Health Care Coverage: Job Lock and the Potential Impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Excerpt] The majority of Americans—about 55 percent in 2010—rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, which is largely subsidized by most employers and thus less costly to employees than coverage purchased by individuals on their own. Although a valued employee benefit, many believe that having health coverage tied to employment can influence workers to stay in jobs they might otherwise leave, a phenomenon generally known as “job lock.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted in 2010, includes provisions that are designed to increase the accessibility and affordability of health coverage, particularly for individuals with preexisting health conditions. PPACA implementation is phased; though some provisions went into effect during the year of enactment, many provisions are scheduled to take effect in 2014. Some suggest that one benefit of PPACA may be a decrease in the occurrence of job lock. You asked us to examine job lock and the specific ways PPACA may affect it. Accordingly, we examined two key questions: 1. What has research shown about whether and the extent to which workers stay in jobs they might otherwise leave out of fear of losing health care coverage and the impact of those decisions on the labor market? 2. What are expert views on the ability of PPACA to mitigate job lock

1941 Presidential Certificate of Recognition for Services

February 27, 1941, Presidential Certificate of Recognition for Services to Louis-Philippe Gagné from the Director of Selective Service.https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/fac-lpg-awards/1004/thumbnail.jp

Testimony of Colonel J. M. Chivington April 26, 1865

Testimony of Colonel J. M. Chivington April 26, 186

Treaty of Little Arkansas - October 17, 1865

Ratified Indian Treaty 342: Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho - Little Arkansas River, Kansas, October 17, 186

Treaty of Fort Wise, 1861

Ratified Indian Treaty 315: Arapaho and Cheyenne (of the Upper Arkansas) - Fort Wise, Kansas Territory, February 18, 186

Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith Washington, March 14, 1865

Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith Washington, March 14, 186

Retirement Security: Better Information on Income Replacement Rates Needed to Help Workers Plan for Retirement

[Excerpt] Part of DOL’s mission is to promote the retirement security of America’s workers, a goal that has become increasingly challenging. One tool for assessing the adequacy of retirement income is the replacement rate. However, recommendations for the replacement rate that a household should target vary widely, in part because of the diverse underlying assumptions used to develop the rates. GAO was asked to review what consumption in retirement looks like and how target replacement rates are developed. GAO examined (1) whether and how spending patterns vary by age, (2) key factors used to develop target replacement rates, and (3) the usefulness of information on such rates provided by DOL. GAO analyzed data from the BLS’s 2013 Consumer Expenditure Survey, the most recent available; analyzed 59 articles and reports that discussed how to develop, calculate, or evaluate replacement rates; collected non-generalizable information from 14 retirement services firms and financial planners recommended by researchers and actuaries who have studied replacement rates; and reviewed DOL materials and interviewed officials

Women in Management: Analysis of Female Managers\u27 Representation, Characteristics, and Pay

[Excerpt] Although women\u27s representation across the general workforce is growing, there remains a need for information about the challenges women face in advancing their careers. In 2001, using 1995 and 2000 data from the Current Population Survey, we found women were less represented in management than in the overall workforce in 4 of the 10 industries reviewed. We also found differences in the characteristics and pay of male and female managers, which we explored using statistical modeling techniques. To respond to your request that we update this information to 2007, this report addresses the following three questions: (1) What is the representation of women in management positions compared to their representation in nonmanagement positions by industry? (2) What are the key characteristics of women and men in management positions by industry? and (3) What is the difference in pay between women and men in full-time management positions by industry

Capitol Police: Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition Compared to Other Federal Police Forces

[Excerpt] The Washington, D.C. metropolitan (DC metro) area is home to many federal police forces, including the United States Capitol Police (USCP), which maintain the safety of federal property, employees, and the public. Officials are concerned that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have caused federal police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee proposed six changes to enhance the USCP benefit structure. GAO was asked to review USCP’s pay and retirement benefits and compare them to other federal police forces in the DC metro area. GAO (1) compared USCP to other forces with respect to retirement benefits, minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements; (2) compared attrition at USCP to other forces, and determined how, if at all, USCP and other forces used human capital flexibilities (e.g., retention bonus); and (3) determined what level of retirement income USCP benefits provide and the costs associated with the proposed benefit enhancements. GAO chose nine other federal police forces to review based on prior work, inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) police occupational series, and officer presence in the DC metro area. GAO analyzed laws, regulations, OPM data from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and human capital data from the 10 police forces. GAO also surveyed the 10 forces

Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention

[Excerpt] The national extent of employee misclassification is unknown; however, earlier and more recent, though not as comprehensive, studies suggest that it could be a significant problem with adverse consequences. For example, for tax year 1984, IRS estimated that U.S. employers misclassified a total of 3.4 million employees, resulting in an estimated revenue loss of $1.6 billion (in 1984 dollars). DOL commissioned a study in 2000 that found that 10 percent to 30 percent of firms audited in 9 states misclassified at least some employees. Although employee misclassification itself is not a violation of law, it is often associated with labor and tax law violations. DOL\u27s detection of misclassification generally results from its investigations of alleged violations of federal labor law, particularly complaints involving nonpayment of overtime or minimum wages. Although outreach to workers could help reduce the incidence of misclassification, DOL\u27s work in this area is limited, and the agency rarely uses penalties in cases of misclassification. IRS enforces worker classification compliance primarily through examinations of employers but also offers settlements through which eligible employers under examination can reduce taxes they might owe if they maintain proper classification of their workers in the future. IRS provides general information on classification through its publications and fact sheets available on its Web site and targets outreach efforts to tax and payroll professionals, but generally not to workers. IRS faces challenges with these compliance efforts because of resource constraints and limits that the tax law places on IRS\u27s classification enforcement and education activities. DOL and IRS typically do not exchange the information they collect on misclassification, in part because of certain restrictions in the tax code on IRS\u27s ability to share tax information with federal agencies. Also, DOL agencies do not share information internally on misclassification. Few states collaborate with DOL to address misclassification, however, IRS and 34 states share information on misclassification-related audits, as permitted under the tax code. Generally, IRS and states have found collaboration to be helpful, although some states believe information sharing practices could be improved. Some states have reported successful collaboration among their own agencies, including through task forces or joint interagency initiatives to detect misclassification. Although these initiatives are relatively recent, state officials told us that they have been effective in uncovering misclassification. GAO identified various options that could help address the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Stakeholders GAO surveyed, including labor and employer groups, did not unanimously support or oppose any of these options. However, some options received more support, including enhancing coordination between federal and state agencies, expanding outreach to workers on classification, and allowing employers to voluntarily enter IRS\u27s settlement program