.Approval must be granted unless the absence will create a hardship for the unit. The employee must use vacation, floatingholiday, or personal holiday hours, or make other arrangements with his/her supervisor.

An employee’s claim of a religious conflict should be accepted at face value. A great variety of valid claims exist for religiousgroups, and there is no practical, dignified, and legal means to access the validity of individual claims.

10

Appendix 8. Personal Holidays

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison combine personal holidays with vacation?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

Combine personal holidays with vacation

Pros Cons

• less confusing for employees• reduces risk that employee will lose leave (now, if

employee selects but does not have personalholiday, HRS converts to unpaid time)

• not a significant change in how personal holiday isused (now, most employees use personal holidaysup right away to avoid losing them)

• easier to administer leave “in one bucket”

• more meaningful for classified employees(currently the only option employees can use rightup front)

• one type of vacation people have to really use(“use it or lose it” – can’t carry)

Emerging idea:

• Like our recommended hybrid model for sick leave, we could allocate vacation with a portion (36-40hours) available to employees during the probationary/evaluation period (not more than could beearned during this initial period).

Questions:

• Can personal holidays be combined with vacation? Reduced or expanded? [Yes, in scope]• In 20 years, will anyone remember why we have personal holiday hours?

Campus Engagement Theme: Preserve flexibility to meet unanticipated needs.

For employees who are required to schedule all vacation six months to one year in advance, combiningpersonal holiday and vacation will result in a significant loss of flexibility.

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendation was to combine personal holiday with vacation. While this recommendationremains the same, we now also recommend that all employees be permitted to schedule 40 hours of vacationflexibly (as personal holiday traditionally has been scheduled).

Why?

In the current system, employees receive 36 hours of personal holiday, which must be used in the yearearned, and vacation, some of which may be carried from year to year. Employees hired toward the end of theyear need to use personal holiday quickly, at the beginning of employment. An employee who “charges”vacation hours instead of using up personal holiday hours may lose the time.

We believe combining personal holiday and vacation will reduce the risk of losing personal holiday, makepaid leave less confusing, and make record keeping easier.

During campus engagement sessions, we learned that personal holiday and vacation are treated differently. Indivisions where employees are required to schedule vacation hours up to one year in advance, personalholiday can be used with shorter notice. We want to preserve flexibility for these (and other) employees.

11

Question:

Is there a way to give employees more flexibility in using vacation (preserve flexibility offered by the“old” personal holiday)?

Discussion:

• possibility: propose policy allowing flexible use of 40 hours of vacation

– very few policies directing units on operational issues (“odd” to create a new policy)– hope that employing units would offer flexibility– 24/7 service units (caring for people, animals, places) offer much less flexibility than academic

units (culture, operational needs)– employees choose their career paths (some jobs require working nights, weekends, holidays)– employers face retention problems if practices around leave are unreasonably inflexible/stringent– guidance might be helpful to employing units– “not more than x hours scheduled in advance” or “y hours to be used flexibly”

• asking employees to schedule 100% of vacation in advance is unreasonable – emergencies arise• additional carry over similar to earlier banking

Decision point:Should our business case include language explicitly stating our intent: every employee should be able toschedule up to 40 hours of vacation flexibly?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Sources:

Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook. Chapter 716, Sec. 716.060. Personal HolidaysOffice of State Employee Relations Compensation & Labor Relations (Revised August 2005):http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=3422 [url directs to Chap716Annual-1.pdf]

Note: 8 hours in lieu of Veterans Day holiday (2004)

Bulletin #CBB-45. Implementation of Changed Personal Holiday/Annual Leave Provisions for the 1997-99 AgreementsDue to “Good Friday” Legal Holiday Elimination.State of Wisconsin Department of Employee Relations, Division of Collective Bargaining (22 September 1997):

http://oser.state.wi.us/bulletins/bulletin_get.asp?bid=143

Note: 4 hours in lieu of Good Friday half-day holiday (1997)History: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/230/II/35/4/d

Appendix 9. Vacation

Decision points: [please see also: Appendix 10. Sick Leave, Decision point 1]

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees earn vacation?(No)

A. Leave for Student Hourly Assistants

Discussion:

• < 10 hours/week, usually may reschedule with supervisor’s permission• many people can’t reschedule due to event timing, class & other work commitments• other benefits accrue to student hourly workers (FICA exception; academic breaks)

Decision:

We are not recommending a new vacation benefit for student hourly assistants at this time.

12

B. Leave for Graduate Assistants (TA, PA, RA) and Employees-in-Training

Decision point:Should RAs receive vacation and sick leave similar to TAs/PAs (9 or 12 months, based on individualappointment)?(Vote: No – 0G, 3Y, 7R)

Reservations:

• RAs are looking more and more like employees• RAs lack flexibility without leave benefits

Discussion:

• could use TA/PA contract model – 180 hours (22 days)/year, combined vacation and sick leave,tracked at dept. level – for RAs, with leave pro-rated by appointment length

• could consider a new model for post graduates (1 day of vacation and day of sick leave for every 30contract days, in a leave bank) – it would become a whole HRS sub-project to bring leave currentlyhandled at the department level “onto the books”

• RAs must be registered as full time students; although they look like employees, the relationship isprimarily educational (while overlap with faculty/PI research interest/project is likely, RA researchapplies to student’s own dissertation – vs. PA research, which informs the student but contributesprimarily to the instructor’s research)

• RAs receive a stipend, not a wage and benefits; FICA exemption (TAs/PAs receive “payment”)• RA absence is not recorded or deducted from stipend, absences a detriment to student progress• vacation generally is not possible during the semester, is most important/useful for parental leave and

other types of family/medical leave (situational leave)• TAs and PAs benefit from tuition remission – all but student segregated fees paid• TA/PA benefits traditionally negotiated (TAA), contract has been acknowledged• leave for postgraduate workers should be consistent across campus

Question:

Where is the tipping point? RAs are now eligible for several employment benefits.

Decision:

We are not recommending leave for RAs at this time. The university needs a separate, formalreview/planning process for the transition of RAs from student to employee status. A different model fromthe traditional employer:employee balance could be more appropriate for individuals whose relationship tothe university is primarily educational.)

C. Leave for C-Basis (9-month) faculty & academic staff

Discussion:

• most faculty have 9-month appointments (CALS transitioning 12 to 9-month; SMPH 12-month)• general practice that universities don’t give vacation to 9-month academic employees• unlike parental leave, no record of requests, complaints (“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”)• political pushback anticipated if vacation is recommended• compensation reflects vacation status [please see: Source: UWS F29, below]• faculty members’ time is their own – more flexibility than other employees• faculty governance powerful, not a disadvantaged group (“Faculty can advocate for their needs. If C-

basis (9-month) faculty wanted vacation, we would have it.”)• false assumption? (colleague coverage in lieu of using sick leave recently disallowed)• Faculty and instructional academic staff have flexibility to use vacation during winter and spring

breaks; we should provide an opportunity, & expect, for employees to report vacation used.

13

• Faculty and academic staff do not have time to use vacation during breaks, which are generallydevoted to grading, teaching preparation, and research.

• could consider K-12 model (personal days, don’t accrue) or TA/PA contract model (22 days/year)• could consider proportional amount of vacation• could consider a leave bank – vacation is most needed for parental leave, other family/medical leave

(situational leave)• separate work group is considering/developing a proposal to provide sabbatical leave for

instructional academic staff

Questions:

• How do sabbatical leave and summer salary fit into the benefits equation?• Is vacation needed beyond parental and other family leave situations?

Decision:

We are not recommending a new vacation benefit for C-Basis (9-month) faculty and academic staff at thistime.

Source:

UW System Financial Administration Salary and Fringe Benefits Calculations for Unclassified Staff (F29)(Revised 1 December 2004):www.wisconsin.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp29.htm

Note: provides calculation formula for adding value of vacation to C-Basis (9-month) faculty & academic staff salaries

D. Leave for Limited Term Employees (LTEs)

Decision points:

Should LTEs receive vacation?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Should LTEs receive sick leave?(Vote: No – 6G, 3Y)

Reservations:

• anyone can become ill or injured: at a minimum, short-term employees should receive nominal, non-accruing sick leave

• we should be able to make a distinction between employees who are working full time for a short periodand employees working very few hours per week (whether or not it is hard to manage leave for theseemployees)

• in particular, employees who “stack” LTEs to reach full-time employment and “serial” LTEs who haveworked at the university for many years should be eligible for benefits

Discussion:

• number and range of hours worked is very broad (1-2 hours/week to 40 hours/week)• position tracking changed with Act 32• focus should remain on LTE conversion – “Don’t put a bandaid on this problem.”• problem of individuals holding multiple, serial LTE appointments – “An individual working 40

hours/week should be eligible for benefits, regardless of where those hours are worked.”• “Look-back” process will reveal WRS eligibility• employees who are not WRS-eligible are eligible for Graduate Assistant rates (health insurance:

$84/single, $201/family)

14

Question:

What is our philosophy? Do we make recommendations based on what should be, or what is?

Decision:

We are not recommending new leave benefits for LTEs at this time. The WRS-eligibility threshold shouldremain a qualifier for benefits:

Employee start date on or after 1 July 2011, never worked for a WRS-participating employer: • WRS coverage immediate and mandatory for those with expected employment of two-thirds of full-

time for at least one year (1200 hours per year, 58% FTE).• Employees not immediately eligible will be placed under WRS after one year if they worked at least

1200 hours in the previous 12 months.• Must have five years of creditable WRS service to be vested in the WRS (may take more than five

years if working part-time).

Employees who have worked for a WRS-participating employer prior to 1 July 2011: • WRS coverage is immediate and mandatory for those with expected employment of one-third of full-

time for at least one year (600 hours per year, 29% FTE).• Employees with WRS-creditable service prior to 1 July 2011 are immediately vested.• Employees without WRS-creditable service prior to 1 July 2011 must have five years of creditable

WRS service to be vested in the WRS.

Positions requiring serial LTE appointments should be converted to permanent project positions.

E. Leave for Short-term Academic Staff

Decision points:

Should short-term academic staff receive vacation?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Should short-term academic staff receive sick leave?(Vote: No – 7G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• anyone can become ill or injured: at a minimum, short-term employees should receive nominal, non-accruing sick leave

• we should be able to make a distinction between employees who are working full time for a short periodand employees working very few hours per week or working outside a set schedule (whether or not it ishard to manage leave for these employees) – some project appointments run for more than a year

Discussion:

• project appointment (1 year or more, not to exceed 4 years, statutorily) vs. short-term appointment (<1 year, non-WRS eligible)

• FLSA exempt employees can flex schedules, make up time

Decision:

We are not recommending new leave benefits for short-term academic staff at this time. The WRS-eligibilitythreshold should remain a qualifier for benefits. [please see: Appendix 9.D., above]

F. Leave for Trades Employees [please see: Appendix 33. Benefits for Trades Employees.]

15

Sources:

UW System Financial Administration. Salary and Fringe Benefits Calculations for Unclassified Staff(F29) Revised 1 December 2004www.wisconsin.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp29.htm

2012 Benefits Summary: WRS-Eligible Limited Term Employeeswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/lteben.pdf

2012 Benefit Summary: Graduate Assistants, Postdoctoral Appointees, and Short-term Academic Appointmentswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/gradben.pdf

Note: Decision points 2 through 28 refer to University of Wisconsin-Madison WRS-eligible classifiedFLSA exempt, classified FLSA non-exempt, and unclassified A-basis (12-month) employees.

2. Should all employees receive the same amount of vacation?

(Vote 1: split vote – Yes, 2G, 1Y; No, 5G, 2Y; 1 abstention)

(Vote 2: yes – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• recognize that FLSA exempt employees expect to work more than 40 hours but are not eligible forovertime, comp time (extra 2 days/year)

• want to hear more from the campus community about leave

(Vote 3: yes – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• we offer a lot of vacation in comparison to other employers, usually ~96 hrs for new employees• significant difference in initial allocation for unclassified staff

Discussion:

• linked to how leave is reported, when people are eligible to use leave, how/when leave is banked(what you have, how you can use it, and how you can avoid losing it)

• acknowledge FLSA exempt vs. FLSA non-exempt job structure– exempt cannot accrue comp time (need more vacation or more flexibility)– non-exempt can earn overtime/comp time (variable, depends where you work)

• positives of overtime/comp time offset by mandatory overtime.• perceptions: typically not a large amount (special event, snow removal); most Housing employees

take overtime pay when choice is presented; many employees take comp time in academic units• recruitment: may be less competitive if < 176 hours offered to faculty and academic staff• concerned about reducing initial allocation for academic staff; a positive is that new employees will

reach 176 with “bumps” and then earn more• NY = multiple transitions (6-tier retirement plan)• coming to the middle is difficult – there are significant differences across employee categories• globally, HR Design is to evaluate and change – less “pigeon-holing”

16

Same amount of vacation

Pros Cons

• consistency, equity (equal footing, equal basis,break down class/caste boundaries)

• everyone needs balance & wellness• entitlement (everyone is entitled to at least ‘x’

vacation)• easier to administer (efficiency)• easier to understand (employee and person

explaining)• easier to schedule?

• if lots of leave, maybe harder to schedule• does not recognize different expectations of FLSA

exempt & non-exempt employees, acknowledgetime worked (currently exempt: + 2 days,non-exempt: earn comp time, overtime)

• for longer term workers, if no accrual then noreward

• potentially more expensive

Benchmarking

Same amount Different amount

Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska [FLSA exemptreport half & whole day increments], Northwestern,Penn (Ivy), Drexel

Illinois, Ohio, Penn State, Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue

Emerging ideas:

• Offer all employees the same amount of vacation with recommendations for other form(s) ofacknowledgment

• Offer different amounts of vacation based on FLSA exempt vs. non-exempt status

Questions:

• Do departments allow employees to earn overtime, accumulate comp time?• Would hourly reporting erode the distinction between hourly and salaried employees? Would

salaried employees lose FLSA exempt status? [No. Hourly reporting is allowable for publicemployees, principle of accountability. Please see: Chapter 520.060 2. b. (below, p. 27)]

• Is there a way to imagine this conversation as not about compensation? Or is that we need/want leaveto be construed as compensation?

• What would be most equitable? What would have the greatest impact to improve campus climate?

– same amount of vacation, different eligibility to start using vacation?– same amount of vacation, different reporting requirements?– different amount of vacation, same eligibility to start using?– different amount of vacation, same (hourly?) reporting requirements?

• How would vacation work for C-Basis (9-month) unclassified employees?• How would “grandfathering” work? [please see: Decision point 8, below]

Data requests:

• How many hours of overtime have been paid in the past year?• How much comp time has been earned in the past year?• How many employees earn the maximum allowable vacation hours now (216 hours)? How many

would be affected if we recommend change?

3. Should leave be allocated on the same date for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

4. Should leave be allocated on a calendar year or fiscal year basis?(Vote: fiscal year (x8) vs. calendar year (x2))

17

Discussion:

• current unclassified employees would not be affected• current classified employees would receive 1/2-year allocation in January + annual July allocation

Calendar Year

Pros Cons

• W4 & payroll based on calendar year• How other businesses operate (Question: How

does that affect UW-Madison businessoperations?)

• State schedule is calendar year

• floating holiday difficult to use in December(especially for employees in 24/7 units)

• change management - transition for employees whoare used to working on a calendar year basis

• unclassified retirement reporting to WRS changes

Fiscal Year

Pros Cons

• Easier to use floating holidays by end of FY• Aligns with budget cycle, allocation of state funds• Less likely to exhaust vacation before the winter

holidays, gain new holiday in summer months• Transition: fewer employees to “move” since all

unclassified employees receive leave on a FY basis(fewer HRS hours)

• FY transition to new HR system: “use or lose” maybe a problem

• change management - transition for employees whoare used to working on a FY basis

5. What total amount of leave would be fair?

Proposed Leave System: Paid Leave Available to WRS-Eligible Employees by Years of Service1

Years ofService

1-3 yearsincrease follows

3 anniversaryrd


6 anniversaryth


9 anniversaryth


12 anniversaryth


15 anniversaryth

> 15 years

Holidays 2 80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

Vacation 3, 4 160 hours(20 days)

176 hours(22 days)

192 hours(24 days)

208 hours(26 days)

224 hours(28 days)

240 hours(30 days)

Sick Leave 120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

TotalPaid Leave

360 hours45 days

376 hours47 days

392 hours49 days

408 hours51 days

424 hours53 days

440 hours55 days

Notes:1. All allocations prorated for part-time employment2. Graduate assistants (TAs, PAs) and short-term academic staff who normally work on the Friday after Thanksgiving

would receive this holiday3. All vacation allocations include 36 hours formerly allocated as personal holiday4. C-Basis (9-month) faculty and academic staff do not receive vacation

18

Note: altering amount sick leave (below) would alter the proposed total amount of leave:

Proposed Leave System: Paid Leave Available to WRS-Eligible Employees by Years of Service

Years ofService


3 anniversaryrd


6 anniversaryth


9 anniversaryth


12 anniversaryth


15 anniversaryth

> 15 years

Holidays 80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

Vacation 160 hours(20 days)

176 hours(22 days)

192 hours(24 days)

208 hours(26 days)

224 hours(28 days)

240 hours(30 days)

Sick Leave 120 hours130 hours(15 days)(16 1/4 days)

120 hours130 hours(15 days)(16 1/4 days)





TotalPaid Leave






440 hours450 hours(55 days)

(56 1/4 days)

6. What minimum (entry level) allocation of leave would be fair?

Range 144-252 hours?(Vote 1: No – does not reflect majority, most votes for 156-240 hours)

(Vote 2: 144 hours (x3); 156 hours (x6); 212 hours (x1))

(Vote 3: 160 hours (20 days)/year): Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservation:

• significant change for entering unclassified employees

19

Discussion:

We want solutions that reduce problems: gaming the system, supervisor actions that prevent employeesfrom using accrued leave, institutional losses when employees leave after using initial allotments/morethan they have earned

Initial allocations discussed:

Range – first discussion: 120 hours (15 days) to 200 hours (25 days)

144 hours (18 days)

• impact on units with many FLSA non-exempt employees• could bump “earlier & more often” – reflect significant increase in contributions ~2 yrs• when you start a new job it’s difficult to get away (keep growing)• prefer whole days. Why start a new program with half a day?

156 hours (19.5 days) or 160 hours (20 days)

• meet in the middle? = 156 a better minimum• prefer number divisible by 8• incoming employees may expect escalation; recruiting tool – could bring in at a higher level• 20 days = 2.5 days more than lowest current allocation, for new, FLSA non-exempt classified

employees

176 hours (22 days)• avoid decreasing vacation significantly for one group of employees• 18 days might hurt our competitiveness• people see sick leave differently from vacation

(although sick leave is part of the total compensation package)

Questions:

• Do we have enough leave? Too much? Too little?• Would morale go down with a large initial allotment but little or no progression?

(“earning” vs. “entitlement”)• How do life-cycle needs tie in with recruitment? retention? institutional costs? operational needs

(e.g., to assure coverage)? turnover costs?

Data:

University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design Project: Vacation & Sick Leave BenchmarkingHuron Consulting Group (Draft – 27 February 2012)

7. What maximum allocation of leave would be fair?(Vote: 240 hours (x7); 324 hours (x3))

Maximum allocations discussed:

240 hours• 10 additional days of vacation (2 weeks)

252 hours:• vacation a proxy for compensation• avoid further benefits cuts• anticipate complaints when draft recommendations go out for comment

20

Campus Engagement Theme: Loss of anticipated leave.

The proposed leave system changes what an employee could have earned in the current system.

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendations about vacation included: • combining personal holiday with vacation • bringing all employees into a “stepped” system • providing an initial vacation allocation of 160 hours for new employees • providing a maximum vacation allocation of 240 hours at 16 years (after the 15 anniversary ofth

employment)

These recommendations, including our recommended maximum vacation allocation, remain the same.

Why?

Identifying fair initial and maximum vacation allocations is a major challenge of creating a unified leavesystem. The norm in higher education is to offer different amounts of leave for different employee groups.Usually FLSA non-exempt employees receive less leave than exempt counterparts, and this has been true atour university as well. We needed to find a middle ground that meets employees’ personal needs throughouttheir careers and that balances operational needs of 24/7 units with expectations of unclassified employees,who currently receive leave in a “flat” system (high initial allocation, no increases).

We recommend an initial vacation allocation of 160 hours (4 weeks), available from “day one.” Using ourcurrent employment categories, a new non-exempt employee would receive 20 hours (2 ½ days) more at hire.A new classified exempt employee would receive 4 hours more at hire. A new unclassified employee wouldreceive 52 hours (6 ½ days) less at hire.

We recommend a maximum vacation allocation of 240 hours (6 weeks). The maximum vacation allocation of252 hours (216 hours of vacation plus 36 hours of personal holiday) provided in our current system toclassified non-exempt employees after 25 years of service and to classified exempt employees after 20 yearsof service would no longer be available.

All employees would reach the new vacation maximum significantly earlier, following the 15 anniversary ofth

employment. The maximum allocation for classified non-exempt and exempt employees would decrease by12 hours (1 ½ days). The maximum allocation for unclassified employees would increase by 28 hours (3 ½days).

The long term effect of these changes would be to bring the total amount of vacation hours earned over alengthy career into alignment across employment categories.

Data on average vacation carry over and vacation hours lost (carry over hours that expire) suggests that theproposed maximum allocation is ample. Many employees carry over more than 30 hours of vacation eachyear and the average amount of vacation lost exceeds the amount by which the maximum vacation allocationwould change:

Average amount of vacation carry over Average amount of vacation lost (carry over expired)

classified non-exempt: 39 hours (max. allowed = 40 hours) classified non-exempt: 13 hours

classified exempt: 32.5 hours (max. allowed = 40 hours) classified exempt: 15 hours

unclassified: 105 hours unclassified: 56 hours

21

The proposed maximum allocation is consistent with our CIC/Big Ten peers. Most provide a maximumvacation allocation of fewer than 240 hours (including personal holiday or the equivalent):

• Michigan State, Purdue: 176 hours/year• Michigan: 192 hours/year• Nebraska, Ohio: 200 hours/year• Minnesota, Northwestern: 224 hours/year• Iowa: 232 hours/year• Illinois: 240 hours/year

Only Penn State (272 hours/year) and Indiana (296 hours/year) offer more.

Decision point:Is there a business case to re-open our recommendation about the maximum allocation of vacation?(Vote: No – 6R, 3Y)

Reservations:

• understand people’s feelings• value long-term employees – are we really benefitting all employees?• bumping up against compensation issues again

Discussion:

• not losing vacation, losing the potential to gain 12 hours of vacation in the future• with additional day of vacation, difference diminished (4 hours)• class/caste system encourages people to see “giving up” not “having more”• issue arose in 3 of 7 HR Manager group discussions• whether people value sick leave more [yes: value of sick leave at conversion]• employees will receive more sick leave and be able to carry over more vacation

8. Should we “grandfather” employees who currently earn more than 240 hours (30 days)/year?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Note: Ongoing employees should receive vacation commensurate with time in position.No employee would lose vacation. Some would be eligible for additional vacation.

An employee earning less than the minimum allocation would enter the new system with 160 hours (20days, 4 weeks) of vacation. A mid-career employee earning more vacation than the new systemprovides would enter at his or her current allocation and remain at that level until eligible for the next“bump.” An employee earning more than the new maximum allocation would remain at 216 hours + 36hours (31.5 days)/year until separation/retirement.

Vacation Allocation Examples:

Example 1: Classified FLSA non-exempt employee with 2 years of service:• current system: earns 104 hours vacation + 36 hours personal holiday = 140 hours• proposed system: would earn 160 hours of vacation

Example 2: Unclassified employee with 3 years of service:• current system: earns 176 hours vacation + 36 hours personal holiday = 212 hours• proposed system: would be “grandfathered” at 212 hours/year until 13 years of service• following the 12th anniversary, would earn 224 hours (includes 36 hours personal holiday), the

maximum amount of leave

22

Example 3: Classified FLSA exempt employee with 18 years of service• current system: earns 200 hours vacation + 36 hours personal holiday = 236 hours• proposed system: would earn 240 hours vacation (includes 36 hours personal holiday), the maximum

amount of leave

Example 4: Classified FLSA non-exempt employee with 26 years of service• current system: earns 216 hours vacation + 36 hours personal holiday = 252 hours• proposed system: would be “grandfathered” at 252 hours/year until separation

Discussion:

• ~500 employees currently earning 216 hours/year• higher initial allocation and earlier “bumps” would mitigate loss of hours at end of career• generous benefits may give us a significant edge in recruitment

9. Should experienced employees enter above minimum allocation?(Vote: Yes, WRS-State of Wisconsin service only – 8G, 1Y)

Reservation:

• lack of parity for experienced employees who enter from non-WRS State of Wisconsin positions

Discussion:

• enter at level commensurate with years of state service• remain at that level until eligible for next “bump”• vacation as a recruitment tool

– model: City of Madison (come in with 3 weeks, approval of up to 4 weeks)– leave very generous to begin with, in positions competing with private sector, we have a

competitive edge already– who decides? how would we keep track?– goal is to eliminate class distinctions; achieve consistent HR practice across campus: this would

undermine our efforts to create a consistent leave system (high potential for abuse, differentpractice in different parts of campus)

Experience reflected in initial vacation allotment:

Pros Cons

• WRS State of Wisconsin employees havereinstatement rights, should be able to re-enter atsame seniority date (continuous service) oradjusted seniority date (short gap in service , 3-5years, depending on employment category)

• corresponds with the way in which employeescurrently move among state agencies

• More broadly (beyond WRS State service),provides flexibility in recruitment

• use compensation, not vacation for recruitment• goal is to eliminate disparities and class

distinctions, we want a system that is even & fair• wouldn’t reflect the private sector (our leave is

very generous to begin with)• don’t encourage high level searches to negotiate

“CEO status” – we need to combat growth of a“superstar” mentality in academe

• new job (don’t expect enhanced benefits), don’tprivilege municipalities

Questions:

• Would other WRS service (City of Madison, MMSD, other municipalities) be recognized?• Would federal service be recognized?• Would years of experience in higher education be recognized (unclassified staff)?• Would it be possible to use vacation as a recruitment tool – supervisor brings employee in at a higher

level?

HR Design Project connection: Check in & coordinate with Recruitment & Assessment team.

23

10. Should vacation allocations increase based on years of service?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

11. How often should an employee’s vacation allocation increase, and by how much?

1 increase at 2 years (following 2 anniversary), then every 3 years (2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17) -OR-st nd

1 increase at 3 years (following 3 anniversary), then every 3 years (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18)st rd

(Vote 1: split – 1 increase at year 2 (x 4); 1 increase at year 3 (x6))st st

Increases (2 days) at 3 , 6 , 9 , 12 , & 15 anniversary (beginning of year 4, 7, 10, 13, 16);rd th th th th

Reach maximum allocation after 15 years of service(Vote 2: Yes – 8G + 2Y)

Benchmarking: Maximum allocation reached at...

0 yrs – UW-Madison unclassified employees(receive 176 hours of vacation throughout career)

6 yrs – Penn10 yrs – Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Vanderbuilt, Drexel15 yrs – Illinois, Nebraska20 yrs – UW-Madison classified FLSA exempt employees; Northwestern21 yrs – University of Chicago24 yrs – Ohio State25 yrs – UW-Madison classified FLSA non-exempt employees; Iowa26 yrs – Penn State30 yrs – Indiana31 yrs – Minnesota

Number of years at each level:

1-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• employee earns sooner• good for all• reward in absence of raises• retention incentive

• vacation – fractions every year• cost more to pay out at early separation• gain on anniversary, so only get a fraction• with 10 days between min & max, reach maximum

vacation allocation at 10 years

2-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• 2 years: reflects learning curve, “glow” maydiminish

• all prorated all the time• creates an administrative & financial burden for the

university• cost more to pay out at early separation• with 10 days between minimum & maximum

allocations, small rise at each “bump” if employeesreach maximum allocation at 15-18 years -OR-employees reach maximum allocation at 10 years if2 days are allocated at each “bump”

24

3-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• in advance of traditional 5 years• peers average 3-5 years• fewer fractions, larger “bumps” (reach maximum

vacation allocation at 15 years if 2 days areallocated at each “bump”)

• costs of early separation are falling at this level

• unclassified employees wait longer to reach 176hours

“Bumps” relatively late? (Indiana 6, Ohio State 7, Penn State 10) [We don’t favor this approach.]

12. When should employees be eligible to use vacation? “Day One,” with supervisor’s approval?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Note: An employee who separates from the university and who has used more vacation than earned willbe required to reimburse the university for excess leave used.(Current policy continues.)

Discussion:

• parallel to our recommended hybrid model for sick leave, we could allocate vacation with a portion(36-40 hours) available to employees during the probationary/evaluation period (not more than couldbe earned during the initial period designated)

– difficult to administer– if 3-month period selected, prefer hybrid

• university needs to address structural issues (hiring delays, work backlogs) rather than place theburden on incoming employees

Day 1

Pros Cons

• option value/flexibility• enables employee to meet personal, family needs• supervisor’s discretion/responsibility to approve or

deny requests• consistency/equity (if standardized across

employee categories)• reduces unpaid leave• less unused vacation at end-of-year• identify leave abuse early• recruitment plus• flexibility for families with small children• lost PH bank• mitigates – smaller initial allocation for

unclassified employees• except for pre-planned trips and emergencies, most

employees will wait to use large amounts ofvacation when starting a new job

• “approval of supervisor” (supervisor acceptsresponsibility, risk by approving leave)

• standard language exists (if more leave is used thanearned, the difference must be repaid uponresignation/separation)

• employee – interrupts learning curve• employer – difficult to reduce work backlog, less

time to evaluate• significant change, administrative challenge for

service units

25

3 months

Pros Cons

• allows period of time for evaluation & training• employee has access to other paid leave (36 hours

personal vacation, sick leave)• less vacation carry-over than 6 months

• for experienced employees new to UW-Madison, 6months is a long time to wait

• recruitment challenge: if experienced workerswould lose benefits, people we want/need may notapply

6 months

Pros Cons

• generous period of time for evaluation• for current classified employees, leave is tied to

probationary period

• “There are no pros – 6 months is tough.” (Hard toflex for family, illness)

Question:

What is the turn-over rate for service units (# or % new employees/year)?

13. How should employees report use of vacation?

A. Should FLSA non-exempt employees continue to report in 15-minute increments?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

B. Should FLSA exempt employees (classified exempt, unclassified) report on the same basis?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

C. Should FLSA exempt employees report in hours?

(Vote 1: No – Report 0,4,8: 9G; Report in hours: 1 G, 1 Y)

Reservations:

• negative for campus climate• abuse (fosters actual abuse and creates widespread perception of abuse)

(Vote 2: Yes – Report in hours(x9); Report 0-4-8 (x2))

Reservations:

• changing so many things – “if it’s not broken, don’t ‘fix’ it”(vs. potential for abuse – frequently away just less than 2 hours)

• having a policy in place matters “but people will do what people will do”• same amount of vacation would help• people lack awareness, recognition of amount of work people in FLSA exempt jobs do• some people were very happy with the change in ‘07-‘08

Discussion:

• unclassified hourly employees currently report hours worked (“Everyone should report hours actuallyworked.”)

• need to raise awareness about differences in FLSA exempt/non-exempt employment

26

Options discussed

FLSA non-exempt employees FLSA exempt employees FLSA exempt employees

1/4 hour (15 mn) increments hour (60 mn) increments 0, 4, 8 hour increments(current structure)

Reporting 0, 4, 8 hour increments

Pros Cons

• expectation FLSA exempt work > 40 hours/week• variable schedule, often time accounted for with

extra hours (on the same day or within the sameweek)

• HRS set up to record unclassified leave in theseincrements

• major climate – class/caste issue[comment: “this is a universal issue – same inprivate companies”]

Questions:

• Does FLSA preclude reporting in hours for exempt employees? [No. Hourly reporting is allowablefor public employees, principle of accountability. Please see: Chapter 520.060 2. b.]

• Does FLSA preclude reporting in hours for non-exempt employees? [regardless, need 15 mnincrements to calculate over time, comp time]

• Can we provide workplace flexibility given policies against pyramiding & stacking breaks? [raisedduring “same amount?” discussion]

• What change would make vacation easier to manage?

– same reporting for classified exempt & unclassified employees: small # of people to switch

• What would help the campus climate more?

– same vacation, reported differently? (Same amount much more “visible”)– more similar reporting and different amounts of vacation? (Different practice creates strong

sense of unfairness – required to report minutes away vs. may be away for up to 2 hours withoutreporting an absence)

Data request :

• How much overtime was paid in the last year?• How much comp time was earned in the last year?

Source:

Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook. Ch. 520. Administration of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act andWisconsin Statutes Pertaining to Hours Worked and Overtime Provisions for State Classified Employees andCertain Unclassified Employeeshttp://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=4271

520.060 2. b. Salary Basis Test

All employees functioning in an exempt capacity, except exempt limited term employees (LTEs), are paid on a “salary basis” andtherefore will meet this test, unless an exception is granted by the DMRS Administrator. The employee must receive his or herfull salary for any week in which work is performed without regard to the actual number of days or hours worked, as long as theemployee is ready, willing and able to perform work.

Confusion over this provision often arises when public employees claim they are not paid on a salary basis because vacation, sickleave, etc., must be used to account for the absence, including partial day absences. The FLSA provides public employers theability to substitute accrued personal leave (sick leave, annual leave, personal holiday, etc.) for absences. This ability to substitutepaid leave is granted under the principles of public accountability which require the public employee’s pay to be reduced or theemployee placed on leave without pay for absences for personal reasons or because of illness or injury. [Reference 29 C.F.R. Part541.710, Bulletin OS-66 CC/POL-18 CBB-7, and Bulletin CC/POL-27 CBB-15]

27

Note: The employer’s ability to substitute leave may be superseded when the absence is a covered leave under federal or statefamily and medical leave laws.

The employer may also choose not to allow time to be charged to paid leave and require the exempt employee to work additionaltime as necessary to meet the work requirements of the position whether or not such additional time is on an hour-for-hour basis.

14. Should vacation and sick leave be reported in the same way?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

15. Should vacation carry over be allowed?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• if employer/supervisor disallows vacation (denies, cancels), should there be a mechanism to ensurethere is no loss to the employee? (pay out?)

Carry-over vacation

Pros Cons

• flexibility to save for specific use (family event,surgery, vacation)

• don’t lose compensation• raise morale (compensate for inability to take time

at end of year)• hedge against unemployment

• difficulty of managing schedules if all carry overand then need/want to take off for a long vacation

• “Everyone needs vacation” vs. “Not everyoneneeds vacation” (employees value/use vacationdifferently)

• expensive pay-out at separation or retirement• potential loss if carry-over expires

16. Should the amount of vacation carry-over be the same for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• if there is no difference in eligibility to carry over, encourage employees to use vacation in the sameyear it is granted

17. What amount of vacation should employees be allowed to carry over, and for how long?

A. What amount?

(Vote 1: 40-80 hours (x6) vs. all (x3))

(Vote 2: 40 hours (x6), 60 hours (x2), 80 hours (x2))

Reservations:

• people not showing up for work to use up vacation• option to carry all vacation for 6 months a win-lose compromise (everyone gives a little, might not smart

as much)

(Vote 3: 40 hours (x6), 80 hours (x3))

Reservations:

• significant reduction for unclassified employees in ability to earn and now also to carry• current employees will be able to carry 25% vs. 100% of vacation hours• new unclassified employee will receive 52 fewer hours, carry 25% vs. 100% of vacation hours

28

Discussion:

• we don’t know what the future may bring• offers more flexibility• flexibility is important, highly valued (personal needs, care for family)• people have difference jobs and different needs• perception that unclassified employees have more flexibility and report fewer absences• the new system would allocate more leave, earlier• need to view carry-over in relation to banking and sick leave – with earlier banking, people will have

the opportunity to save more leave [80 hours: 40 carry + 40 bank]• difficult to administer higher carry over – need some limitations• we are trying to recalibrate, get people to use vacation as vacation (rest & relaxation)

Amounts discussed:

• all?• all - 36 hours (personal holiday integrated with vacation)?• fraction (25%, 50%, 75%)?• hours (40, 60, 80, 120)?

Benchmarking:

1.5x annual accrual to 2x annual accrual

Campus Engagement Theme: Preserve flexibility to meet unanticipated needs.Sometimes the nature of our work limits opportunities to take vacation. Restricting the amount of vacation anemployee can carry over may constrain his or her ability to enjoy vacation or manage life events.

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendation was to permit employees to carry over 40 hours of leave for one year.(Vote: 40 hours (x6), 80 hours (x3))

We now recommend that all employees be permitted to carry over 80 hours of vacation for one year.(Vote 4: < 80 hours (x3), 80 hours (x7))

Why?

For many years, classified employees have been permitted to carry over 40 hours of vacation for 6 months(longer with supervisor’s permission). Unclassified employees have been permitted to carry over 176 hoursof vacation – an entire year’s allocation – for one year.

Permitting more carry over and, therefore, higher leave balances, can make scheduling more difficult in 24/7operations and potentially increase costs at separation. On the other hand, permitting more carry over offers“insurance” against the unexpected, supports employees in planning for family commitments or life events,and preserves vacation for future use when short-term work commitments limit an employee’s ability to takevacation.

On balance, we have reached the conclusion that a higher level of vacation carry over is manageable for theuniversity and supportive of employees.

Decision point:Should we permit employees to carry over more than 40 hours of vacation (for one year)?(Vote 1: Yes – 40 hours (x1), 60 hours (x4) [plus one dot placed between 60-80 hours], 80 hours (x4))

(Vote 2: Yes – 40 hours (x1), 60 hours (x1) [plus one dot placed between 60-80 hours], 80 hours (x7))

29

Reservation:

• people should use vacation when they earn it

Discussion:• theme of personal responsibility in our discussions – higher carry over allows for planning, flexibility

to manage life events• most vacation is scheduled in advance – trust employees to plan• we are simplifying a lot of things, so a little more complexity in this area would be manageable• if we eliminate cash-out, we should allow employees to carry over more vacation (avoid loss)

B. How long?(Vote: one year (x8); all for 6 months ( x1); fraction for 6 months (x1))

Carry over periods discussed:

• 6 months• 6 months, longer with supervisor’s approval

[unautomates process, inconsistent HR practice (depends on supervisor)]• 1 year

Discussion:

• centered on flexibility & family needs

Carry over for 1 year:

Pros Cons

• easier to track• easier to save• safety net• if many employees use entire allocation, carry over

less of an issue

• lots more vacation on the books• (employer) greater pay-out at separation• scheduling requests – limited capacity to permit

lengthier vacations to employees taking care ofanimals, people, and buildings

C. Starting from year of hire?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

30

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. Info-Access and HRS EPM data.Classified based on January 2011 through December 2011. Unclassified based on July 2010 through June 2011.

Notes:

• Most employees with continuous employment carry forward some vacation.• Unclassified employees tend to carry forward more hours than classified employees for several reasons, including:

– carryover is permitted for a greater number of hours– unclassified employees are not able to “cash out” vacation

(eligibility to receive payment for vacation hours can only occur if employees have completed 25 years of service andthe state budget includes funding for a cash payment – funding eliminated in the 2003-2005 biennial budget)

– eligibility to retain vacation in a Accumulated Leave Reserve Account does not occur until the end of the eleventh yearof employment and is limited to 40 hours (5 days) per year until completion of 26 years at which time employees canretain 80 hours (10 days) per year

• Of those employees who carryover vacation, the average number of hours are:

– 32.5 hours for classified FLSA non-exempt employees (maximum allowed is 40 hours)– 39 hours for classified FLSA exempt employees (maximum allowed is 40 hours)– 105 hours for unclassified employees

31


Notes:

• Unclassified employees tend to lose more vacation hours than classified employees. Potential reasons:

– unclassified employees may carry over a greater number of hours than classified employees– FLSA exempt classified employees with more than five years of service, and any classified employee who has

accumulated at least 520 hours in sick leave, may cash out or bank 40 hours of vacation, but unclassified employeesmust wait until the 11 year th

• Of those employees who lost vacation, the average number of hours are:

– 13 hours for classified FLSA non-exempt employees– 15 hours for classified FLSA exempt employees– 56 hours for unclassified employees

18. Should leave banking be allowed?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Faculty ALRA, all others sabbatical [Question posed: Why are faculty different?]• Need a central bank for leave (vs. burden on individual departments/units)• If allowed, could limit to cash-out –OR– limit to extending appointment using vacation• Could allow employees to accumulate & use banked vacation during employment, but have only a

portion available at termination of employment (keep based on family/medical need duringemployment but limit amount paid out/extended at end of employment)

32

Leave banking

Pros Cons

(employee)• what you put in you never lose – protects against

loss of vacation time, compensation• ability to reserve for extraordinary needs• extend termination date (continue health insurance

at lower rate)(employer)• promotes less vacation use

(employee)• promotes less vacation use(employer)• extend termination date (financial burden: cost of

payout, cost of not hiring/work backlog, delaysearch & hire, on the hook for fringe at 58%)

19. Should there be one leave banking program for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

20. Should the amount of leave an employee can bank be capped?(Vote: Yes, at 6 months (x8); at 1 year (x2))

Reservations:

• unlikely to accumulate a year’s worth of leave – if someone can do it, let him or her do it• useful for someone who has to retire early

Benchmarking – Max vacation accrual paid out at separation/retirement

• varies by position type and years of service at some schools• Did not find similar benefit to Sabbatical and ALRA• In most cases, when an employee reaches the maximum he or she will not accrue any additional

vacation until some vacation is used

Michigan State: 0 hoursOhio State: 240 hours (unclassified and administrative professional), 600 hours (classified staff)Penn State: 264 hoursNebraska: 280 hoursIndiana: 288 hours (professional staff), 872 hours (support and service staff)Northwestern: 336 hoursPurdue: 352 hoursIllinois, Michigan: 384 hoursIowa, Minnesota: 432 hours

Campus Engagement Theme: Loss of anticipated leave.

Employees want unlimited leave banking.

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendation was to cap leave banking at 1040 hours (6 months’ worth of leave).

This recommendation remains the same.

Why?

In the current leave system, classified employees who have accrued at least 520 hours of sick leave -or-receive a vacation allocation of 160 hours (FLSA non-exempt) or 176 hours (FLSA exempt) may bank up to40 hours of vacation. Unclassified employees may bank up to 40 hours at the end of the 11 fiscal year ofth

employment and up to 80 hours at the end of the 26 fiscal year. In the proposed system, leave banking willth

be available sooner for many employees. An employee would be permitted to bank up to 40 hours at the endof the fiscal year in which he or she reaches the 6 anniversary of employment and up to 80 hours at the endth

of the fiscal year in which he or she reaches the 12 anniversary of employment.th

33

We believe that 1040 hours (6 months’ worth of leave) is generous, given data we reviewed on employees’current use of Sabbatical and Accumulated Leave Reserve Account (ALRA) leave banking andbenchmarking. Currently, 47 classified employees have more than 1040 hours in Sabbatical and 1unclassified employee has more than 1040 hours in ALRA. In the proposed system, an employee with morethan 1040 hours of banked leave would be “grandfathered” and would keep his or her banked leave balance.The employee would not be able to bank additional leave, unless banked leave was used and the balance fellbelow 1040 hours.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison permits employees to reserve significantly more vacation throughleave banking than peer CIC/Big Ten universities. Other universities generally pay out annual vacation andvacation carry over at separation; none have a similar leave banking benefit.

Earlier leave banking is intended to provide new flexibility for employees to manage life events. It is notintended to become an unlimited “savings account.” Without a cap, earlier leave banking would create anenormous new fiscal burden and extend lags in filling vacated positions. In the proposed system, it wouldtake 16 years for an employee banking the maximum amount to reach a balance of 1040 hours. Without acap, he or she could then save an additional month’s worth of leave every two years.

Decision point:Should we reconsider capping leave banking at 6 months’ worth of leave?(Vote: No – 9R)

Discussion:

• many comments about a central leave bank• leave people have banked now (majority have ~3 months)• amount people will be able to bank in the new system (takes 16 years to bank 6 months)• with earlier banking of 40 hours, 80 hours, unlimited ability to bank is unacceptable• tax implications of large lump sum payment (increasingly popular to transfer $ to TSA at retirement)• while employment is extended, departments cannot hire• benchmarking not “apples to apples” (portion of annual allocation vs. up to 6 months of leave)• University of Wisconsin-Madison benefit unusual, very generous• whether we should re-name leave banking to de-emphasize compensation [no]• whether we should allow even earlier banking [no: increased carry over similar to banking, goal to

promote retention (banking an additional reward for employees following initial vacation “bumps”)]

21. How much leave should an employee be permitted to bank? When? Should the amount increase?

A. Increase?(Vote: Yes, initial amount + 1 “bump” – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• if we cap the amount an employee can bank and starting banking earlier, is there a need? Would allowingemployees to bank additional hours be helpful or simply create frustration when people max out theirleave banking early?

B. How much? When?(Vote: Yes, 40 hours at 6 years, 80 hours at 12 years – unanimous)

34

Discussion:

• a retention plus• earlier ability to bank – 10 years “too long”• reward longevity: additional perquisite after last vacation “bump”• university needs to budget better (central budgeting for banked leave?)• university needs ability to refill positions – extended absences lead to work backlogs• prefer 8-year minimum – parallels current pattern (banking begins ~8-11 years) and fits with cap• extending to 20 years would provide a longevity incentive (+ 5 years from vacation max)• “bumps” should align with increases in vacation• earlier banking would help compensate for low carry-over allowance• data: only 86 employees banked 120 hours; 50 (34 FLSA exempt, 16 FLSA non-exempt) banked 120

hours; classified FLSA exempt banked average of 50 hours; unclassified staff currently limited to 40hours & average banked = 40 hours (expected to rise in new system given current carry-over data andloss of ability to carry more than 40 hours)

Options discussed:

• 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 hours?• 5 years 40, 10 years 80, max @ 20 years (vs. 15-20 max amt vacation)• 5 years 20, 10 years 40, 15 years 60, 20 years 80• 5 years 24, 10 years 40, 15 years 64, 20 years 80 hours• 40 hours at 10 years, 80 hours at 20 years?• 40 hours at 9 years, 80 hours at 18 years?• 40 hours at 10 years, 80 hours at 15 years

– enter at 160 hours = 20 days = 4 weeks– bank 40 hours at 200 hours = 25 days = 5 weeks (at 10 years)– bank 80 hours at 240 hours = 30 days = 6 weeks (at 15 years)

• 40 hours at 6 years, 80 hours at 12 years?• retention: use as reward, possibly as early as 5 years (with a cap)• no tie to sick leave

How much? (20 days x 8 hours = 160 hours = 1 month)

40 hours/year 80 hours/year 120 hours/year

4 years to earn one month48 years to earn one year

2 years to earn one month24 years to earn one year

1 year to earn one month12 years to earn one year

Current system

ALRAUnclassified employees

SabbaticalClassified non-exempt employees

SabbaticalClassified exempt employees

end of 11th FY: bank up to 40 hrsend of 26th FY: bank up to 80 hrs

520 hours of sick leave -OR-10 yrs - 160 hrs: bank up to 40 hrs20 yrs - 200 hrs: bank up to 80 hrs25 yrs - 216 hrs: bank up to 120 hrs

520 hours of sick leave -OR-10 yrs - 176 hrs: bank up to 40 hrs15 yrs - 200 hrs: bank up to 80 hrs20 yrs - 216 hrs: bank up to 120 hrs

35


Notes:

• Of those employees who converted vacation to sabbatical or ALRA during this period, the average number ofhours banked was:

– 45 hours for classified exempt employees– 49.5 hours for classified non-exempt employees– 42 hours for unclassified employees

• Only classified employees who earn vacation at a rate of 216 hours are allowed to bank up to 120 hours assabbatical.

36

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. HRS data. Run date 4/17/2012.

Notes:

5,053 employees had leave in a sabbatical or ALRA account in April 2012:

Classified Employees (Sabbatical) Unclassified Employees (ALRA)

number of employees with banked leave: 2,586 number of employees with banked leave: 2,467

average number of hours in sabbatical: 120 average number of hours in ALRA: 160

median number of hours in sabbatical: 216 median number of hours in sabbatical: 237

22. Should there be a central bank for leave?(Not enough information to make a decision)

Discussion:

• issues with respect to sabbatical/ALRA:

– if employee moves to a new position, leave accrued in unit 1becomes a liability to unit 2– value of banked leave may change over time (wage at time banked vs. wage at separation)– work backlogs, delays while position is not yet vacant (employee is “spending down” banked

leave) or when banked leave is paid out at separation/retirement and the employing unit does nothave sufficient funds to hire

• is a central banking process possible? feasible?

– chargeback to funding source?– can’t accumulate cash

• auxiliaries track accruals as liability on statement (GASB + NACUBO standards for budgeting)• need long-term data on financial obligations and improved financial reporting

37

23. Should we allow employees to cash out unused vacation? If yes, when and how much?(Vote: No – 4R, 3Y, 1G)

Discussion:

• currently available to 3500 classified staff and used by 10% (available at 20 years)

What would be the cost if we extrapolate to all eligible employees? Assuming 10% (1,734employees) request a payout of 40 hours, at a salary of $40,000 cost would be $1,313,636.36($1.3M). [Cost comparisons: University’s Strategic Hiring Fund for 2011-2012 is $1M. CampusMetro bus service (Routes 80, 81, 84 & 85) costs almost $1.7 million annually; Madison Metro buspass, which serves more than 14,000 employees, cost over $1.5 million in 2010-2011.]

• How would caps on carry-over and banking affect cash-out? Could be higher than 10% if we limitcarry-over to 40 hours (average unclassified carry is 96.08 hours).

• university’s costs could increase dramatically with earlier leave banking and/or additional employeescashing out leave

• issue at end of fiscal year: Are $ available for cash out? (very hard for smaller, less affluentdepartments/units; costs could prevent hiring)

• seen as a perquisite – allows employees additional flexibility• may make a meaningful difference for some employees (end-of-the-year Christmas money) [moving

payout to 30 June would change relationship between cash out and Christmas]• could divide cash-out payments, twice each year would help ease budgetary strain• vacation as compensation vs. rest & rejuvenation (re-balance, bring UW culture back toward the

middle ground)


38

Notes:

Unclassified employees currently do not have the option to cash out vacation.A limited number of classified employees cash out vacation hours.Effective 1 January 2012, new rules limit the ability of classified employees to cash out vacation.Now, employees who earn $200 hours of vacation may cash out up to 40 hours of vacation in the year it is earned.Among 353 employees who cashed out vacation in 2011, 138 would be ineligible under the new rule.121 had fewer than 20 years of adjusted continuous service; 27 had fewer than 10 years.

Campus Engagement Theme: Leave as compensation.Ending “cash out” of vacation reduced annual income for employees who rely on it.

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendation was to end the ability of classified employees who receive a vacation allocationof 200 or more hours each year to “cash out” up to 40 hours of vacation in the year that it is earned.

This recommendation remains the same.

Why?

We recognize that the option to cash out vacation, sometimes called "cashing out the 5th week,” is veryimportant to a small group of classified employees.

There is a historical precedent for eliminating or reducing "cash out” options. Length of service payments forclassified employees ended in 2003. Unclassified employees lost the ability to cash out vacation in the 2003-2005 biennial budget. 532 employees cashed out vacation in 2011. Among the 353 FLSA non-exemptemployees in this group, 138 lose eligibility under the new compensation plan.

Extending the ability to "cash out” vacation to all employees would create significant new costs. Forillustrative purposes, if 10% of employees cash out 40 hours of vacation at a salary of $40,000/year, the costwould be more than $1M. This estimate is conservative, given the sample salary selected, proposedreductions in carry over for unclassified employees, and proposed limitations to banking for long-termclassified employees (80 hours vs. 120 hours). As a comparison, the Madison Metro Bus Program, servingmore than 14,000 employees, cost more than $1.5M in 2010-2011.

We recognize that benefits are an important part of an employee’s total compensation package. However, ourlong-term practice of offering additional benefits in lieu of salary increases is distorting our leave system. Weneed to recalibrate the system and address compensation issues. Leave can be saved and converted intodollars at separation or retirement; however, we do not recommend allowing employees to “cash out” anyportion of leave during employment.

Decision point:Should we allow all employees to cash out up to 40 hours of vacation in the year it is earned?(Vote: No – 8R, 2Y)

Reservations:

• hard to eliminate this benefit (recognize families need money)• financial implications would be enormous if benefit extended to all employees

Current State:

• Classified employees: recent change – 1/2012, Compensation Plan, employee allocated >200 hoursof vacation may cash out up to 40 hours of vacation in the year it is earned

• Unclassified employees: cannot cash out vacation (ability of employees with > 25 years of service tocash out up to 40 hours of leave in year earned ended 2003-2005)

39

Discussion:

• employing units do not have funding in their budgets to cash out vacation• double pay: employees receive salary when working -or- out on vacation; no provision to pay double

when employees have already received salary (days worked, did not take vacation)• possibility: cash out a portion (up to 20 hours or ½ value of 40 hours)? [no]• possibility: cash out based on income threshold – lowest income employees eligible? [no: we should

not offer this benefit to a subset of employees]• compensation issue – we should not be addressing compensation needs through benefits• furlough days increased use of cash out• we are charged to develop a benefits system for the 21 century – do we continue based on precedentst

or fulfill our charge to envision something new?• precedent for eliminating cash out: no longer offer length of service payments, no longer offer cash-

out for unclassified employees (eliminated in 2003-2005)• huge budget/financial implications: could request a study (estimate actual hours cashed out in light of

other benefit decisions); even a “lowball” estimate suggests very high costs• could not offer to employees paid on soft $• allocating benefits on a fiscal year basis changes the equation (feedback that eliminating this year-

end benefit would spoil Christmas)• very small number of employees currently use this benefit – and, due to 1 January change, fewer

continuing employees will be eligible for this benefit (not widely known that benefit has changedalready)

• data is confused, distorted – furloughs, compensation plan changes mean we cannot rely on this dataas a true reflection of the current state

• some employees who do use this benefit really rely on it• possibility: phase out over a period of 5 years [up to 40 hours, up to 30 hours, up to 20 hours, up to

10 hours, 0 hours]?• Note in business case: decision significantly more difficult for our team because of compensation

issues.

Source:

Transportation Services: About Us – Financial Informationhttp://transportation.wisc.edu/home/financial.aspx

24: Should there be a pay-out option for leave banking during employment?(No)

Discussion:

• we have serious reservations – need to limit exposure to multiple, large pay-outs

Implementation issues:

• “grandfathering”: should employees with > 6 months of Sabbatical/ALRA at conversion– keep banked leave?– spend down excess banked leave?– receive a pay-out for some portion of banked leave?

• need to calculate & budget for anticipated costs (keep longitudinal data)

Note: Pay out at separation (annual allocation earned to date + vacation carry + banked leave) continues

40

25. Should employees be allowed to buy or sell additional leave?Note: Conversation does not address Trades employees.

(No)

(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• turns leave into compensation• creates differences where we are trying to bring consistency• tax implications• we don’t want to create a context in which employees “play” the benefits system• trying for simplicity & this introduces complexity• we hear: we can’t take the vacation we have• new system will give many employees more leave

26. Should employees be allowed to give leave to a spouse/partner?(Vote: No – unanimous)

27. Should employees be allowed to donate leave to a Leave Share program?(Yes) [please see: Appendix 13. Leave Share.]

28. Should leave be paid out at separation during an employee’s probationary or evaluation period?(Vote: Yes, as earned after 30 days (x6) vs. as earned (x2))

Discussion:

• majority of positions have a 6-month probationary/evaluation period (permissive probation can beshorter, small number of positions have a 2-year evaluation period)

• usually know whether an employee will complete probationary/evaluation period successfully at 4-5months

• now 36 hours, pro-rated [because we pay out personal holiday, vacation cannot be used?]• consistency – pay out what is earned during the probationary/evaluation period• pay back for overuse• “no pay-out” would result in high level of administrative effort, repayment of excess vacation used

(“day one” availability should continue; we want the benefits of access to vacation)• cost of commitment – don’t incentivize cycling through employees• may be less successful retention of newcomers in 2 & 3 shift positions (4 10-hr days) [data?]nd rd

Options considered:

None (No, Vote: 0)As earned (No, Vote: 2)As earned after 30 days (Yes, Vote: 6)Pay out after 6 months of employment (No, Vote: 0)

Questions:

• Do we have data on the number of employees who separate before the end of theirprobationary/evaluation period? Do not complete the probationary/evaluation period successfully?

• What % separation vs. % transfer?

41

Data:


Classified employees, by FLSA status• vacation allocations and carryover amounts, beginning of 2011• vacation use during 2011• vacation carry-over and vacation lost, end of 2011• vacation cashed out, 2011• vacation amounts converted to Sabbatical, 2011• Sabbatical balances, by number of employees in hour ranges, as of 4/17/12• Sabbatical paid out at separation, by number of employees in hour ranges, as of 4/18/12

Unclassified employees• vacation allocation and carryover amounts, beginning of FY 10-11• vacation use during FY 10-11• vacation carry-over and vacation lost, end of FY 10-11• vacation converted to ALRA• ALRA balances, by number of employees in hour ranges, as of 4/17/12• ALRA paid out at separation, by number of employees in hour ranges, as of 4/18/12

Appendix 10. Sick Leave

Decision points:

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees receive sick leave?(No)

Discussion: [please see also: Appendix 9. Vacation., Decision point 1]

• Prorated based on hours of employment, % FTE

• Students:

– < 10 hours/week, usually may reschedule with supervisor’s permission– many people can’t reschedule due to event timing, class & other work commitments– dept. may not hire students > 10 hours/week if sick leave is required (detrimental to students)– other benefits accrue to student hourly workers (FICA exception; academic breaks)

• LTE’s

– some FT, some PT– offering sick leave could promote LTE conversion (with leave, cost of hiring an LTE becomes

more comparable to hiring WRS employees)– employees who are not WRS-eligible can’t bank or convert leave. Would it be better to provide

more flexible leave (e.g., PTO or payout option)?

Emerging idea:

• prorated PTO with payout (w/ waiting period of 30 days? tied to project lifespan?) in lieu ofcarry-over option

Question:

With legislative change, will there be more flexibility to add positions? (Is the number of LTE employeesexpected to rise or fall?

Note: Decision points 2 through 13 refer to University of Wisconsin-Madison WRS-eligible classifiedFLSA exempt, classified FLSA non-exempt, and unclassified A-basis (12-month) employees.

42

2. Should all employees receive the same amount of sick leave? If so, how much?(Vote: Yes, 120 hours (15 days)/year, prorated for part time employment (x9); 128 hours (x2))

Reservations:

• change management - reactions to receiving fewer hours of sick leave• equity – affects lower paid employees more (-10 hours for current classified employees, leave without

pay when sick leave exhausted, less $ for health care in retirement)• current employees would not benefit from proposed initial allocation (40 hours)

Discussion:

• cash value at retirement – $ value confounded by salary differences between classified & unclassifiedemployees (classified employees accrue more, unclassified employees generally have higher salaries;could offer the same amount & allocate within salary ranges)

• history: used to be 4 + 4 = 8 (now 5 + 5 = 10) hours/month. Bargaining for benefits in lieu ofincreased compensation

• job = life choice vs. structural constraints• sick leave is supposed to be for preserving individual & public health, job/income protections; use

based on need (vs. “like vacation”)• change represents a small increase for unclassified staff, small decrease for classified employees• initial allocation would (partially?) offset decrease for classified employees• ICI – may affect premium contribution (more difficult to maintain 80 hours/year?)• ICI – consistent sick leave allocation for classified FLSA exempt & non-exempt employees an

improvement• “round number”/FTE (but there will always be fractions in the system due to prorating for PT)• implementation: cost of leave would rise (current use, additional hours converted at retirement)• mechanics of adjusting HRS

Single sick leave policy for all employees

Pros Cons

• consistency - simplify/streamline• easier to administer one program• employees less likely to come to work sick if they

have paid leave• provides more flexibility for the most insecure

workers

• equity: amount varies based on salary so amountaccrued would yield different benefit

Options considered:

96 hours (12 days)/year – earn 8 hours (1 day)/month (x0 votes)120 hours (15 days)/year (x9 votes)128 hours (16 days) (x2 votes)130 hours (16.25 days) – same 5 hours biweekly, 10.83 hours monthly (discarded this option)

Benchmarking – several peers offer 96 hours

Question:

There has been a stated commitment that there will be no decrease in employee compensation. Does thisapply to benefits as part of the total compensation package?

Group intention: employees would keep the sick leave they have already accrued, but would earn at thenew rate going forward.

Group commitment: holistic review of total benefits package before finalizing recommendations

43

3. How should sick leave be earned and accrued? Should employees receive an initial allotment of 40 hours athire to last 4 months (prorated for part time appointments); then accrue and use sick leave as earned, with nolimit to amount that can be accrued?(Vote: Yes – 10 G , 1Y)

Reservation:

Would like more details on implementation of 40-hour initial allocation

Further discussion:

• 40 hours = 4 month’s sick leave earnings• provides similar flexibility to personal holiday• possible implementation models (for illustrative purposes only, no selection process):

A. pro-rated (nominal amount) earned in month of hire + 40 hours allocated 1st of the month followinghire + accrue starting 1st day of the 5th month

B. 40 hours allocated day 1 + accrue earnings (pro-rated for month or pay period) at 120 days + accrueby pay period

C. 40 hours allocated day 1 (number of days may vary depending on start date within the first month) +accrue starting 1st day of the 5th month

Discussion:

• lose-win for unclassified employees: less than initial allotment but eventually would earn more• win-lose for classified employees: gain initial allotment but accrue less• [minimal] changes accrual toward retirement (initial allotment of 40 hours: +1 hour)

Options considered:

Initial allocation, then earn & accrue hours (unclassified model = 176 hours over 18 months):

Pros Cons

• provides flexibility to meet employee needsrecruitment advantage

• difficult to administer (beyond facultyappointments)

• costs if employee uses leave and departs• inequality of current system (classified employees

do not receive an initial allocation; unclassifiedemployees receive less thereafter – “It never equalsout” [accrual toward retirement])

Hybrid model (smaller initial allocation provides flexibility/coverage at hire; then earn/accrue from 3-5months):

Earn as you go (classified model)

Pros Cons

• easier to administer• decreases losses to UW [HRS prevents charging un-earned sick leave]• other mechanisms (ADA, unpaid leave) to

accommodate employee needs

• inflexible• may hurt recruitment• disadvantages employees who have a health

condition that will change (e.g., pregnant women,individual recovering from injury, surgery, etc.)

Question:

How/why did the unclassified system initial allocation start? What was the rationale when the systemwas created?

44

4. Should the policy on medical documentation for sick leave absences be the same for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

5. Should we recommend a number of days?(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1Y)

Reservation:

Not sure what the issues are (3 days vs. 5 days), not informed. Should be consistent.

6. Should a doctor’s note be required for absences > 5 consecutive working days (excepting approved FMLAabsences)?(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1 abstention)

Reservation:

Member with Decision point 5 reservation did not feel it would be appropriate to vote.

Discussion:

• currently inconsistent (classified >3 days, unclassified >5 days)• flu could keep someone out for a week• don’t want employees to come to work sick• increased cost of seeing a doctor – we don’t want to impose visit costs on employee

(co-insurance, much higher cost to go to the doctor, cost of urgent care?)• goal to curb abuse of sick leave – but should not make a policy for the few exceptions, should set a

requirement that is reasonable for all (attendance policy vs. doctor’s note for sick leave use)• expressed as a problem at late night session: employee required to bring a note after one day’s

absence, note not accepted, sent home• intention not to make someone bring a note who is ill Thursday-Monday and returns Tuesday

(absence of >5 continuous days)

Source:

UWS Unclassified Personnel Guideline 10.04. C. 1.Certification of Medical Necessity For Absences of More Than Five Consecutive Days.www.wisconsin.edu/hr/upgs/upg10rev_oct7_2005.pdf

Faculty, academic staff, and limited appointees must provide written certification from a health care provider of the medical

necessity for use of sick leave for absences of more than 5 consecutive full working days, except where the use of sick leaveis authorized in advance, pursuant to the Wisconsin or Federal Family and Medical Leave Acts.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Request for Medical Certificationfor Academic Staff, Faculty, and Limited Appointeeswww.ohr.wisc.edu/Forms/Medical_Certification_Form.doc

Campus Engagement Theme: Leave as compensation.

Continuing classified FLSA exempt and non-exempt employees currently earn 16.25 days of sick leave peryear, 1.25 hours of which were bargained in lieu of compensation in 1998; in the proposed leave system, theywould receive 15 days of sick leave annually, losing the opportunity to accrue 10 additional hours of leaveper year that could be converted to pay for health insurance in retirement through the Accumulated SickLeave Conversion Credit and State Health Care Conversion Credit programs.

45

Recommendation:

Our initial recommendation was to provide 120 hours (15 days, 3 weeks) of sick leave for all employees, withcontinuing employees maintaining their accrued sick leave balances but earning at the new rate goingforward.(Vote: 120 hours (x9), 128 hours (x3))

We now recommend, with reservations, that all employees receive 16.25 days of sick leave per year.(Vote: split vote – 6G, 2Y, 2R)

Reservations:

We recognize that increased sick leave for classified employees was bargained in good faith and that theproposed change would affect the final sick leave balance for some employees, but don’t believerecommending more than three weeks of sick leave for all employees is a responsible proposal: 15 days is afair amount given employees’ sick leave balances and benchmarks.

We believe our initial decision was thoughtful, evidence-based, and reflected a good compromise(recommending an amount much closer to the current classified employee allocation and “meeting above themiddle”).

We cannot demonstrate an operational need to extend 16.25 days of sick leave to all employees.

Continuing to provide additional leave in lieu of increasing compensation is not a sustainable strategy; thispractice should end.

Providing 16.25 days of sick leave per year to each employee may limit the university’s ability to offer otherbenefits that employees need and want.

The HR Design Project’s “promise” to employees, articulated in the project parameters, is not to reduce anyemployee’s salary: “Individual base pay for current employees will not be decreased as a result of theimplementation of the new HR structure.” It was within our team’s scope to recommend a change in benefits.

Why?

In the current system, classified employees earn 96 hours (12 days) of sick leave per year. Classifiedemployees earn 130 hours (16.25 days) of sick leave per year. In proposing a new leave system, we wanted torecommend sick leave that would meet employees’ needs and be generous by comparison with peerinstitutions. We went beyond the half-way point (113 hours, 14.125 days) to “meet above the middle,”recognizing the importance of sick leave at retirement (ASLCC, SHICC) and acknowledging that representedclassified employees had bargained for additional leave in lieu of compensation.

Most University of Wisconsin-Madison employees are able to maintain a positive sick leave balance:

Employee category Classified non-exempt Classified exempt Unclassified

Current allocation 130 hours/year 130 hours/year 96 hours/year

Average balance 615.62 hours 915.96 hours 755.96 hours

Median balance 326.05 hours 704.50 hours 464.00 hours

Employees with a balance<4 hours

23 (of 3681 employees) 4 (of 1517 employees) 86 (of 9751 employees)

Employees who haveexhausted sick leave

11 (of 3681 employees) 1 (of 1517 employees) 22 (of 9751 employees)

46

Benchmarking data shows that most of our fellow CIC/Big Ten peers provide 120 or fewer hours of sickleave per year:

• University of Chicago: 72 hours/year• Minnesota, Purdue: 80 hours/year• Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Michigan State: 96 hours/year• Michigan, Nebraska (first five years), Northwestern (FLSA non-exempt), Ohio State: 120 hours/year

Following the forums, we revisited our initial recommendation about sick leave allocation.

We discussed five options:

• allocate 16.25 days of sick leave for all employees(Vote: split vote: 6G, 2Y, 2R)

• increase base pay for classified employees (+ 10 hours) and allocate 15 days of sick leave per year(Vote: split vote: 3G, 3Y, 4R)

• employees receiving a monthly paycheck earn 10 hours of sick leave per pay period and employeesearning a biweekly paycheck continue to earn 5 hours of sick leave per pay period(Vote: No – 0G, 1Y, 9R)

• “grandfather” continuing employees receiving 16.25 days of sick leave(Team discarded this option)

• offer the option to remain in the current system or move to the new system(Team discarded this option)

Decision points:

7. Should any employee earn more than 15 days of sick leave?(Vote: Yes – 7G, 1Y, 2R)

Reservations:

• we thought hard about leave – discussed the issues thoroughly and came up with a good compromise(“met in the middle” with an amount much closer to 16.25 days than 12 days)

• value and understand feedback, understand 16.25 days bargained in lieu of compensation – but now thewhole system is changing, team charged to develop a benefits system for the 21 centuryst

• don’t believe proposing > 3 weeks of sick leave is a responsible proposal; 15 days a fair amount• if we propose the maximum for all employees, we may lose the ability to offer other benefits that would

be important to employees

Discussion:

• feedback from campus raises the issue of submitting a doctor’s note (we need consistency)

– classified employees, > 3 days– unclassified employees, > 5 days

• accrual of sick leave

– monthly, 10 hours– bi-weekly, 5 hours (except C payroll) or fraction (every biweekly payroll)– bi-weekly, continue to accrue 5 hours (10 extra hours/year)? [no: we don’t want/accept a system

that offers more to a subset of employees paid bi-weekly]– classified FLSA exempt employees may transition to monthly payment in future

47

• when is a benefit compensation? (leave as earnings vs. leave as time)

– change viewed as lost potential for future earnings– change will affect ability to pay for health insurance in retirement– additional vacation offers a substitute

• yes, this is something that would change; can understand not liking to lose things, yet every group isbeing asked to accept changes, both positive and negative

• perception that unclassified employees have more access to pay increases• possibility: recommendation for transition period• possibility: grandfathering employees with 16.25 days [no: uncomfortable with switching gears at

this point in our planning – we have had lengthy discussions about consistency]• 15 hours (3 weeks) of sick leave is a fair amount for everyone• sick leave is one part of a unified leave system• possibility: recommend 16.25 days of sick leave for all employees• sick leave is an important benefit, especially for employees who are close to retirement• perception that long-term classified employees, particularly classified FLSA exempt employees are

losing while other employee groups are gaining

– feedback tied to employment category, age, longevity at university– some long-term employees might retire if sick leave is reduced

• we need to show that we are listening – something may need to change• we are charged to design for the 21 century (not put band-aids on a compensation problem)st

8. Should all employees earn 16.25 days of sick leave per year?(Vote: Split vote – 6G, 2Y, 2R)

Reservations:

• years down the road, people will ask: “why 16.25 days?”• understand that the change would diminish anticipated income, not against meeting needs/wishes – but

additional leave may not be affordable, reasonable• uneasy about continuing the strategy of providing additional leave, not a sustainable substitute for

adequate compensation (team should consider proposing a moratorium going forward)

Discussion:

• goal: consistency• goal: eliminate the class/caste system

9. Should we “grandfather” current employees earning 16.25 days of sick leave per year?[Discarded this option]

Discussion:

• “grandfathering” at 96 hours and 130 hours (can’t “just grandfather the good”)• often long-term employees receive better benefits than younger/newer employees; this creates a

constant point of contention (“grandfathering” for vacation works because employees earning at 216hours/year are close to retirement, short-term transition vs. ongoing difference)

10. Should employees who receive a biweekly paycheck continue to earn 5 hours of sick leave/pay period (whileemployees who receive a monthly paycheck earn 10 hours of sick leave/pay period?)(Vote: No – 9R, 1Y)

Reservations:

• inconsistent (120 vs. 130 hours of sick leave earned each year)• employees would prefer receiving leave in fractions to losing time

48

11. Should employees have the option to choose to remain in the current system or enter the new system?[Discarded this option]

Discussion:

• too complex to run multiple systems over a long period of time• University of Virginia experience a lesson (& that institution is considerably smaller)• anticipate pitfalls – why would we ever advise running two systems?

12. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison increase base pay for classified employees (10 hours) andadjust the annual sick leave allocation to 15 days?(Vote: Split vote – 3G, 3Y, 4R)

Reservations:

• leaning toward green – no problem with the concept but cautious about the actual value• value of base adjustment insignificant ($.05, $.10) – but would be described as a “raise”• sick leave more flexible, useful, valuable to an employee who needs the leave• distracts from our real work: effort to re-balance perception of leave (leave as time vs. compensation) –

this re-focuses the discussion on compensation, what some people will see as a raise they didn’t get• implementation would be challenging

Discussion:

• address objection that loss of hours represents a loss of compensation: increase compensation andoffer 15 days

• sick leave is a cheap benefit – only costs when used• sick leave is an expensive benefit – conversion at retirement (ASLCC, SHICC)• cost in salary balanced by coverage (employees at work) [sick employee would be out using other

accrued leave?]• when unions recover, employees will negotiate leave back again• vacation change affects anticipated future earnings; sick leave change affects current earnings,

availability of health care in retirement• like the idea/concept• address compensation: good faith gesture, good place to start• sick leave a better deal (people say they wanted compensation and got benefits in lieu of a raise, but

the sick leave is ultimately more valuable given ASLCC, SHICC; people will claim base adjustmentrepresents a raise but it would be a pittance)

• people are focused on what they lose, perceptions of loss/limitation – not on positives of theproposed system

• would people want back pay? (no – received and had the opportunity to use or bank sick leave)• cost would hit business operations (Housing, Memorial Union)

13. Should there be a moratorium on increasing vacation and sick leave in the future?(Decision: add statement about the team’s intent to recommendations)

Discussion:

• no more “kicking the can down the road” – shift conversation back to compensation• but we are also proposing new/expanded leave benefits (parental leave, Leave Share)• how to frame in business case? (a philosophy that we need to balance compensation & leave, not

sustainable to recommend more vacation, sick leave)• cumulative: recommending/giving more leave, isn’t sustainable to keep giving leave in lieu of raises• benefits in lieu of compensation inappropriate, a hidden cost• related to unintended consequences of bargaining, multiple groups setting benefits for employees in

49

different categories• benefits get distorted when used for other purposes• additional benefits for certain groups resented, taken personally: people will hear “no more leave,

except for you”)• change in system – unless a business need, same change for all employees (absence of COLAs, lack

of compensation creates a business need?)• emphasize option to take time away, not cash value of leave – work with Compensation team to

clarify & add language about the intent of our team• “Say what you need to say” – clarify our intent• Statement: It’s not sustainable to keep offering additional leave in lieu of raises in compensation

Data:


Classified employees, by FLSA status• sick leave balances as of 3/10/12

Unclassified employees• sick leave balances as of 2/9/12

Appendix 11. Bereavement Leave

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin Madison create a new bereavement leave benefit?(Vote 2: No – 3G, 1Y, 5R)

Reservations

• current system (using accrued paid leave) appears to be working• we have not heard concerns about access to leave; concerns expressed have been about flexibility,

extended absences when travel is necessary• continuing opportunity to hear voices from campus on this issue• new benefit not a high initial cost (paying salary vs. leave) but potentially burdensome, costly to

administer (many events expected in each employee’s working life; who decides “value” of a particulardeath in the family? how to verify?)

• weight of discussion is shifting (does not feel legitimate)• offering additional vacation and sick leave is more important, has greater impact, provides more

flexibility

Discussion:

• one policy, consistent for all employees• continue current practice: allow employees to use sick leave for a specified period of time and use

other accrued leave if needed for special circumstances

ER 18.03 (4)(d) (d). For a death in the immediate family, use of accrued sick leave due to a death in the immediate family islimited to a total of 3 work days, plus required travel time not to exceed 4 additional work days. However the appointingauthority may extend the use of sick leave to cover unusual circumstances.

• we need to include a statement about flexibility, especially for international travelC Bereavement Leave could be integrated into Leave Share program

50

Bereavement leave

Pros Cons

• option value• many peer institutions offer this benefit

(benchmarking)• part of being a family-friendly university (across

employee life cycle)• Campus message: allow flexibility to deal with the

employee’s loss• aging workforce – employees may experience more

loss• vacation freighted with many values -- creating

bereavement leave could help rebalance

• few comments from campus on the need for a newbereavement leave benefit

• employees receive a lot of paid leave (sick leave,vacation) and currently use accrued sick leave,vacation to cover absences related to a death; newbenefit would add additional new paid leave costs

• cost (first preliminary poll: 1-5 days)• one day “a slap in the face”• uncomfortable assigning a value to family

relationships (spouse/partner, child, parent vs.sibling, aunt/uncle, et al.)

• less significant recruitment/retention advantagethan other benefits (e.g., parental leave)

Options discussed:

• offer 1 day of paid leave for all bereavement circumstances, plus use of accrued paid leave foradditional days away

• offer 1-5 days of paid leave, depending on relationship to deceased family member

Decision:

Bring bereavement leave forward into recommendations. Offer one policy for all employees. Focusproviding as much flexibility as possible, especially when lengthy travel is required.

Sources:

Chapter ER 18.03 (4) Eligibility for and use of sick leave. (d)https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/er/18/03/4/d

Note: following a death in the employee’s immediate family, allows use of accrued sick leave (3 work days), plus required traveltime (not to exceed 4 additional work days); appointing authority may extend use of sick leave to cover unusual circumstances

UPPP 16.02 Leave of Absence and Leave Benefits, Sick Leave, Vacation, ALRA, Bereavement Leave, Jury Duty andOther Leaves with Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1602.htm

Appendix 12. Parental Leave

Decision point:Do we support, in principle, parental leave for childbirth or adoption for all employees?(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1Y)

Reservation:

• cost and coverage issues

Discussion:

• part of a comprehensive family leave system(birth/adoption, dependent care, care for partner/spouse, elder care)

• most employees cannot take advantage of the university’s generous unpaid leave policy(cannot afford unpaid leave – want a “real” policy)

• new employees may not have worked at the university long enough to be eligible forFMLA/WFMLA or to have accrued sufficient paid leave to cover leave for birth/adoption

51

• C-basis (9-month) faculty and academic staff do not receive vacation and must rely on accrued sickleave to cover leave for birth/adoption.

Note: A new C-basis employee – who receives a non-lapsing sick leave balance of 176 hours (22days), prorated for part-time, at hire and earns 10.7 hours/month thereafter – would need towork at the university for 22 months, without using any sick leave, to earn enough to fullycover a 12 week leave (60 days).]

• consistency across employment categories (universal need, “simplify, simplify”)• U.S. far behind other parts of the world (please see: Expecting Better study)• R1 faculty career decreases the likelihood of parenthood (please see: Drago study)• lots of feedback at forums• calculating FMLA/WFMLA eligibility – calendar vs. fiscal year• preserve opportunity to take additional unpaid leave beyond 12 weeks• out of pay status – employee must pay full health insurance premium after 3 monthrd

• discuss leave banking for birth – additional carry-over?• SDI payroll tax (.9%) in California – everyone is covered• like the idea of exploring wage insurance/short-term disability insurance

(employee choice, personal responsibility)• concerned about the idea of relying on wage insurance

(monthly premium a higher cost for employee – though it helps contain costs for the university; also,while it may make paid parental leave possible, timing of adoptions and pregnancies is oftenuncertain – risk of events outside enrollment)

• coverage issues, protection for employees shouldering the load (hire LTE’s/project employees? poolof permanent employees who can “float” among employing units? re-prioritize/defer tasks?)

• university is administratively lean – may need to increase staff in some areas• benefit will not be used by all employees• parenting will require employees to use more paid leave over the years• at a minimum, need a “safety net” for employees without accrued leave

(please see: recommendations from the Committee on Women in the University)• explore donating leave (Leave Share)• explore AFLAC (also offers dental coverage)• explore ICI+ (waiting period < 30 days); ICI replaces 75% of wages• explore offering a supplemental wage insurance (in addition to ICI)

Possible features (#1):

• coverage for 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 6 weeks? 8 weeks?• possible model: use wage insurance/short-term disability leave to cover a portion of the leave

(100% paid leave for 2 weeks for an employee without coverage or “top-up” pay for 8 weeks for anemployee with coverage, assuming insurance covers 50% of salary over at least 8 weeks)

Information we have:

• FMLA/WFMLA• State of Wisconsin, UW System, University of Wisconsin-Madison policies• “best practices” recommendations & committee recommendations• feedback from campus (emerging)• # of faculty who have “stopped the clock” for childbirth/adoption [but not # staff parents]• proposed changes to leave (sick leave, vacation)

[but not leave for C-Basis (9-month) faculty and academic staff]• benchmarking (initial)

52

Question:

What additional information (if any), do we need to make a recommendation?

FMLA/WFMLA:

• run concurrently with other leave (paid, unpaid)

Question:

How do we support new employees, who are not yet eligible for FMLA/WFMLA?

Key features (#2):

• leave available to adoptive & birth parents (foster parents?)• leave available regardless of family structure (“in loco parentis” status of parents in DP)

Current State:

• Classified Employees:

Maternity Leave (“Mom”):6 weeks (recovery from birth)6 weeks (caring for newborn)

+ 3 months (unpaid leave)6 months total

Paternity Leave (Other Parent): [Note: check language vs. allowances under FMLA/WFMLA]

6 weeks (family leave, may use sick leave)6 weeks (family leave, may use vacation)

+ unpaid leave3 months total

• Unclassified Employees:

A-Basis (12 month): up to one year

C-Basis (9 month): remainder of the semester plus the following semester

Best Practices/Recommendations:

FPP II-308. Parental Leavepaid or partially paid family leave of 6 months (endorsed 1988)

Committee on Women in the University• at least 6 weeks of paid leave following childbirth/adoption, and a period of leave in other

circumstances, for newer employees who have not yet accrued sufficient paid leave benefits to coverfamily leave

Note: we need to discuss parental leave for C-Basis faculty & academic staff, and other employeeswho do not currently earn vacation and/or sick leave

• central support for PIs who are unable to provide family leave to their employees (to protect researchproductivity and employee who requires leave)

• support for modified duties

Note: we need to discuss how to “translate” modified duties across employment categories – mightrecommend flexibility, partial leave for all employees?

53

Drago Study (Penn State, April 2009)“...current adverse economic climate makes provision of even 12 weeks of leave, much less a year ofpaid leave, prohibitively costly; however...”

• “Make pay provisions uniform, with a minimum of 6 weeks paid for by school/college funding.”

Note: central campus funding

• “Make paid leave uniform across faculty & staff positions and for domestic partners.”• “Experiment with partial accommodation policies for postdocs and graduate assistants.”• “Experiment with partial accommodation for students.”

Expecting Better (2005)study funded by Annie E. Casey Foundation• most high-income countries provide 100% wage replacement for at least some portion of maternity,

paternity leave• more than half provide at least 14 weeks of paid leave• U.S. & Australia the only countries that do not provide paid parental leave• CA paid family leave program costs $2.25/employee/month [2005 $ – current cost?]• Illinois proposal for paid FMLA would cost <60 cents/week [$2.40/month, 2005 $ – current cost?]• Paid FMLA for state workers provided in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio [& Puerto

Rico – self funded short-term disability program]• Extended FMLA – available in 27 states + District of Columbia

Possible options (#3):

• AFLAC? Short-term disability insurance/wage replacement insurance• ICI < 30 days? to supplement University of Wisconsin-Madison contribution?• Self Insure?

• Accrued paid leave “Match” from University of Wisconsin-Madison?[discussed allowing employee to save 40 hrs, meet future needs]

Question:

What will employees have? What % employee contribution vs. UW contribution makes sense?

New – 1 4 months:st

160. hours of vacation (with supervisor’s approval; if separation, must repay unearned leave)40. hours of sick leave

200. hours of paid leave

New – after 4 months (example: full year allocation, years 2-3):

+ 160. hours of vacation can carry 40 hours [revised: 80 hours]120. hours of sick leave [revised: 130 hours]280. hours of paid leave = 320 hours [+ 50 hours = 370 hours] maximum available

Current classified FLSA non-exempt (example: full year leave allocation, first 5 years):

104. hours vacation can carry 40 hours (more with supervisor’s approval)36. hours personal holiday average carry over 32.5 hours

+ 130. hours sick leave270. hours of paid leave = 310 hours maximum available

54

Current classified FLSA exempt (example: full year allocation, first 5 years):

120. hours vacation can carry 40 hours (more with supervisor’s approval)36. hours personal holiday average carry over 39 hours

+ 130. hours sick leave286. hours paid leave = 326 hours maximum available

Current A-Basis (12 month) unclassified leave allocation (first 18 months):

176. hours vacation can carry 176 hours36. hours personal holiday average carry over 105 hours

+ 176. hours sick leave388. hours paid leave = 564 hours maximum available, between 12-18 months

Current C-Basis (9 month) unclassified leave allocation (first 18 months):176. hours sick leave176. hours paid leave

Current A-Basis (12 month) unclassified leave allocation (after 18 months, full-year allocation):176. hours vacation can carry 176 hours

36. hours personal holiday average carry over 105 hours+ 96. hours sick leave

308. hours paid leave 584 hours maximum available

Current C-Basis (9 month) unclassified leave allocation (after 18 months, full-year allocation):96. hours sick leave96. hours paid leave

Note: left hand column counts reflect annual allocation only, not accrued sick leave, vacation carry.

Discussion:

• current classified employees: limited eligibility to use leave during probationary period• current unclassified employees: initial “pot” of sick leave, ability to carry over entire vacation

allocation for a full year• proposed system: limited ability to carry over leave (40 [80] hours), earlier leave banking (end of the

fiscal year in which employee reaches the 6 anniversary of employment)th

Questions:

• Period of leave:

– Do we protect unpaid leave of up to 1 year?– Same period for all employees?– Same period for “Moms” & other parents?– Do adoptive parents have different needs? (e.g., bonding period for older child?)

• Paid parental leave?

– save health care costs, child care costs– protect future earnings– better employee retention

Discussion:

• people should plan – it is a personal responsibility; I did it, others should• we want to be family-friendly – how could we do it: any paid parental leave?• consider expanding to include other family leave/types of care• how to pay for it? significant cost to the university

55

• wage replacement insurance: should everyone contribute? option to purchase through the university?(concern: significant premium cost for individual plan)

• parental leave would benefit one group (employees who are parents)• many employees struggle to care for elderly parents (similar requirements for personal care)• difficult issues: political impact, equity concern (single employees employees who are not parents)• employees have access to paid leave: new leave system proposes “Day One” access to 40 hours of

sick leave + 160 hours of vacation• C-Basis (9 month) employees do not receive, cannot accrue vacation• younger/newer employees – no leave accrued• could employees use Leave Share for parental leave?• what will the 21 century workforce need? (20 years of service? 3 children?)st

• we should do something

– a little bit may not be meaningful– a little bit would be better than nothing

• support leave for birth: physical, need for recovery period, time to recover varies• shocking that our society privatizes family issues, should offer minimum of 6 weeks, 100% paid• we should prioritize supporting new families• it is important to care for all family members (infants, dependent with disability, elders – vulnerable

individuals who cannot care for themselves)• we should invest in our children – pays huge dividends• ramifications of the economic downturn – diminished access to child care, skyrocketing cost of infant

care ($387/week in Linden Street Preschool Lab)• some employees quit work due to child care costs• recommend a comprehensive family leave policy, start with a focus on paid parental leave?

(long term issue – we have worked on this for 25 years)• parental leave alone too narrow• “sandwich” generation – children and aging parents• aging workforce – personal health issues• challenges of caring for elders in poor health• formulating a policy: how do we fund it? who administers it? what criteria for leave?• it is a choice to have a child• recalling our discussion about bereavement leave – “what’s worth more?”

(we will all have life events – don’t put a value on one life experience over another)• do we support departments? (many employees out on leave)

[already happens with FMLA/WFMLA]• system we have doesn’t work for new employees, people who don’t get leave; discrepancy/inequity:

+ 6 weeks for employee with vacation• why do we cram a year’s worth of sick leave into 9 months? offer vacation?• immersed in family, medical issues vs. immersed in job – also distracting for co-workers

(better to provide paid parental leave)• could offer parental leave – tie in with taking responsibility

(use accrued leave, take wage insurance)

56

Options considered (#4) [all leave concurrent with FMLA/WFMLA]

one-time allocation/lifetime allocation?• no value outside employment• for parental leave or other family circumstances (broader policy)• 40 hours? 2 weeks?• 40 hours for 1 5 years? (could grow over time/more could be granted – e.g., at 5 year intervals)st

• 12 weeks per employee? (single allocation or 6 allocations of 2 weeks at 5 year intervals)• some people save leave & others don’t – want to reward planning, saving• problems: giving more leave to leave abusers a problem (enabling?), higher level of reward to new

employee than continuing employee• use banked leave first? (augment saved leave not replacing vacation, sick leave)• some employees need flexibility to use leave, not necessarily extra time

university “match” for employee’s leave?

New – 1 4 months:st

40. hours of sick leave+ 160. hours of vacation (with supervisor’s approval; if separation, must repay unearned leave)= 200. hours of paid leave- 40. hours of paid leave (preserve portion of leave)= 160. hours + university match of 160 hours = 320 hours = 8 weeks paid leave

New – after 4 months:120. hours of sick leave (at 1 year) [revised: 130 hours]

+ 160. hours of vacation can carry 40 hours [revised: 80 hours]= 280. hours of paid leave [290 hours + 80 hours = 370 hours (max. avail. year 2-3)]- 40. hours of paid leave (preserve portion of leave)= 240. hours + university match of 240 hours = 480 hours = 12 weeks paid leave

Note: for equity, C-Basis (9-month) faculty & academic staff would require more university support

grant system – modeled on Vilas Life Cycle Professorships?

provide per birth/adoption leave allocation to C-Basis faculty & staff (who do not earn vacation)?[consider needs of other employees who do not earn vacation and/or sick leave]

ICI• 30 day waiting period, newer employee exhausts leave, usually provides ~2 weeks• more valuable if parent needs extended leave

period of paid maternity or parental leaverange: 1 week up to 12 weeks

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison provide paid parental leave?(Vote: Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• cost, implementation, political consequences

Discussion:

• Parental leave should be part of a comprehensive family leave system (policy, practice) that also includesdependent care, elder care.

• Policy development takes time, it is an iterative process.

57

• Parental leave has been discussed for many years – we should not impede progress by taking additionaltime to work out other types of family leave first.

• Design for the future – make a reference to family leave.• We do not have the resources (time) to consider and recommend details.

2. How many weeks?(Vote: as shown in table, below)

Amount of Support 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks 12 weeks

50% 2 dots 2 dots

100% 3 dots 1 dot 1 dot

Discussion:

• could provide 2 weeks @ 100%, 4 weeks @ 50%• benchmarking – 6 weeks at many institutions• 8 weeks = 2 months; at 50%

– matches 160 hour vacation allocation

• 8 weeks = 2 months; at 100%

– with 160 hours of vacation, would cover 12 weeks of leave(for employees who earn vacation)

– competitive with business & industry (Deloitte our most recent example)– closest to prior recommendation (Faculty Senate, 1988)

• consecutive leave

– not broken into increments, used sporadically over a long period of time– balance flexibility for parents with employing unit’s need to plan for coverage

• many employees cannot afford leave without pay for 8-12 weeks

Benchmarking [referred to benchmarking by Committee on Women in the University, in progress]

Sources:

Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook. Chapter 724. Family and Medical Leave.http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=6739

Comparison of Federal Family & Medical Leave Act and Wisconsin Family & Medical Leave Act.http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=6897

UW System Human Resources & Workforce Diversity. Employee Benefits: FMLA & WFMLAwww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/leave/fmla.htm

Clarification of who may stand in loco parentis of a child under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)www.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/leave/fmlaparentis.pdf

Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter UWS 19. Sick Leave.http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/uws/19

UWS Unclassified Personnel Guideline #10. Unclassified Sick Leave Policy.www.wisconsin.edu/hr/upgs/upg10.pdf

University of Wisconsin-Madison Classified Policies & Procedures. Chapter 16. Leave of Absence.16.09. Maternity Leave – FMLA, WFMLA, and Contract/Admin Codewww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/CPPP/cppp_chapter16-09.pdf

University of Wisconsin-Madison Classified Policies & Procedures. Chapter 16. Leave of Absence.16.10. Paternity Leave – FMLA, WFMLA, and Contract/Admin Codewww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/CPPP/cppp_chapter16-10.pdf

58

University of Wisconsin-Madison Unclassified Personnel Policies & Procedures.16.02. Sick Leave, Vacation, ALRA, Bereavement Leave, Jury Duty, & other Leaves with Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1602.htm

Faculty Governance LegislationII-308 Parental Leave Policywww.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/legislation/pages300-399.htm#308

Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and the Teaching Assistants’ Association, 7 November 2009-30 June 2009.http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=7113

Section 5. Sick Leave Credit Bank. (pp. 44-46)Section 6. Leave of Absence Without Pay. (p. 47)

Balancing Family & Work: UW-Madison Family-Related Leave Policies for Faculty, Academic Staff and Limited Appointeeswww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/fambroch.pdf

Committee on Women in the University Annual Report, 2007-2009 [Faculty Document 2133]www.secfac.wisc.edu/senate/2009/0504/2133.pdf

Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI) Vilas Life Cycle Professorshipshttp://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/vilas.php

Drago, Robert and Kelly Davis. Parental Leave and Modified Duties Policies across the Big Ten (2009).http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/uwpgms/Big10parentalleavefinal.pdf

National Partnership for Women & Families. Expecting Better (2005). [pulled from web]

research funded by the Annie E Casey Foundation

National Partnership for Women & Families. Expecting Better: A State-by-State Analysis of Laws That Help New Parents.(Second Edition: May 2012)www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Expecting_Better_Report.pdf?docID=10301

research funded by Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation; pro bono legal research by Hogan Lovells US LLP

Appendix 13. Leave Share

Decision points:

1. Should we recommend one program for all employees (Leave Share replaces Catastrophic Leave)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

2. Should Leave Share be centrally administered? (Or by division/school/college? by department/unit?)(Vote: Yes - unanimous)

3. Should employees donate leave in hours? (Or in $?)(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Possible features:

• one program serving all employees (replacing the current Catastrophic Leave programs for classifiedand unclassified employees)

• any employee could donate any accrued paid leave at any time to be used by any employee• waiver required for every donation (leave doesn’t “return” to donor but remains in Leave Share)• no limit to donation amount (vs. maximum donation of 5 days – Catastrophic Leave)• allowed to donate sick leave as well as vacation (or vacation carry over)• leave could be donated to the program at separation or retirement• donation not confined by employment category• could donate leave to a specific employee in need or make an unassigned donation• budgeted & administered centrally (vs. at departmental or divisional level)• hours wouldn’t expire (remain in program until used; program balance carries over year to year)

59

Examples of circumstances in which employees could use Leave Share(should include, but should not be limited to):

• catastrophic medical need• FMLA/WFMLA eligible reasons for leave – beyond FMLA/WFMLA definitions of family• extending leave when employee has exhausted accrued paid leave during the waiting period for

Income Continuation Insurance (ICI), • extending leave during the application process (serving waiting period) for Long Term Disability

Insurance (LTDI), WRS Disability Retirement (40.63), or WRS Duty Disability (40.65)• extending employment and eligibility for benefits to employees with a terminal illness

Questions:

• Could we incorporate lost carry over vacation? [No]

– 5500 carry over hours lost among unclassified employees in 2010-2011 (note: furlough year)– significantly fewer carry over hours lost for classified staff

[leave is paid with salary dollars: loss of carry over hours = loss of opportunity/option to takepaid time away from work, � $ that could be salvaged to support employees in need]

• Could we maintain the salary value of donated leave, “charge” by salary level of user? [Maybe]

– discussed: central bank, hours bank (please see also: sabbatical/ALRA and central banking)– may be easier to administer program if hours (not $) are tracked

• Would we combine Leave Share with Catastrophic Leave, offer in addition to Catastrophic Leave?• When/how often would an employee be eligible to participate in Leave Share?

– one-time use? available every “x” years?– balance of hours available might drive decision

• Who would administer the program?• Design to be self-funding, 15 hours/week?

– concern: donated leave should be used by employees in need vs. paying administrator’s salary

Discussion

• sign waiver - sick leave or vacation(every donation, not just at separation, no reinstatement rights)[will reinstatement work the same way after 1 July 2013? change will require statutory clean-up]

• if employees can’t bank as much, can’t carry over as much, they will resent lost vacation hours beingdirected into Leave Share [no longer considering this option - inconsistent with leave paid throughsalary dollars (employee has received salary while working, no “spare pot of $” for leave)]

• consider grants administration (Implementation issue: “This is getting too deep in the weeds.”)• sick leave conversion at retirement – ETF may have concerns• should we attempt to track the value of leave?

(could maintain salary value of donated leave and "charge" by salary value of user)

– easier to administer “fixed value” pot of hours than variable pot of salary $– tracking this may not be where we should be putting our resources– high wage earners who need Leave Share could burn a lot of leave– low wage earners who need Leave Share would receive more leave– amount might even out over time

60

• Catastrophic Leave very limited:

– employer cannot call for hours– hours don’t carry– can’t donate across employment categories– can’t donate sick leave

Concerns:

• leave for Graduate Assistants is tracked at the department level, not “on the books”• cannot donate leave paid through grants [but researchers paid through grants should be able to

receive leave through Leave Share]• certifying effort may be a complicating factor• government & non-profit funds have an “end date” (vs. 101 funds)• donating sick leave would affect retirement (changes leave available for conversion through ASLCC,

SHICC)

Appendix 14. Unpaid Leave

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer unpaid leave for all employees, under a single policy?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Specified Circumstances:

• employee’s own serious health condition

– initial requests for leave up to six months– if initial request for leave < six months, employer can approve extensions up to six months– approval for leave up to one year using reasonable accommodation analysis– approved unpaid leave runs concurrently with unpaid leave under FMLA/WFMLA

• care for a family member with a serious health condition

– definition of family member includes domestic partners, children to whom the employee standsin loco parentis

• parental leave

– continue option of unpaid parental leave up to one year

• leave without pay to seek political office or appointment

– follow UPPP 16.01. Leaves of Absence & Temporary Assignments without Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1601.htm

• leave without pay related to professional service

– follow UPPP 16.01. Leaves of Absence & Temporary Assignments without Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1601.htm

Unpaid leave

Pros Cons

• Provides flexibility to employees, supportingabsences to deal with personal & familyemergencies

• Costs associated with absences• LTE’s don’t work in many positions because of

training and experience requirements

• cannot fill an FTE while EE is on an unpaid leave

Questions for Implementation Team to consider:

• How often is an employee eligible to request unpaid leave?

61

• What period of unpaid leave should be available? (consistency across employment categories)• Can an employee take unpaid leave on a reduced schedule?• Should the University appoint a Leave Coordinator to manage return-to-work, FMLA, LWOP related

to employee’s own serious health condition/serious health condition of a family member?

Supplemental Insurances

Appendix 15. Supplemental Insurance Data, Sources

Data:


Enrollments in state-administered benefits and supplemental insurances, by employee classification, plan type, age range and annualcompensation range (not pay rate)

Source:

Payroll & Benefits Services: Insurancewww.bussvc.wisc.edu/ecbs/emp-insurances-menu.html

Appendix 16. Life Insurance

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental life insurance policy?

(Preliminary poll: Yes)

(Vote: Yes – unanimous) Note: supplemental = in addition to State Group Life Insurance

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison provide $5,000-$10,000 paid term life insurance for eachemployee?(Vote: No – 1G, 1Y, 7R)

Reservations:

• other employers offer 1 x salary, don’t think it would be a substantial cost for the employer• unclear how this option would mesh with State Group Life Insurance• $5,000 is not very generous• life insurance is not a recruitment tool (not harmful but no significant gain)• would not be attractive to short-term employees• should be an individual choice – might not be needed/wanted if employee has provided otherwise• employees have other options to get free/low-cost life insurance (e.g., through credit union)• “cafeteria” options in life insurance shopping cart would give employees more choice, flexibility

Discussion:

• need a transparent review & selection process, periodic review of all supplemental insurances• life insurance presents several “life cycle” obstacles:

– most options only allow employees to elect coverage at hire; employees may not value lifeinsurance earlier in their careers

– coverage for spouse/partner may drop off (group to individual policy conversion)– policy value may decline significantly (doesn’t mesh with today’s longer life expectancy,

expectation of good health, later retirements)

62

Example 1: State Group Life Insurance (EFF): An employee who retires at age 62 maintains allcoverage to age 65. After age 65 supplemental and additional coverage ends. Spouse anddependent coverage does not continue after retirement; it can be converted but you lose thegroup rate. Basic coverage drops to 50% of its current value at age 66. An active employee’sbasic coverage drops to 50% of its value at age 70. If still employed by the state, employees canpurchase additional coverage at age 70+.

Example 2: Individual & Family Group Life and UW Employees, Inc. Life: At separation ofemployment, an employee can currently convert these policies, though it costs more forcoverage.

• AD&D needs to remain a separate supplemental insurance

– very different from the other life insurance options– opt-in/opt-out at will feature does not mesh with term or whole life policy options

• too many plans to choose among/from – confusing for employees and difficult to administer

Currently university offers five choices – State Group Life and four supplemental plans: Individualand Family Group Life Insurance, UW Employees Inc. Life Insurance, University InsuranceAssociation Life Insurance, and Accidental Death & Dismemberment Life Insurance

• some employees don’t like mandatory enrollment in UIA• insufficient coverage levels in some cases, would like range of options (premium selection vs. salary-

driven system); plan based on need instead of salary would reduce inequities in the cost of lifeinsurance for employees

• eliminate “drop-off” age, or increase to reflect changing retirement age (coverage may cost more)• offer a whole-life option: protects employee with health history that might preclude future coverage,

option to borrow against coverage (may be better than long term care insurance)• develop a “shopping cart” that allows employees to cost & select various levels of coverage,

coverage for spouse/partner & dependents, etc. (OHR e-Benefits walk-through prototype)[extend to all benefit enrollment options]

Questions:

• How were current plans selected? (UWS negotiates with Minnesota Life, EPIC for AD&D)• Are there standard rates (“the rates we offer”) or is there room to negotiate different rates?• How does open enrollment differ from guaranteed acceptance?• Could UW-Madison be self-insured?• Would a non-profit carrier be more flexible than commercial carrier?• Does a 50% drop-off of benefit at age 66 serve people’s needs? Could life insurance be linked to the

federal retirement age?• Would a whole life policy option be in demand? (option value, more competitive benefit package)• What is the definition of employee? (All employees? WRS-eligible employees?)• Would it be possible to grandfather continuing employees in current plans? A conversion option?• Portability?

Source:

Comparison chartwww.bussvc.wisc.edu/ecbs/sgl-life-insurance-features-comparison-chart-uw1261.pdf

Chapter 40.72 Life insurance benefits.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/VI/72

63

Appendix 17. Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison continue to offer one Accidental Death & Dismemberment policythat allows employees to opt-in and opt-out at any time and choose the level of coverage on the opt-in date, andthat includes travel coverage when a covered injury is sustained outside the United States?


(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• differs from other life insurance plans [please see: Appendix 16. Life Insurance, above]• features we like added to create a “cafeteria plan?”

Appendix 18. Dental Insurance

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental dental insurance policy for all employees?


(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1Y) Note: level of service should be retained or improved, comparable cost

Reservation:

• issue for implementation: may not be a reasonable # of providers in all parts of the state

Discussion:

• open enrollment rarely offered• many State Group Health plans (HMOs) cover routine dental care – but dental coverage is not one of

the Uniform Benefits (HMO’s choose to offer dental coverage); we should offer a dental plan thatincludes basic coverage

• issues with consistency of coverage related to changes in HMO plans, providers• simplify: many options create confusion (Anthem Dental – will be withdrawn in 2013, Dental

Wisconsin, EPIC Benefits Plus)

– If an employee has an HMO and one, or more, of the supplemental plans, the bills are currentlypaid in the following order: HMO, Dental WI, Epic

– WPS owns EPIC – underwrites EPIC benefit policies, vision and contracts with Delta Dental(We offer Epic and Dental Wisconsin plans – but they are the same vendor)

• Minnesota Life underwrites many of our supplemental insurances; could MN Life offer plans for

dental, vision, major medical insurances?• we need to focus on desired features, rather than specific vendors (implementation issue)

Questions:

• Will employees lose coverage? Do we need to clarify our language/intent?

Example: Dental Insurance

Under current dental insurance options, each plan generally covers up to 50% of major procedurecosts after meeting the deductible up to a maximum of $1000. Those who have more expensiveprocedures or a lot of procedures within the year use both policies to gain more coverage:

64

Example: Crown Dental Wisconsin Select EPIC

Procedure cost $2,034.00 $2,034.00

Plan deductible -$50.00 -$75.00

Subtotal $1,984.00 $1,959.00

Amount covered(plan covers 50% up to $1,000.00) $992.00 $979.50

Plan balance $8.00 $20.50

Total cost covered $1,971.50

Total out-of-pocket cost $62.50

With Dental Wisconsin Select, the employee would only have $992 of coverage and would pay thebalance. With EPIC, the employee would have $979.50 of coverage. With both plans, the employeewould receive $1,971.50 of coverage and pay $62.50 out-of-pocket (in addition to pre-tax insurancepremiums).

Employees want to know how much will a single policy will cover. Depending on the insurancepremium, deductible and percent of coverage, those who have more expensive dental work areconcerned that they would have greater out-of-pocket expenses and less coverage.

Questions:

• Could we recommend that Employee Trust Funds (EFF) review HMO coverage, update policies toensure coverage reflects current knowledge & best practice in dentistry?

• Is it more cost-effective to work with a single vendor, or work directly with service providers withwhom the vendor contracts? (Epic, Dental Wisconsin)

Source:

Comparison chartwww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/ins/dental-2012-plan-comparison.pdf

Appendix 19. Vision Insurance

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental vision insurance policy for all employees?

(Preliminary poll – Yes)

(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1Y) Note: level of service should be retained or improved, comparable cost

Reservation:

• issue for implementation: may not be a reasonable # of providers in all parts of the state

Discussion:

• enrollment opportunities differ – annual open enrollment for Vision Service Plan (VSP) but not for EPICBenefits + Vision Insurance

• Some State Group Health plans (HMOs) cover vision – seeking to improving basic coverage withinHMOs might increase premium costs for everyone; we should offer a vision plan that includes basiccoverage.

• progressive lenses are not covered and many people want them

65

• providers:

– some HMOs currently cover an eye exam, though discount providers are not covered– VSP does not have many vendors outside of Dane County (trying to expand network)– Optum Health Vision had better coverage outside Dane County

• co-pays for various options differ(in-network providers offer greater benefits; $ limit for out-of-network providers)

Source:

Comparison charthttp://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/vision-2011-compare.pdf

Appendix 20. Major Medical Insurance

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental major medical policy for all employees?


Offer one supplemental major medical insurance plan, including the following features:

• option to purchase various levels of coverage• lower premiums than State group health with higher deductibles• open enrollment opportunities• options for services not covered/offered in HMO’s (e.g., durable medical equipment; additional

physical or occupational therapy, home health care, coverage for other family members, i.e., children,grandparents, parents)

• offer Accidental Death & Dismemberment, dental, and vision insurances separately

Discussion:

• EPIC Benefits + provides additional dental, excess medical, accidental death and dismemberment,and optional vision coverage, plus a complimentary vision discount program

• most employees don’t select EPIC for Accidental Death & Dismemberment coverage• it’s confusing to offer vision and dental under EPIC as well as separate supplemental insurances• there is no coverage for routine dental services, but the flexibility to choose any dentist• EPIC covers durable medical equipment (many HMO’s don’t)• major medical is intended to offer a “safety net” (recent changes make EPIC plan less desirable, we

would need a “renewed” EPIC plan for viable coverage)• ERA maximum limit may decrease in 2013; this would have a negative impact on employees who

need expensive services• could major medical insurance offer coverage for a short period of time (less expensive than

COBRA, during the period between hire and start date for State Health Insurance coverage)?• we need a cost-effective solution, don’t know what can/cannot be negotiated

Questions:

• Could a major medical plan offer an option to cover grandparents? Additional dependents?• Does major medical insurance offer an alternative for employees who cannot afford health insurance,

or who are not eligible for State Group Health? (lower premium, high deductible, safety net in theevent of costly accident or illness)

• Would it be possible for EPIC (or other 3rd party provider) to provide ONE supplemental plan withoptions to select major medical, extended dental, extended vision (and options within each of theseplans)? And/or, could we advocate for HMO’s to provide better coverage and/or add-on coverageoptions so people could stick with just one plan – in the simplify, simplify mode?

66

• Is it cost effective to contract with a vendor who subcontracts with other vendors?

Source:

Coverage detailswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/ins/epicenroll.pdf

State Administered Benefits

Appendix 21. State Group Health Insurance

Decision points:

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees who are eligible for State Group Health Insurancereceive “Day One” coverage (coverage beginning the first day of the month after the application for healthinsurance is received; application due within 30 days of hire)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Wisconsin Statute 40.05(4)(a)(2), which requires classified employees to wait until the 1 day of thest

3 month of employment before receiving the employer contribution toward the State Group Healthrd

Insurance, should no longer apply• in the event the statute continues to apply, university should explore other ways to cover cost

“Day One” health care coverage

Pros Cons

• recruitment plus - coverage within thefirst month of employment will motivatepeople to apply for positions here

• current situation is not equitable: mostunclassified employees are eligible thefirst of the month after their hire date,classified employees are not eligible fortwo months after their hire date

• ensuring that all employees eligible forstate group health be eligible at the sametime increases consistency and equity

• increased costs (will need to look at the averagenumber of classified employees hired each year toproject costs)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison advocate at the federal level to end Imputed Income (fordomestic partner health insurance)?(Yes)

Discussion:

• imputed income for domestic partner health insurance the greatest remaining inequity in domesticpartner benefits

• “grossing up” compensation to cover the full cost (health insurance plus imputed income) offersastop-gap alternative, instituted by ~35 major employers since 2009

67

3. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison make anequity related payment, providing reimbursement forimputed income tax and tax on the payment, toemployees with family health insurance covering adomestic partner and dependents (“grossing up”)?

(Vote: Yes 8G, 1 abstention)

Discussion:

• provide immediate resolution of inequity• respect differences in family structure• discussed with Diversity team (see advice)• recommended Compensation team action• support principle of equal access, but worry

about administrative effort (individualized costdepends on number of dependents, tax bracket)

• flat $ amount significantly easier to manage• taking DP health insurance costs more than

maintaining own coverage• benefits children to address this issue• primary focus should remain ending DOMA,

imputed income – this is a “bandaid” solution• current political environment a problem

Questions:

• Could the university simply cover the cost?• Will more employees enroll in DP health insurance

if we address this issue?

Data:

Headcount of employees with domestic partner health insurance,by planuwmsn-imputed-income.xlsx

Source:

Who Grosses Up? Although employers have been interested inimplementing a gross up benefit for employees receiving partnerbenefits since as early as 2001, the HRC Foundation was unable tofind a particular employer that had implemented the benefit until2009.

As of March 2012, the HRC Foundation is aware of 36 for-profit employers – including Accenture Ltd., American Express Co., AppleInc., Bain & Co. Inc., Bank of America Corp., Barclays Capital, Bingham McCutchen LLP, BNP Paribas, Boston Consulting Group,Cisco Systems Inc., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP, Corning Inc., Credit Suisse USA Inc., Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., Deutsche Bank, Discovery Communications Inc., Ernst & Young LLP, Facebook Inc., Fenwick &West LLP, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants, KPMG LLP, McDermott Will & EmeryLLP, McKinsey & Co. Inc., Microsoft Corp., Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Morgan Stanley, Morrison & Foerster LLP,Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher& Flom LLP, Winston & Strawn LLP and Yahoo! Inc. -- that have instituted a grossing up policy. Furthermore, several largebusinesses and law firms have indicated they will implement the benefit in 2011. Grossing up is a new area for municipalities as well.At this time, only Cambridge, Massachusetts provides this benefit for city employees.

Human Rights Campaign: Domestic Partner Benefits: Grossing up to Offset Imputed Income Taxwww.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-grossing-up-to-offset-imputed-income-tax

Question:

How many University of Wisconsin-Madison employeescurrently must pay imputed income taxes on a healthinsurance family plan? Empl Class (All)

Row Labels Count of Emplid

Imputed Income

Imputed Dean - 1 58

Imputed Dean - 2 2

Imputed GHC SC - 1 115

Imputed GHC SC - 2 3

Imputed Humana East - 1 3

Imputed Phys Plus - 1 60

Imputed Phys Plus - 2 1

Imputed Security - 1 1

Imputed Std In - 1 3

Imputed Std Out - 1 1

Imputed United SE - 1 1

Imputed Unity Com - 1 2

Imputed Unity UW - 1 94

Imputed Unity UW - 2 5

Imputed WEA East Trust - 1 1

Imputed WPS Metro - 1 1

Imputed Income - Total 351

State Group Health - Total 18,508

Source: HRS data. Query: 1 May 2012.

Notes:

1 = indicates one non-tax dependent (340 total)2 = indicates two or more non-tax dependents (11 total)

Total number of employees with domestic partner healthinsurance: 351

68

4. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison explore ways to reduce current costs and contain future costs ofhealth care, especially costs incurred as a result of Act 10, with a focus on mitigating financial hardship tolow-income employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• increases in premiums and out of pocket expenses were a really big deal for employees – we receiveda lot of feedback from the campus community that this change has created financial hardship formany, especially our lower paid employees

Question:

How can we make health care more affordable for all employees, and especially for low-incomeemployees? Have faculty and staff experts in this area written position papers, published studies thatwould be helpful? (e.g., from La Follette School of Public Affairs, Institute for Research on Poverty,Sociology, School of Social Work, School of Medicine & Public Health, Management & HumanResources)

5. Should State Group Health Insurance offer three coverage levels (Single, Employee + 1, Family)?(No)

Source:

Act 32 Health Insurance Options Feasibility Study (October 2011)Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Office of State Employment Relationshttp://etf.wi.gov/publications/Health-Ins-Opt-Study.pdf

This study found, based on EFF enrollment, employees eligible for employee + 1 coverage have an actuarially higher cost factorthan those for all other family groupings combined, including employee+spouse+dependents. This is because they generallyconsist of an older population.

6. Should State Group Health Insurance offer low-premium, high deductible (or higher co-insurance) plans?(More research is needed in order to consider a higher deductible or co-insurance recommendation.)

Question:

Could there be a lower premium for some other type of exchange?

Source:

Act 32 Health Insurance Options Feasibility Study (October 2011)Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Office of State Employment Relationshttp://etf.wi.gov/publications/Health-Ins-Opt-Study.pdf

The analysis in this study is mixed regarding whether participation in a high-deductible health plan fosters appropriate, timelytreatment or whether higher out-of-pocket costs discourage participants from seeking appropriate care.

7. Should State Group Health Insurance move from “co-insurance” to a “co-pay” system?(Maybe. We prefer “co-pay” but more research/expertise is needed to make a recommendation.)

69

Discussion:

• co-pays are more clear, consistent and predictable compared to co-insurance• co-insurance is difficult to understand – bills are confusing, hard to predict what an appointment or

procedure will cost• maximum out-of-pocket costs might increase with a co-pay system (unless participant costs are

capped)

8. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer an incentive for employees who already have healthinsurance to “opt out” of State Group Health Insurance?(Vote: No – 8R, 1Y)

Discussion

• possible cost-savings to university: provide some type of incentive for employees who already havehealth insurance coverage to “opt out” of the State Group Health Plan (employer pays an employeewho would take health insurance a monthly amount to not apply for the health plan, thus savingemployer from paying full cost of the employer contribution)

• possible alternative to have employer make an additional contribution to the employee’s WRSRetirement account in lieu of a cash payment

• employee would need to show proof of similar health-care coverage• if employee’s spouse/partner subsequently lost coverage, he or she would have 30 days to “opt in” to

State Group Health (loss of coverage considered a “life event”)

Concerns:

• sending a message (explicitly, implicitly) that the university does not want to support employees’health care costs

• financially burdened employee might accept incentive, then drop coverage (unable to pay)• financial burden to employer (we are proposing other potentially costly benefits)

Opt-out incentive

Pros Cons

• potentially, save money • not equitable for single employees• should not send explicit or implicit message that

employee should not take health care benefit• difficult to keep track of continued coverage for the

employee• with recent increase in premiums, employees who

had double coverage may have dropped one planalready

• increased administrative burden – now anemployee can decline at no cost the University

9. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop sliding-scale health insurance premiums based on anemployee’s salary/income?(Team split on this issue)

Discussion:

• could offer three premium tiers based on income brackets (each employee pays a % of his or hersalary to cover the premium)

70

Sliding scale premiums based on income

Pros Cons

• philosophy: health care a public good, public cost • everyone needs access to health care, best funded

through progressive payment structure (like tieredtaxation); not fair to ask lowest-paid employees tosurrender a higher proportion of their income;employees who can afford to should contributemore

• philosophy: health care a private good, private cost• employees choose health insurance, pay fee for

service (equivalent to buying loaf of bread, gallonof gas, etc.); not fair to ask employees with highersalaries to pay more

• administrative burden

10. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop a health care premium relief grant similar to theUniversity of Minnesota’s Medical Premium Relief Program (1-year program)?(No)

Discussion:

• Minnesota program provides assistance to lower-paid employees; qualifying families receive $200-$450, based on total household income

• like the program’s intent, but don’t know how the university could sustain program funding (giftfunds? donations? surcharge of $2-5 on all employees?)

• need would ebb and flow based on economic fluctuations and university budget (difficult toadminister: would we give more or less money? tighten or loosen program guidelines?)

• insufficient amount to truly help employees with health care costs – a “band-aid”• need to address root causes of the problem

– promote more accessible, affordable health care (merits special study)– address low compensation, failure of compensation to keep pace with costs of living

Question:

Do we have ideas for the short term (before, during Health Care Options study)?

Discussion:

• recent, long, substantive discussion of this topic• University of Minnesota – only viable model for medical premium relief grants• medical premium relief grants would help our lowest-paid, lowest-income employees• eligibility based on income – who decides? (based on previous year tax return)• what about employees with incomes just above the cut-off point?• sliding scale premiums based on income – legislative prohibition? (would need to overturn Act 10 or

introduce new legislation)• one of the biggest issues communicated to us through campus engagement

(survey, forums, webchats)• more important than sick leave [agreed, add to business case]

Draft language posted:

Medical Premium Relief Grants: Until an impact study is initiated and recommendations areimplemented, offer grants based on household income and heath plan selected to employees tomitigate the increased costs for health insurance premiums.

Decision: Business case should include language explicitly stating that short-term health care premiumrelief should be a priority(Vote: Yes – 9G)

71

11. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop additional health care insurance option(s) foremployees who are required by their work to live outside of the State of Wisconsin?(Not at this time – Standard Plan at Tier 2 rates covers these employees)

Discussion:

• small number of employees affected now, could become more important later in the 21 centuryst

• Standard Plan, Tier 2 rate, covers employees living out-of-state – allows employee to go to anydoctor anywhere in the United States or the world (preferred provider)

• with respect to faculty and instructional academic staff, face-to-face teaching can be augmented butnot replaced by distance education

Questions:

• What does private sector do in this situation? Google? Other IT employers?• Should employees who are required to live outside state boundaries because of their employment pay

the same costs for health insurance, health care as someone living in Dane County (despite cost-of-living differences)?

Sources:

Act 32 Health Insurance Options Feasibility Study.Department of Employee Trust Funds and Office of State Employment Relations (31 October 2011):http://etf.wi.gov/publications/Health-Ins-Opt-Study.pdf

University of Minnesota 2012 Medical Premium Relief Programwww1.umn.edu/ohr/benefits/medical/MedicalPremiumRelief/index.html

Wisconsin Statutes

Chapter 40.51 Health care coverage.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/IV/51

Chapter 40.52 Health care benefits.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/IV/52

Imputed Income

Public Law 104-199 Defense of Marriage Act (21 September 1986)www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/content-detail.html

Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act(23 February 2011):www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html

DOMA ruled unconstitutional:

• U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, District of Massachusetts (8 July 2010)Gill v. Office of Personnel Managementwww.scribd.com/doc/34073588/Decision-in-Gill-v-OPM

• U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, District of Massachusetts (8 July 2010)Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Serviceswww.scribd.com/doc/34072925/DOMA-decision-in-Mass-AG-case

• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (13 June 2011)In re: Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Moraleswww.scribd.com/doc/58013117/In-Re-Gene-Douglas-Balas-and-Carlos-a-Morales

• U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, Northern District of California (22 February 2012)Golinski v. United Stateswww.scribd.com/doc/82489643/Golinski-Us-20120222-Order

72

• U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, Northern District of California (24 May 2012)Dragovich. v. Department of the Treasurywww.scribd.com/doc/94766497/4-10-cv-01564-124

Bill S598. Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein [CA] (introduced 3/16/2011)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00598:

Bill HR1116. Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (sponsor, Rep. Jerrold Nadler [NJ] (introduced 3/16/2011)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1116:

Human Rights Campaign: Domestic Partner Benefits: Grossing up to Offset Imputed Income Taxwww.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-grossing-up-to-offset-imputed-income-tax

State of Wisconsin Employees Group Health Insurance Program, 2012 Plan Year, State Active EmployeesMonthly Fair Market Value (FMV) - Imputed Income Estimateshttps://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/imputed-income-state-active-2012.pdf

State of Wisconsin Employees Group Health Insurance Program, 2012 Plan Year, Graduate AssistantsMonthly Fair Market Value (FMV) - Imputed Income Estimateshttps://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/imputed-income-grad-assistants-2012.pdf

Appendix 22. Income Continuation Insurance

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison work with ETF to create a single ICI program serving allemployees?(Yes)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison make a full employer contribution for all employees at sixmonths of WRS-eligible employment?(Yes)

Discussion:

Employer contribution (should be consistent for all employees)...

...at 6 months

• visible support for employees• consistent, Pareto + (doesn’t initiate a change that benefits some employees at cost to others)• widely used, offered state-wide, private employers use as well

...at 12 months

• consistent, Pareto - (change doesn’t help unclassified employees, makes ICI benefit less attractive tocurrent classified employees – fewer would elect coverage, not attractive to pay more longer)

Question:

Should ICI be 100% employer paid? How much would it cost to provide this benefit campus-wide?

3. Should we adopt an opt-out enrollment system for ICI?


(Vote: Split vote – 3G, 2Y, 4R)

Reservations

• if not needed, university pays• philosophical objection

73

Question:

What would it cost to include all employees at “free” level?

4. Should we recommend a single, 30-day waiting period for all employees?


(Vote: No, preference for unclassified model – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• Range does not look attractive to the employee• believe there will be class/caste differences in coverage (employees who make less money will be likelier

to pick the free option – with a very long waiting period – or decline coverage altogether [Data: lowerincome employees who are mainly classified employees are not taking benefit now; at present, for theseemployees, a 30-day waiting period is the only option.]

Discussion:

• harder for some employees to accumulate sick leave (e.g., single parent, employee with significantmedical condition)

• disparity in how employees currently receive sick leave(“pot up front” vs. accumulate over time)

• classified staff: takes 8 years to save 1040 hours (+130 hours/year)• unclassified staff: takes >10 years to save 1040 hours (+96 hours/year)• 176 hours (initial sick leave allotment for unclassified employees) = 22 days• one waiting period for all employees would be more equitable• higher cost of short waiting period might influence many to decline coverage• preserving element of choice would let employee select “comfortable amount of risk”• natural inclination to pick the “free” choice means • “opt-out” provision would send a message that ICI is a valuable benefit, should be considered

(automatically signed up unless you reject the benefit, vs. “opt in” system)• could we offer a premium holiday to encourage employees to sign up?

[no – previous premium holiday initiated by the insurer, not the university]• one “free” option would encourage employees to take this benefit (it is better to have the insurance

with a lengthy waiting period than to forego enrollment)• consider: employer pays, employer pays 100% at specified level?• waiting period of 1040 hours (130 8-hour days) is equivalent to 8-10 year’s worth of sick leave; need

to reduce waiting period to more reasonable amount of time (~3 year’s worth of sick leave)• a shorter waiting period would be more realistic (most employees carry less than 1040 hours)• in proposed system, it would take an employee 18 months to earn 22 days of sick leave• burning all or most sick leave increases the likelihood of losing ASLCC and SHICC – takes a long

time to regain a strong sick leave balance, these employees may be losing health care at a time whenit is needed most

• consider supplemental wage insurance as alternative to EFF program if changes are not possible

Waiting periods considered:

• 30 days – best for employees who have not accumulated a lot of sick leave• 60 days – wipes out a lot of sick leave, many local employers offer this option• 90 days – wipes out a lot of sick leave, many local employers offer this option• 180 days – 8-10 year’s worth of sick leave, >1040 hour waiting period (discard this option)• Note: through HR Design collaboration process, some employees have expressed interest in a waiting

period < 30 days (additional premium); could be used for maternity leave?

74

Single waiting period (current ICI option for classified employees):

Pros Cons

• consistency• clarity• easier to administer• shortest elimination period• decreasing premiums tied to sick leave balance,

permanent premium plateaus (automatic, employeedoesn’t have to do a thing)

cat. 3 = 80 hours cat. 4 = 520 hours : reduced premium regardless cat. 5 = 728 hours of SL balance going forward cat. 6 = 1040 hours

Could we lock in $3/month @ 4, $2/month @ 5, free @6? -OR- make 728 hours “free” for everybody?

• employees may not see need at hire (ICI is “a hardsell to younger employees”); cost may lead them todecline coverage

Choice of waiting periods (current ICI option for unclassified employees):

Pros Cons

• all employees will have access to a “free” option• at hire, “free” option will encourage employees to

enroll – good to have something in place, even ifwaiting period is not optimal

• no longer tied to sick leave – administration easier• system will give choices, no longer creating

winners & losers based on salary (ability topurchase @ 30-day cost)

• how long can employees survive financiallywithout income? (120 days a long time to wait)

• requires evidence of insurability to reduce waitingperiod (easy to move to a longer waiting period,very difficult to move to a shorter one)

• no option to become eligible for deferredenrollment or decreased premiums byaccumulating sick leave – there will always be acost, whereas with permanent premium plateaus,ICI eventually becomes “free” to employee

5. Should we recommend a specific change in the number of sick leave hours an employee must exhaust?(No)

Discussion:

• 1040 hours = 8-10 years’ worth of sick leave (reduce to 3 years? 5 years?)

Options considered:

• 1040 hours to 360 hours (= 3 annual allocations of SL at 120 hours/year, ~1/3 current amount)• 1040 hours to 520 hours (½ current amount) • choice of 520 or 1040, tied to premium?• 30 days or ½ sick leave

Shorten 1040-hour waiting period to ~3 years’ worth of sick leave

Pros Cons

• more realistic (what employees actually have)[classified employees: 130 hrs x 8 yrs = 1040 hrs][unclassified employees: 96 hrs x 10 yrs = 960 hrs]

• employees with chronic medical conditions wouldlose less $ for SHICC conversion at a point whenhealth care is most needed (may never be able toaccumulate as much sick leave as an employee ingood health, need health care support more)

• impact – could increase cost

75

Decision: continue to recommend reducing the number of hours of sick leave an employee must exhaust;explore cost/keep an eye on premiums before making a formal recommendation toJCoER/OSER/ETF

6. Should we recommend that there be multiple enrollment opportunities?(Vote: Yes, 3 chances to enroll – at hire & with SL balances of 520 hours, 1040 hours – unanimous)

Discussion:

• unclassified employees have only one deferred enrollment opportunity (1040 hours of sick leave)• classified employees have multiple enrollment opportunities, also permanent premium plateaus• rewards careful use of sick leave• benefit is very valuable – we want to encourage employees to enroll, provide opportunities beyond

decision at hire• among classified employees, hundreds notified each January• can opt to change waiting period (but can only go “up” not “down” unless proof of insurability)• need multiple options to enter the system

Open enrollment options discussed:

• annual enrollment opportunity?• open enrollment option every 2 years?• open enrollment option after 5 years of service and every 5 years thereafter?• open enrollment option at sick leave levels associated with classified permanent plateaus?

(Category 4 = 520 hours, 5 = 728 hours, 6 = 1040 hours)

Deferred enrollment options discussed:

• classified: use <50 hours sick leave, category 3; categories 4-6 permanent premium plateaus• unclassified: 1040 hours of accrued sick leave or proof of insurability

(only one deferred enrollment opportunity)• new system: offer deferred enrollment opportunities at 520 hours and 1040 hours?

Questions:

• Would it be possible to offer open enrollment opportunities for ICI?• Could we encourage employees to enroll immediately, with an option to change the waiting period

selected during an open or deferred enrollment opportunity? When a particular sick leave balance isreached?

7. Should we recommend a hybrid model that allows for a reduced or “free” premium when an employeereaches specific sick leave balances (i.e., incorporate permanent premium plateaus)?

Discussion:

• classified model offers several advantages over the unclassified model

– “automatic” (employee doesn’t have to do anything)– offers lower premium without longer waiting period– saving 80 hours of sick leave/year reduces premiums– reaching a permanent premium plateau reduces/eliminates premiums regardless of sick leave

balance going forward (advantage for employees who use sick leave following a life event)

• “free” for all employees with a balance of 728 hours of sick leave?• “free” for all employees who select a waiting period of 120 days? (instead of 180 days)

76

8. Could wage insurance help us offer a paid parental leave?

Discussion:

• explore < 30 day waiting period for ICI• AFLAC – out of pocket medical costs, living expenses, accident or critical illness, hospital

indemnity, dental, whole life, portable policy, premium determined by salary, wait. 0-180 days

9. Should we recommend making changes to the state-administered ICI program AND developing a universitywage insurance benefit?

(No – Recommend changes to OSER/ETF. If state does not adopt recommendations, then create asupplemental/alternative wage insurance option for University of Wisconsin-Madison employees.)

ICI recommendations:• all employees: same enrollment opportunities, program guidelines• continue to offer standard and supplemental ICI plans

(supplemental plan for employees with wages > $64,000)• full employer contribution at 6 months of WRS-eligible employment

(same as current classified employees)• offer enrollment at hire, plus 2 deferred enrollment opportunities (520 hours, 1040 hours)• explore possibility of offering open enrollment opportunities (every 5 years of service?)• employee selects waiting period/premium level: 30, 60, 90, 120 days• 120 days = free option• reduce 1040 hour waiting period• explore < 30 day waiting period

Sources:

Wisconsin Statutes

Chapter 40.61 Income Continuation Coverage.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/V/61

Chapter 40.61 Income continuation insurance benefits.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/V/62

Appendix 23: Long-Term Care(We do not have a recommendation at this time.)

Discussion:

• we have concerns about whether long term care offers a good deal for employees• many stories in the press recently about families not being well-served – plans covering only a

fraction of actual costs, lengthy waiting periods, etc.• it will require research (survey?), metrics, analysis/study to assess whether this insurance is meeting

employees’ needs

Source:

Wisconsin Statutes

Chapter 40.55 Long-term care coverage.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/IV/55

77

Appendix 24. Sick Leave Credit Conversion Programs

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison create a parallel SHICC program?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison advocate for statutory change (ending SHICC as anadministrative program that must be approved biannually in the UW compensation plan and re-creatingSHICC as a statutory program, like ASLCC)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Language for recommendation:

Continue SHICC for University of Wisconsin-Madison employees. A new program will be neededbecause, effective 1 July 2013, university employees will no longer be covered by Wisconsin StatutesChapter 230. We recommend that university employees be eligible for the same benefits offered by theOSER/ETF-administered SHICC program.

Sources:

Chapter 40.04 Contributions and premiums [Accumulated Sick Leave Conversion Credit]https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/I/05

Note: OSER authorizes the Supplemental Sick Leave Conversion Credit program through collective bargaining andcompensation plans.

Sick Leave Conversion Credit Program: Accumulated Sick Leave Conversion Credits (ASLCC) andSupplemental Health Insurance Conversion Credits (SCHICC)www.bussvc.wisc.edu/ecbs/lev-aslcc-shicc-information-chart-uw1048.pdf

Memo from Bob Lavigna (Director, OHR) to all employees, re: Update on sick leave conversion (9 June 2011):http://budget.wisc.edu/budget-news/update-on-sick-leave-conversion/

Memo from Bob Lavigna (Director, OHR) to all employees, re: Update on sick leave conversion (9 June 2011):http://budget.wisc.edu/budget-news/update-on-sick-leave-conversion/

ASLCC allows retiring employees to convert all of their unused sick leave into a dollar amount to pay retiree health insurancepremiums. Since this benefit is provided by statute, it would require legislative action to change it. There is no language in thebiennial budget bill currently before the Legislature that would change ASLCC. Even if ASLCC were changed, statutoryprovisions prevent those changes from being imposed retroactively.

The SHICC program allows employees with at least 15 years of state service to convert additional sick leave when they retire, forthe same purpose....Unlike ASLCC, SHICC is an administrative benefit rather than a statutory benefit. As such, it can be changedthrough a change to the state Compensation Plan. The Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) will be submitting the2011-13 Compensation Plan to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) for approval in the nextfew weeks.

Appendix 25. Wisconsin Retirement System

Decision point:Should we recommend an “Opt Out” option for WRS retirement?(Vote: No – 1G, 9R)

Reservation:

“I feel strongly about opt-out. It is a values question. The employer is putting a value on retirement and forcingemployees participate in the program. Some people do not value saving for retirement. Father died at 42 – did notneed retirement money.”

78

Discussion:

• new premium contribution required by Act 10 a significant hardship for many employees and a bigissue: employee’s bargained for the employer level of contribution in lieu of salary increases andwhat was negotiated in good faith has been taken away

• costs beyond current employees: potential applicants see that value of benefits here has declined,with potential for further erosion, UW may develop a reputation for political instability, less valuablebenefits than peers

• ample anecdotal evidence that with effective 8+ % reduction in take-home pay, some employeessimply cannot afford new costs – immediate costs (rent, food) are first priorities and saving,retirement are desirable but not possible (“I can’t afford to work here any more”)\

• some employees would like an “opt-out” option

concerns:

– if we recommend a hardship exclusion, defining hardship– if we recommend a lower contribution rate for some, cost (WRS has to be administered in the

same way for all employees – if low-income employees contribute < 5.9%, universityadministration, divisions, or departments would have to make up the difference)

– if departments bear cost, would hit some harder than others– high cost item– some team members see this as a fairness issue (same issue raised in health care discussion)

• conservative legislature wants opt-out recommendation to further reduce state’s costs

concerns:

– WRS retirement system works because of large contributor base – reduction of base wouldeventually endanger the system

– don’t want to make a recommendation on behalf of employees that provides fodder forprivatizing WRS

– recent legislation introduced in the absence of a completed study– COWS study (& others) praise health of WRS system – one of the best

• should we consider an early retirement option/incentive?

concern:

– these programs usually target high wage earners, used for downsizing (induce early retirementsand then don’t rehire) – runs counter to our objectives and intent of HR Design

• most employees who have commented on WRS Retirement want to see the system and fixed benefitannuity protected

• when employees become eligible for Medicare, health insurance becomes supplemental at lower cost

Question:

How many employees participate in 403b & 457 investment options?

Sources:

Chapter 40. Subchapter II. Wisconsin Retirement System.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/II

“The Wisconsin Retirement System is One of the Healthiest in the Country.”Center on Wisconsin Strategy (March 2011)www.cows.org/pdf/bp-wrs.pdf

Ivey, Mike. “Biz Beat: Proposal would let UW staff opt out of state retirement system.” Capital Times (21 January 2012):http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/biz-beat-proposal-would-let-new-uw-staff-opt-out/article_908e1024-43ae-11e1-a3b3-0019bb2963f4.html

79

Olsen, Kevin. “Proposal would allow University of Wisconsin to start DC plan for new hires.”Pensions & Investments (7 February 2012):www.pionline.com/article/20120207/DAILYREG/120209891

Deferred Compensation

IRC 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plans.Internal Revenue Service (21 October 2011):www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=172437,00.html

Chapter 40.80 State deferred compensation plan.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/40/VII/80

[please see also WI Law of 1981, Ch. 187]

The WDC is an unbundled supplemental retirement savings program authorized under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code.It was created by Wisconsin Laws of 1981 Chapter 187 and established in 1982 for state employees. It has been available to localemployers since 1985. The WDC is administered through the Department of Employee Trust Funds and governed by Chapter 40of the Wisconsin Statutes. The Administrator must adhere to the requirements of the State Statutes.

Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity PlansInternal Revenue Service (24 August 2011):www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=172430,00.html

Tuition Assistance

Decision point:Should we refer to tuition reimbursement, tuition remission for family members as “tuition assistance”?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Appendix 26A. Tuition Assistance for Employees

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition assistance for employees?(Vote 1: Yes – 5G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• university should have development plans for employees – education is our mission and employeedevelopment should be the norm, not an individual benefit.

(Preliminary poll: 5G, 1Y) [Decision: re-vote when all members can be present]


2. Should all employees receive tuition assistance under the same policy/plan?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• currently access varies depending on the department/unit and supervisor – need uniform, readyaccess (fund centrally rather than at department level)

• all employees should have a training and development plan that includes/provides funding forcontinuing education (tuition, technical courses, continuing education, etc.) – provide a base amountof funding/FTE when a plan is in place

• supervisor should not be able to veto/reject a career development plan that is in place, but there needsto be mutual agreement in scheduling

• some costs (“training” for current job) should be born by the department/unit

80

• other costs, including costs of education not directly related to the employee’s current position,should be reimbursed through a Tuition Assistance program

Questions:

• Do departments actually transfer dollars to the college?• Could we develop a Tuition Assistance program that would serve both employees and their

dependents?• Should employees be required to take courses that are job related? Allowed to take courses aligned

with a career plan (planning for related or different future job)? Allowed to take courses related topersonal interests (not job-related)?[Benefits team and Employee Development team partnered in considering these questions.]

• What level of reimbursement is appropriate?

Options discussed:

– reimburse 100% for passed course vs. reimbursement level on grade attained: (“B or better”100%, “C” 80%, D-F 0%). “Intrinsic motivation is good; extrinsic motivation doesn’t hurt.”

– reimburse for a specific number of credits each semester or each year (3-6 credits?)– add a retention clause: ie, for every credit earned, employee must remain employed for X

days/weeks/months or reimburse costs (faculty sabbatical a possible model)– add a non-compete clause

• When would an employee be eligible?

– after passing probationary/evaluation period

• Should it be possible to audit a course (no grade, no cost)?• Should it be possible to take courses toward a degree (supported in whole or in part)?

3. May an employee receive reimbursement for a course that is not related to his or her immediate job?(Vote: Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservation:

Courses should be related to some type of career development plan or goal-oriented performance plan. Werecommend that there be some type of mechanism in place.

Discussion:

• DARS/plan for employees?• cost-recovery model might make costs prohibitive in some areas (Business, Engineering)• Board of Regents could define employee tuition rate (employees as a category of students)

4. Should there be a limit to the number of credits reimbursed in a given semester or year?(Vote: No – 2Y, 7R)

Reservation:

If the employee is receiving assistance from the university, there needs to be an appropriate balance betweenwork and coursework (avoid overload, exhaustion). Agree this determination should be made on anindividual/case-by-case basis.

Discussion:

• “it depends”• nature of degree requirements• work being done days, evenings, weekends?• impact of flexing schedule on the work unit• guidance for supervisors?

81

5. Should there be a dollar limit on reimbursement? And/or a grade requirement for reimbursement?(Vote: Yes, 100% of tuition covered up to $5250 if the employee passes with a C or better, or a “pass” gradein a pass/fail course – 8G, 2Y)

Reservation:

Prefer a tiered system of reimbursement: 100% A, 80% B, etc.

6. Should there be a retention clause (employee repays university upon separation if he or she resigns within aspecified period)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

7. Should employees be permitted to take classes during paid/work time?(Maybe. Courses directly related to current work and required for the employee’s job should be paid for bythe employing unit and taken on work time. Decisions required on a case-by-case basis for othercircumstances.)

8. Should employees have flexibility to alter their work schedules in order to take a course?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

9. Should employees be allowed take courses at other accredited higher educational institutions?


Features of Tuition Assistance for Employees:

• single, centrally administered and funded program• reimburse employees for 100% of tuition after successful course completion, up to a maximum value of

$5250/year; no credit limit• successful completion defined as a grade of “C” or better or a “pass” in a “pass/fail” context• course must be taken at an accredited institution of higher education

(course may be taken at the University of Wisconsin-Madison or elsewhere)• when a course overlaps with work, offer as much flexibility in scheduling as possible• create a retention clause specifying a certain amount of time during which an employee must remain

employed following reimbursement for a course (otherwise, repayment at separation)

The Benefits team is continuing to work with the Employee Development team on recommendations related to TuitionAssistance. Following May feedback on Phase 2 recommendations, the Employee Development team will make arecommendation on reimbursement for courses that are not related to an employee’s current job.

Benchmarking:

University of Michiganhttp://spg.umich.edu/pdf/201.69-0.pdf

Northwestern Universitywww.northwestern.edu/hr/benefits/educational-assistance/index.html

Harvard Universitywww.employment.harvard.edu/benefits/learndevelop/

Sources:

University of Wisconsin System

Zimm, Nicole. An Analysis of the Competitiveness of the Benefits Package Available to UW System Employees.UW System Administration Office of Human Resources (4 November 2008).

82

Zimm, Nicole. Analysis of Tuition Assistance Benefits Available to UW System Employees.University of Wisconsin System Administration, Office of Human Resources & Workforce Diversity (23 February 2009)


University of Wisconsin-Madison Classified Human Resources Policies and Procedures for Classified EmployeesAppendix 12-B. Requirement Summary Chart for UW-Madison Career-Related Tuition Reimbursement(updated 31 October 2008):www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/CPPP/cppp_chapter12_app12b.pdf

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Classified Human Resources Policies and Procedures for Classified EmployeesChapter 12. Training and Development/Tuition Reimbursement (DRAFT 1 March 2012).

University of Wisconsin Madison Office of the Secretary of the Academic StaffAcademic Staff Professional Development Grants (Spring 2012 RFP for Fall 2012):http://acstaff.wisc.edu/academic-staff-professional-development-grants.htm

University of Wisconsin-Madison Academic Personnel OfficeSpecific UW System Guidelines For Faculty Retraining, Renewal and Development Proposals (13 July 2007):www.ohr.wisc.edu/grants/specsfacdev.html

Benefit Trends

Hebel, Sarah. “Illinois Bill Would End a Prized Perk: Tuition Discounts for Faculty and Staff.”Chronicle of Higher Education (8 March 2012):http://chronicle.com/article/Illinois-Bill-Would-End-a/131098/

Zlomek, Erin. “Tuition Benefits Drying Up.” Bloomberg Businessweek (17 February 2011):www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/feb2011/bs20110216_463962.htm

Appendix 26B. Tuition Assistance for Family Members

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition remission for an employee’s spouse/partner?

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition remission for an employee’s dependent child orchildren?

(Vote: Split vote – 4G, 1Y, 5R)

With reservations, we do not recommend that tuition assistance be provided for an employee’s dependent, partneror spouse at this time. Tuition assistance for an employee’s family members is a benefit offered at about half ofUW-Madison’s peer institutions. While several team members would like to see some type of tuition assistanceextended to an employee’s family members in the future, there are reservations related to moving forward atpresent:

Reservations:

• Financial cost• Political controversy (This benefit would come at a huge political cost: we are a public university and people

in the state may think it is unfair that dependents of employees get financial assistance. There is a relateddanger of creating a (mis)perception of an “inside edge” in admissions.)

• Potential to widen, rather than reduce, gap between “haves” and “have nots” (Many employees are highlyeducated – holding secondary & post-secondary degrees. Tuition assistance could further privilege aneducated class.)

• Vanishing benefit at other universities: perceptions and press about reduction or elimination of tuitionassistance benefits elsewhere

• Our first priority should be to our current employees. Discussion:

83

Tuition remission for family members:

Pros Cons

• more competitive with peers• help retain employees (lower turn-over leads to

cost savings)• help low-wage employees with access to an

education for their children• use as a recruitment tool• current employees very interested in this benefit

(Benefit Services receives a lot of questions fromemployees about tuition remission)

• financial cost• political controversy (huge political cost: we are a

public university and people in the state may thinkit is unfair that dependents of UW employees getfinancial assistance; danger of creating(mis)perception of an “inside edge” in admissions)

• widen, rather than reduce, gap between “haves”and “have nots” (many employees are highlyeducated – secondary & post-secondary degrees –and tuition remission could further privilege aneducated class)

Characteristics of a successful tuition assistance benefit:

• Pareto + (equity in availability; resources not concentrated in a small number of departments/units oramong particular employee groups

• does not interfere with other university processes (admissions, cost recovery/tuition differential,courses or programs growing dependent on the benefit)

• if available to families, equally available regardless of family structure

Questions:

• Is tuition remission cost neutral? What would be the actual cost(s) to the university?• As the university moves toward cost-recovery models (differential tuition, Educational Innovation),

will schools and colleges focus even more on receiving tuition money?• Could we create a scholarship program for families of employees?

Possible features:

• student must be admitted through the regular admission process• need-based scholarships (part or all?)• pay 30-50% of tuition costs (Tuition Assistance program vs. full Tuition Remission)• eligibility (employee must have worked at the university for > 10 years, > 75% FTE)

[length of service following award?]• caps (# of credits covered, # of years covered, # of dependents covered)

[benefit ceiling – maximum value available to a family member per year? lifetime maximum?]

Additional questions for implementation team consideration:• what degree(s) covered? (undergraduate, graduate, professional)• where? (University of Wisconsin-Madison only? award that can be used at another institution?)

More ideas:

• Convert value of benefits to pay for tuition? Employee might choose to put money toward tuitionrather than another benefit (e.g., convert value of vacation time to pay for tuition of dependent).

• Offer scholarships to students of employees who are admitted – $500/ semester

Source:

An Analysis of Tuition Assistance Benefits Available to UW System Employees Zimm, Nicole (Policy Analyst). UWSA Office of Human Resources & Workforce Diversity(23 February 2009). (pp. 72-88)www.wisconsin.edu/bor/agenda/2010/october.pdf

84

Life Enhancers

Appendix 27. Community Service

Features to consider:

• Service project (longer time period): live the Wisconsin Idea – university grant of 50% paid time,matched with employee’s accrued paid leave or unpaid leave

• Annual day of service (United Way Day of Caring, Academic Staff Day of Service offer models)• Expand current donation programs (food drives, blood drives, eye glasses) and recycling programs

(cell phones, computers, athletic shoes)• Hold a campus-wide rummage sale to benefit student scholarship programs

(work collaboratively with ASM)• Create a website specific to community service opportunities

Appendix 28. Wellness Program

Discussion:

• advisory group to recommend features? wellness coordinator?• wellness program would promote employee health and well-being, improve morale and productivity,

create opportunities for employees across campus to interact socially as well as professionally

Features to consider:

• UWell: Build upon and support the new online resource: http://uwell.wisc.edu/

• Eating Well

– nutrition education and cooking classes promoting health eating and recipies– farmer’s market on campus

• Exercise

– support flexible schedules, enable employees to exercise during their workday– fitness classes for employees: affordable, convenient– support UW-Madison teams at community fitness events

• Education– health lecture series, open to all employees, afford access by scheduling at various times, permit

employees to attend on work time (timely topics: seasonal affective disorder, weight loss,vitamin D deficiency, dementia, meditation, alternative medicine, etc.)

– annual health fair for employees– financial literacy classes

• Health screenings & inoculations– blood pressure, cholesterol checks– continue annual flu shot program

• Support programs (e.g., AA, smoking cessation, Weight Watchers)• Service opportunities and opportunities for social interaction

– arts and crafts festival on campus to support Great People scholarships– expand Council for Non-represented Staff (CNCS) Book Club [Tie in with Go Big Read or

School of Education’s Common Read?]

85

Appendix 29. Child Care, Dependent Care & Elder Care Referrals

Questions:

• How can the university assist employees in finding accredited dependent and elder care as well asaccredited child care?

• Can we offer additional opportunities for early childhood care and education, especially infant care,on campus?

Appendix 30. Parking & Transportation

Discussion:

• additional bus lots (similar to the lot at Research Park) to circulate employees to campus• cut commuting time by adding express Metro buses serving the outskirts of Madison (limited stops,

avoid transfers)• expand vanpool service for employees who live on the outskirts of Madison• consider sliding scale parking fees based on income• limit incursions into paid parking – either give permit holders a price break or subsidize the annual

fee• ability to donate use of parking space while on vacation• support new policy that will spread parking fee deductions over 12-months• continue Employee Buss Pass Program• communication/guidance for employees who apply for, but are not offered, parking

Sources:

Duffin, Anna. “Campus parking permit prices could increase by as much as $45 next year.”Daily Cardinal (8 February 2012):http://host.madison.com/daily-cardinal/news/campus-parking-permit-prices-could-increase-by-as-much-as/article_d0987c0c-522e-11e1-9d3b-001871e3ce6c.html

Appendix 31. Discounted Services

Discussion:

• create a website listing corporate discounts available to employees by category• central “home” and quarterly updates• Medical Foundation website offers a good model – arranged by category (entertainment, health and

wellness, shopping, technology etc.), links to relevant pages• Create an employee advisory committee to develop, monitor, make recommendations

Appendix 32. Benefit Ideas – options offered at other universities and by private sector employers

• Career & skills assessments• Family Care/Work-Life Balance

– adoption assistance programs– parental leave– screened child care and elder care website– elder care support group– back-up child care and elder care service

• Financial & Legal Assistance– medical premium relief program

– disaster relief fund: immediate economic assistance for employees who have suffered significant loss

86

due to natural disaster, and have no other source of cash, funded by employee contributions– group auto and homeowners insurance discounts– group legal insurance: basic legal services such as phone consultation or will preparation– financial planning series– personal business days off for financial or legal matters, do not carry-over

• Health/Wellness

– wellness programs/wellness coordinator– campus farmer’s market– weight loss programs– walking program: employer sponsored walkathon (employees set goals to walk a certain number of

steps each day, win a gym membership)

• Home ownership

– neighborhood home purchase assistance: forgivable loan for purchase and renovation of homes indefined borders, live in home for specified time

– mortgage assistance program: application process for home purchase, refinance

• Reward and recognition of staff

– additional time-off– reserved parking spot for a month– birthday breakfasts (monthly, employees with a birthday in that month)

• Resources/Support

– website with online tools, resources and support for everyday living– LifeWorks: referrals and resources to face life challenges

• Service opportunities – paid time off to volunteer• Traditional perquisites

– employee access to discounted tickets for campus sporting events– on-campus services (dry cleaning, massage therapy, gym, car wash, oil change, bike repair, hair

stylist)

Source:

Ginsberg-Schutz, Maggie. Best Places to Work: The Good, the Great, & the Best.”Madison Magazine (April 2012): 54-71.

87

Benefits for Trades Employees

Appendix 33. Benefits for Trades Employees

Salary:

The salary of a Trades employee is related to the adjusted state prevailing rate.

The prevailing rate is based on the gross area building construction prevailing craft rate (base rate) plusemployer-paid employee benefits, including industry promotion and training funds.

This total gross amount is then adjusted, based on a reduction formula calculation that identifies the value ofstate-provided employee benefits, to arrive at the effective value of the adjusted state prevailing rate. Theadjustment for state-provided employee benefits from the last bargaining contract is seventeen and two-tenthsof one percent (17.2%) of the gross area building construction prevailing craft rate (base plus fringes), plusthe cost of the optional health insurance.

Personal Holidays:

Trades employees do not receive any personal holidays.

Vacation:

Individual wages are adjusted annually, according to the rate of vacation option the employee selects:

< 20 years of service: 84 hrs or 124 hrs (2-3 weeks of vacation)

> 20 years of service: 100 hrs, 140 hrs or 180 hrs (up to 4 ½ weeks)

Sick Leave:

Like other classified employees, Trades employees earn sick leave at the rate of 5 hours per pay period.

5 x 26 biweekly pay periods = 130 hours (16.25 days)/year

Health Insurance:

Trades employees have the option to participate in State Group Health Insurance, paying the full premium(no employer contribution).

Other Insurance:

Trades employees have the option to participate in other insurances, paying the same rate as other employeesfor insurances selected.

Retirement:

Trades employees are required to make two contributions toward retirement: a 9.5% contribution to theWisconsin Retirement System, required by the terms of the 2007-2009 agreement (contribution has been ineffect since 1 July 2005), and a 5.9% contribution to the Wisconsin Retirement System, required by Act 10.

These salary and benefit practices were established in the 1970’s.

Questions:

• Is there a continuing competitive need to provide benefits in current model (developed 1970’s)?• Are these practices truly competitive?• What are the implications of changes at UW Hospital & Clinics (-$5.90 & uniform benefits, effective 1

January 2011)?

– Too early to know– We have heard differing reports: 90% retained? “cream of the crop” left?– How many Trades employees were retained (#/%)? How successful is UWH&C recruitment?

88

Discussion:

• elements of employment relationship that disadvantage Trades employees (wages frozen since 2009,9.5% contribution to retirement, lack of access to some benefits – e.g., paid vacation, SHICC)

• elements of employment relationship that create inequities for other employees (WRS retirementbased on adjusted wage not base wage)

• Trades employees might want same benefits without loss of compensation• survey? vs. no other group allowed/invited to pick• based on what we’ve heard through employee engagement, Trades employees split on benefits• Trades recertified – contractual constraints; honoring old contracts ended in January; new contract

when University of Wisconsin-Madison becomes the employer?• perception (among employees) that there is an HR push to make Trades benefits uniform• change: compensation a limiting factor – HR Design promised no loss of salary• change: already happening – unpaid leave in lieu of vacation ended in January• conundrums: public sector employees but private sector perspective

Changes – moving into unified benefit system:• vacation (different perspectives – “when I’m not working” vs. annual benefit) • sick leave conversion - SHICC (Trades have sick leave, ASLCC)

• employer contribution to health insurance (for employees who wish to enroll)

Compensation issues:

• benefits overlap with compensation – need to check in with Compensation team[avoid/limit potential for unintended consequences, lost compensation]

• if state benefits continue to erode, than a frank loss• wage bargained vs. calculated through survey of all employers; not current – frozen since 2009

• retirement would be calculated on base pay, no longer adjusted for benefit costs

Trades employees:

• painters, carpenters, cabinet makers, plumbers, steamfitters, electricians, et al.• Trades Association an umbrella for individual unions• UW employs ½ of state Trades employees• short (but complicated) contract, ~32 pp. vs. ~300 pp. for WSEU

Employment relationship:

• apprenticeship program, unique needs, expertise – qualified individuals• university different from other state agencies, specific needs (e.g., power plant)• maintain own workforce vs. contracting out (specialized knowledge, expertise for historic facilities)

[match: labor effort to contain outsourcing, avoid privatization]• steady work, civil service protections (vs. higher wage, frequent layoffs)• work is primarily indoors (more outdoor work in private sector)• historically, no problem with recruitment, very low turnover

Data:


Trades Employees: enrollments, by benefit, as of 5/4/2012

Source:

Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin State Building Trades Negotiating Committeeand its Appropriate Affiliated Building Trades Councils, 7 June 2008 - 30 June 2009.oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=6860 [directs to Trades0709small.pdf]

University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design … · University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design...

Documents

Transcript of University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design … · University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design...