Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'elections'.
Found 2 results
-
Hi to All, John Hancock sends out an email every day with a list of alerts regarding plans we as the TPA have in common with them. They seem to think that it is "Urgent" when a plan has contributions that come in for participants who are not enrolled in the contract or have missing investment instructions. This is not the norm for most of the participants in most of our plans - if someone is employed and deliberately signs up to make deferrals, they usually choose investments too. However, sometimes a Safe Harbor 3% non-elective contribution or a profit sharing contribution gets deposited for participants who didn't choose to defer, are indeed not enrolled in the contract, and do not have any investment directions on file. How important is this? Is it a violation of something or another to have participants on default enrollment? What is John Hancock looking to us to do about it? Your observations and advice are appreciated, as always.
-
Can an employer require employees to take a certain election through a 125 plan? If it's a requirement, then isn't it not an election anymore? The employer with the union and the CBA can create the cafeteria menu, but can they force an employee through the cafeteria line? If the CBA states: " fringe benefit 1, fringe benefit 2, and fringe benefit 3 are the responsibility of the employee through the 125 plan". Employer states, there will be a mandatory wage deduction for benefit 1, because the union has "elected" option A on your behalf without any express authorization, doesn't this violate the principle of 125 plan choice? Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
