Popular Stories

External News

Where Do you Go for Financial Advice?

Got News?
If you have news of interest to plan sponsors, email us at news@plansponsor.com

Magazine

e-mail   print   reprint   share   Login to Recommend

Cover:One Bad Apple

(cont...)

Distinctively Branded

Choice also loomed large as a factor in the 2003 introduction of Federal Express Corp.'s cash balance plan. "Our objective was to have employees make an election—not which election they made, but that they made an election," says Beth Ewing, staff director, retirement plans. The company says it does not anticipate any significant savings in the short term but that, in the long term, the new plan will have a positive impact on the company and enable it to make a more consistent, level contribution.

When FedEx announced the new plan to employees in mid-February, it kicked off a multifaceted communications campaign that was "absolutely not" aimed at getting FedEx's 129,000 employees eligible to make a choice into the new plan, Ewing says. "[The goal was] to give information for them to make the right choice," she says. "We would not be giving them a choice if we had some other objective." New employees as of June 1, 2003, automatically go into the new plan.

"At an employer the size of FedEx, people learn in different ways," Ewing says. "To be successful, we had to communicate often, in different ways, and in different mediums." After mailing an announcement to employees' homes about the new plan, the company immediately set up a pension hotline for employees to call in with questions.

FedEx also made internal broadcasts from its in-house television studio and trained internal staffers to have meetings with other employees.

The communications campaign did not have a slogan, but Ewing says it was distinctively "branded." The signature elements included very bright colors: orange, yellow, and blues. "Everything had these bright colors and employees' faces and the FedEx corporate logo," she says. "Employees said that they liked that, because they get so much mail, and a lot of it is junk mail."

Twenty-five percent of employees opted for the new plan. The two plans' formulas differ in that, under the traditional defined benefit option, most employees accrued a larger portion of their total benefit later in their careers, while benefits accrue in the portable pension plan at a more uniform rate throughout employees' careers.

Employees had 90 days to choose between the two plans. Early on, they received a "choice kit" with a personalized statement comparing their options, a guide to the two plans, and a comprehensive set of questions and answers. They also could use a Web tool to change assumptions such as their future salary increases and interest rates, then create adjusted scenarios to see how the new plan would affect them in subsequent years. Those uncomfortable with using the Web tool could do customized modeling with a voice-response system or via the pension help line.

FedEx also did plenty of employee focus groups and surveys. "We were constantly taking the pulse of our employees as we were rolling the new plan out," Ewing says. For instance, the company had a sample of employees test the Web tool before rollout and made it simpler based on their reactions. In focus groups, employees identified the three elements that had been most helpful to them in making a choice: the personalized statements, the Web site, and employee meetings. Since FedEx gave employees a choice and a personalized comparison statement, the company says that the focus groups did not reveal an employee concern that they might get less money under the new plan.

top

Uncertainty Continues

Despite their new plans' apparent success, FedEx, Honeywell, and Kodak feel the uncertainty that still surrounds hybrid plans. A big part of their unease has to do with the regulatory environment. "Here it is 2004, and we still do not have conversion rules," Zurawski notes. "There are seven million workers in hybrid plans right now—plans that are in some sort of legal limbo in terms of whether they are legitimate."

William Sweetnam, benefits tax counsel at the US Department of the Treasury, understands the feeling. "You have got one court that says they are inherently age-discriminatory, and you have Congress not letting us finalize the regs and saying this is not age-discriminatory," he says. "It is not surprising if plan sponsors look at that and say, 'I am uncomfortable because it is an open issue out there.'"

Treasury had put out proposed regulations stating that cash balance plans are not inherently age-discriminatory, but it cannot finalize those rules until Congress blesses hybrid plans. So, in June, the agency announced that it was withdrawing the proposed regulations to give Congress a chance to review the Bush administration's cash balance proposals and come up with legislation. "At this point," Metras says, "we would have to have Congress pass something."

Moreover, while some in Congress and elsewhere may question Treasury's authority to deem the plans not age-discriminatory, "We do have the authority to say that," Sweetnam contends, "because we interpret the age-discrimination laws for defined benefit plans. They just do not like our interpretation."

Honeywell is working with other companies to help get legislation introduced in the fall, Zurawski says, along with lobbying groups like the American Benefits Council and The ERISA Industry Committee. "This year or next year is the timeframe [for passage]," he says.

Asked what she wants legislation to include, Metras says, "I would like to see a validation of the hybrid design—that there is no presumption that a conversion from a traditional plan is age-discriminatory. Perhaps there could be some safe harbors, like choice."

The Pension Rights Center's Friedman says, "Any legislation would have to, at minimum, ban wearaway, protect the legitimate benefit expectations of older workers, and set appropriate standards for hybrid plans in the future." She declines to comment further for now about what standards she would like to see.

Metras believes "it is not really likely" that legislation can pass in 2004. However, Sweetnam is more optimistic, pointing to recent Congressional hearings as an indicator that lawmakers may be willing to move forward. "Some people are realizing that plan sponsors can terminate their plans to freeze their plans," he says.

While the Kodak plan continues as usual, Metras wants to move beyond the ambiguity. "Kodak was held up as a model company, even by critics of cash balance plans," she says. "So, the model company should have some certainty."

top

Judy Ward
editors@plansponsor.com

< PREVIOUS 1 2 3 NEXT >









 

GfJ432Hghb43dfs3dasds4at8