How do Benefits Managers think - ethically as well as legally

[Guest banality]

I read this forum from time to time to get an idea of how Benefit's Managers think, but it always depresses me because half the posts seem to be about how to exclude people, how to legally reduce benefits, and how to retain privileges for the bigwigs while shafting the rank-and-file.

From time to time, I also read interesting articles about how bias and illegal action can be covertly accomplished through HR. For instance, check out this recent article on how black-sounding names can hurt job applicants:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/Busine...s_040820-1.html

I wonder: do Benefits Managers ever worry about conflicting pressures of their employer, the law (the spirit as well as the letter), and the right thing to do? Has there ever been a major class action lawsuit that was specifically aimed at Benefits Managers? Are there any notable examples of whistleblowers or people who have taken an important stand to protect the more disadvantaged segments of the organization they serve?

[MoJo]

Rather interesting, if one sided comment, banality.... I think most people (including those who post here) are more concerned with doing hteir jobs, and doing them well. Sometimes, that means reducing the costs of providing benefits, and sometimes the only way to do that is to reduce benefits. Keep in mind these are business people. Business have certain economic realities that will determine their continued existence. Benefits (and all labor costs, if fact) are one of those variables that a business may be able to (somewhat control).

As far as "retain[ing] privileges for the bigwigs while shafting the rank-and-file," that isn't necessarily the case. In many cases, providing better "compensation" (which includes benefits) to those who's value to the company is greaterthan others is a legitimate business practice. I agree that at times it appears that the rank and file get the shaft, but look at the provisions of IRC Section 401(a)(1) et seq. Most of these provisions have the effect of causing companies to increase benefits to the rank and file. Arguably the complexity involved in complying with some of these provisions has increased administrative costs, and may have, as a result, had the effect of decreasing overall benefits - and further, have caused some to look for ways to maintain benefits for a select few. The code and regs actually allow this (look at the cross testing provisions of the 401(a)(4) regs, the ability to integrate employer non-elective contributions, the fact that we have a coverage and average benefit requirement for NHCEs of only 70% - i.e. some "discrimination is legally permitted). I see nothing wrong (philosophically or otherwise) with taking advantage of these provisions - where appropriate- to provide higher benefits to those who determine whether benefits will be offered at all...l

[Guest georgia]

an organization that struggles to remain solvent seeks to reduce its expenses, including salary and benefits. an organization that loses that struggle may cease to exist, who enjoys salary and benefits then?

[GBurns]

banality,

A Benefits Manager is only an employee. Employees follow orders given by the bosses. Employees look after the interests of the bosses who employ them not those of the co-workers who work alongside them temporarily.

Usually anyone who places the interests of employees before the interests of the employer, does not last very long in their position.

[pmacduff]

Just to expand on what others are saying...IMHO

(I'm pretty much strictly in the small Employer market as a TPA)

In this day & age & economy, many of our clients have eliminated any employer funded "pension" plans they may have once had. In order to encourage these small Employers to maintain any type of qualified plan at all, we need to make the plan as attractive to the owners as possible. One way to do that is to show them how they can maximize their own benefit with the least amount to the rank & file. I understand that it can sound like a negative for the employees, but is it really? I, for one, know that many of the clients my company services would not offer any type of plan at all for their employees if the owners were not realizing the maximum benefits at the lowest cost. Isn't that better than the alternative of offering no plan at all?

[FundeK]

Well said pmacduff!!

[Mary C]

What about protecting the plan? Fiduciary duty? As a benefit professionals we are required to administer the plan according to its provisions. Unfortunately that means if someone didn't elect coverage when eligible then gets ill and wants coverage, we can't do that. Is it morally or ethically right? Depends on your point of view, but I feel its part of my job to protect the plan and its provisions. That may mean being harsh or cruel to one person in order to preserve government qualification of the plan for everyone else.

By the way, our "big wigs" have the same plan options and contributions towards coverage as the rank and file.

[GBurns]

With whom does the fiduciary duty rest, the Benefits Manager, the Plan Sponsor or the Plan Sponsor's agent (the TPA)?

Who is the Plan Sponsor, the Benefits Manager or the Employer?

Who is the Employer, the Benefits Manager or the "Boss"?

It does not matter what the Benefits Manager feels or wants, it matters only what the "Boss" wants? He pays any penalties for wanting something illegal or improper, not the Benefits Manager.

The only the thing that the Benefits Manager can do, other than to follow orders, is to give guidance to the Boss. It is the Boss's decision whether or not to accept the guidance.

[WDIK]

The only the thing that the Benefits Manager can do, other than to follow orders, is to give guidance to the Boss.

...and document your position and actions for the possibility of a convenient case of temporary amnesia.

[MoJo]

GBurns says : The only the thing that the Benefits Manager can do, other than to follow orders, is to give guidance to the Boss.

WDIK says: ...and document your position and actions for the possibility of a convenient case of temporary amnesia

Or you can voice your opinion, use your skills, your passion for what is right, to convince others to be better.... And, if you can't, and if the situation is so repugnant, then it's time to find another situation....

[Guest banality]

I understand that the issues for Benefits Managers involve keeping their jobs and protecting the legal and financial stability of the plan. I'm glad someone brought up the idea that "just following orders" may be morally wrong.

Of course it's easy to talk about doing something for the moral good if it isn't your own job on the line. I also don't think "quit your job if you don't like it" is the answer. Job separations seriously disadvantage the job seeker, even when the economy is booming. Recruiters and hiring managers are predisposed to think that something is "wrong" with the individual when they separate from a previous position, especially if they don't want to provide a recommendation from a vindictive previous manager. Of course, it's customary to avoid saying anything critical about your previous employer, which causes all sorts of suspicious verbal contortions. At best, a person who chose to leave an organization looks like a possible bad fit. God help you if you've left more than one position for reasons of integrity.

Therefore, I think it's unfair that we as a society leave no option for integrity other than risking your job or quitting to avoid participating in something "repugnant." I also think it's a shame that a lot of Benefits Managers seem to deal with this by narrowly focusing on "following orders". The main reason I brought up padding Bigwig Benefits while cutting those of the rank and file is that I was reading posts about it on the forum, and the questions were presented in such a mundane, business-as-usual way: "Can anyone tell me how I can legally boost the boss's benefits while cutting everyone else off?"

The lesson I'm drawing from this is not that the administration of benefits has become too expensive, but that there aren't enough laws (or enforcement of existing laws) to protect employees from "the boss". The entrepreneurial spirit is part of what is supposed to make this country great, but the other part is supposed to be having the conscience and values to do the right thing.

I just find it very depressing that people have to cut off their conscience to do their job. I'm sure if they don't, though, it's very hard to struggle through the day under such inhumane and morally empty circumstances.

Then again, maybe the next social revolution with start with Benefits Managers: you guys seem to be right on the front line of the issues.

[GBurns]

I agree wholeheartedly that "I just find it very depressing that people have to cut off their conscience to do their job".

How did we get here? I blame the HR people as being the ones who fostered the growth of this environment. I also blame them for causing the situation you described regarding job separation and references etc. They are the ones who caused all of this by setting the tone and conditions of job interviews, screenings and references etc.

You might also be partially right regarding "that there aren't enough laws (or enforcement of existing laws) to protect employees from "the boss"." however, it might really be a case of the non-reporting and non-litigating of violations. Again a situation most likely fostered by HR who neither will report incidents to the authorities nor support employees (or ex-employees) in any dispute with the "boss".

Why won't they? They are protecting their own butts and just putting on a show. No different from what we just discussed about Benefit Managers.

[Guest banality]

I do hold HR responsible for distorting the workforce in the direction of hyper image-consciousness and rampant dishonesty. HR screens candidates for their looks and various personality factors. In response, job candidates tailor their looks, to the point of seeking plastic surgery, and try to give HR the answers that HR reps want to hear. As a result, the most successful candidates are often the best liars. The people of true integrity are weeded out for giving the wrong answers. HR people seem to be comfortable with shifting the blame to the weeded-out candidate for not wanting to join the company badly enough to jump through the hoops that HR sets up.

While I'm making over-broad generalizations, I'd like to mention that it's disheartening that the HR reps for large corporations all seem to look like Salesperson Barbie and/or Ken.

On the employer side of the HR wall, managers are still able to mysteriously work around HR rules in their own favor. They create the best soft-skills jobs after they have a candidate (friend of a friend of a friend) that they want. They know HR will fall all over themselves to cover it up if they break corporate policies. This is a stealth perpetuation of class society because it's a system that produces cookie-cutter people.

The basic truth is there is very little intelligence differential between people, and very little "character" difference as well: scratch a "bad employee", and you will probably find a "bad manager" and a "crazy environment" as well. So at the end of the day when you have wide differentials in opportunity, compensation, and personal respect, what you are really looking at is the fingerprints of class channeling, facilitated by HR.

I previously regarded Benefits Managers as less culpable in this system: I thought that they basically dealt with rules and paperwork. However, after reading this forum, I started to see the ways Benefits Managers participate in practices that promote the abstract "organization" at the expense of real people.

I'm not someone who thinks litigation will save the world: the legal profession is as corrupt and money-driven as any others these days. However, I'd like to see more pro-employee laws and pro-employee litigation. I agree that the problem is non-reporting (fear of retaliation: HR will support managers even if there are written policies that forbid retaliation) and non-litigation (there is little money in employment law, aside from outright discrimination, since they are hard cases to win and lawyers can usually only recover wages lost). Something has to be done to change this situation.

Otherwise, I think people will be ground to dust by layer upon layer of "just following orders".

[GBurns]

Someone on 1 of these Forums reminded me once that I could not "police the Internet" nor the Boards. There are some things that you cannot change and which are not worth your effort.

Believe me when I tell you (from many personal experiences) NO ONE will thank you for making the corrections and while you are doing NO ONE will visibly support you. You will be the lone voice crying in the wilderness. and if you are ever successful at causing change no one will thank you if they even remember that you did it.

Remember the Peter Principle, these people will all eventually rise to their level of incompetence. Crud usually rises to the top and floats with the current. Then it all gets flushed, anyway.

Unfortunately, that is the way societies historically rise and fall. Maybe its just the start of our turn.

Do that which furthers you along your chosen path and let other solve their own problems. Let them be "ground to dust" if that is what they allow, just don't inhale any of it.

[Guest banality]

Well, no one will visibly support me no matter what, because I'm not the sort of person people bother with. But to quote Sir Walter Raleigh, "...it is the unhappy fate of great inventions, to be vilified, as idle fancies, or dreams...and being once made known, to be undervalued; as falling within compass of the meanest wit." Sorry, I can't think of a similar contemporary quote, but the point is that someone has to say the unpopular thing. The first person to say it is usually the one who has nothing to lose, who isn't dependent on the "appreciation" of others.

I don't want to police anybody, but I do wish people would start thinking of the larger, longterm consequences of their "business decisions". However, if people do think about it, I'm sure they would have to realistically conclude that you can't put that sort of responsibility on people to do the right thing: they look after number one first - that's the natural human survival instinct. Thus, the only way to fend off the inevitable corruption is to create and *enforce* laws that protect people from the worst aspects of each other.

People can hate me for saying it - it makes no difference in my life since I already get the short end of the social stick, but I hope there are people with a respected voice who are saying it as well.

I agree that we're on the downslope of a larger historical cycle. The flexibility of the U.S. has relied on upward mobility, with a policy bias toward the middle class. Current social behavior rigidifies the class structure, and generates increasing tension between image and integrity that smacks of fascism. I don't think it's hyperbole to raise the issue of where the "just following orders" mentality will lead under these circumstances.

[MoJo]

I've been resisting saying this because of the obvious political overtones but I agree with you, Banality, and think the whole problem of this downward slope has been the fundamental tenant of supply siders and the failure of trickle down economics.... We all seem to be motivated to "get to the top" at all costs, while those at the top are motivated to keep us from getting there.

Some people don't want to climb the same corporate ladder, and our current employment/HR philosophy is that if you don't want to climb my ladder, and grovel all the way up (whilst pushing me ahead) then you aren't the kind of material I want in the workforce....

[Guest banality]

Wow, that's an astute observation. It does seem like the social consequence of trickle down economics would be to increase supplication for arbitrarily available resources. I have a friend who works as an economist, and I'm going to bring this up and see if he will hash this out with me.

Thanks!

Edited to add: I'm going to argue in another forum that the interpersonal stresses of this situation adds to the overall public cost of health care.

[GBurns]

I would argue that it has nothing to do with "trickle down" or any economic theory and also has nothing to do with "get to the top at all costs" either.

I think that it is more a failure of ethics and morals caused partially by the failure of "religion" and religious and educational thought and teachings (or lack thereof).

I do not think that most people try to or are even interested in "getting to the top". As a result there is not much in the way of those at the top trying to keep others away. The air is too thin at the top and the base too wide for the "top" to keep anyone "down".

I also do not agree with "our current employment/HR philosophy is that if you don't want to climb my ladder, and grovel all the way up (whilst pushing me ahead)" etc. I do not think that there is any concern about anyone climbing any ladder, however, I will agree with the "grovel all the way". I think that that is really what they want to see employees and co-workers do, sweat and grovel.

"Grovel all the way" and debasing your fellowman seems to have become the norm along with "if I don't have it you should not have it". Envy, sloth and petty greed have replaced or redefined most of our ethical and moral standards.

[Guest banality]

I think the "struggle to get to the top" is mostly an effect of trying to get past the people who are making you feel insecure through arbitrary or petty behavior rather than personal ambition to rule an empire.

I just got a note from a recruiter that told me that I was no longer being considered for a job because the "requirements had changed". Actually, the recruiter had been enthusiastic about the close match between my skills/experience and the job, *until* I met the recruiter in a face-to-face interview. At that point, the recruiter's "people instincts" came into play, and she wrote me off as the wrong type. This has happened to me so many times, that I'm beginning to make large negative generalizations about the nature of humanity. Despite all religion, philosophy, culture, and even the messages of pop entertainment, the people with a little bit of decision-making power can't seem to get past their superficial assessments of the "right sort" of person. I just don't think people are individually able to overcome the illusions that seem like instincts or, worse, "people judgment" to them. There will always be rationalizations for prejudice.

That's why I think legislation to protect the people most vulnerable to the darker side of group dynamics is the only solution.

[WDIK]

banality:

I get the impression that you feel as though you have been unfairly treated many based on some physical characteristic or mannerism. Would you mind sharing with us the basis for you being considered the "wrong type?"

[Guest banality]

Yes, you are correct. I'm vague because it's a topic I find embarrassing. But I will share it here so you know where I'm coming from.

I have two medical conditions that affect my looks. First, I have a condition that causes female hirsutism. That means I have a lot of hair growth on my face: I have to tweeze it (I tried laser treatment, but that actually stimulated the hair growth). As a result, I have obvious large red patches on my face that people comment on. I tend to keep my head down because of this. People might argue that this is my choice, but those people don't understand that this is one of the most embarrassing things that can happen to a woman. My tendency to keep my head down is often interpreted as weakness, gullibility, or worse, potential passive aggressiveness. If I try to bring up the medical cause, the manager will panic because no matter how carefully I put it, it raises the specter of a discrimination claim.

I also have a genetic disorder that causes claudication. This is not something that interferes with my work in any way, but when it affects my ability to walk just to make it to the commuter train. This is not something I share with my employers, but I do take medication when it flares up - for cholesterol, blood pressure, blood-thinning, etc. This effects my looks: I look tired and pale, but it doesn't affect my work. Unfortunately, people sometimes speculate, and I only hear gossip fourth-hand when it makes it to the lunch room, and someone asks me how I'm feeling.

I lost my previous job because I was worried about such speculation, and I informed my manager, via email, that I was taking medication for a medical condition. The email was intended to reassure her that it was not causing any problems with my work. In fact, I was an exceptional employee, and there had never been a negative comment from my manager or fellow employees before that time. My manager, however, called me into her office, and told me that I was never, ever to submit "documentation" that might "involve HR". Even though I got the message at that time, the manager fired me as a surprise three weeks later. I was pushed out the door immediately, so I could not retrieve email to show that there was no performance problems (the "documentation" remark is obviously my word against hers). HR had a "no retaliation" policy in regard to both discrimination and raising matters related to HR, but they choose to cover up for the manager's actions (including claiming my email had been "accidentally" destroyed) instead of upholding their "no retaliation" policies.

I'm actually not surprised by my manager: people make petty, knee-jerk decisions and then have to cover for themselves. I am disgusted with how HR responded, and also the fact that there was no way to enforce my rights in what should have been a blatant case of wrongful termination. The EEO screening call told me I needed some documentation that my manager had discriminated against me, even though she had acted to make sure I would be surprised and would not be able to obtain any documentation. Besides, she was smart enough to do everything verbally, while making her subordinates document everything they did. I waited another four months for a 1/2 hour appointment with the CA Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing. They told me the case was too complicated, and they sent me off to fend for myself with a Right to Sue notice. The Right to Sue notice does me no good, because wrongful termination is apparently not something lawyers can make a lot of money off of, and I'm a high risk since I would only be able to pay contingency fees. I wrote to various political representatives, and I finally got State Senator Don Perata to ask DFEH to reconsider my case. By that time DFEH could smugly say their deadline had gone by: even though I couldn't even get an initial appointment with them until a month before their deadline.

My unemployment checks ran out in December: the only reason I'm not homeless yet is that I dutifully put money away for retirement in an IRA. That money is almost gone now. I go to interviews from time to time. Recruiters are usually enthusiastic when they look at my resume and talk to me on the phone. However, when I go in for a personal interview, the Employer Advantage and lookism kicks in. The HR rep probes me on why I don't have a recommendation from my former manager, I look suspicious because I have to go into mental contortions to avoid badmouthing her, and, of course, the HR rep gets busy interpreting why I'm slumping slightly and have a tendency to keep my head down. The whole situation makes me angry. I'm a smart person who works hard: I've done well at every task I've ever been given. I'm also a nice person, though the work I invest in cultivating relationships can easily be undermined by a manager who attempts to control a situation by rumor and innuendo. I can only imagine what my former manager told all my coworker after I was shoved at the door: but all the people who had seemed like good friends never attempted to contact me after I was gone. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

My situation is almost iconic in its representation of social waste: a capable and good person has been thrown away by personal meanness compounded by all the evils of group dynamics and institutional evil. There are laws to address situations like mine, but it doesn't mean a fig since no one is there to enforce them.

[GBurns]

A few suggestions:

1. Consider working in the Public sector preferably the governmental employers or School Districts. The larger, the better. Your circumstances would be more common and accepted.

2. Do some research (even a simple Google search) on your conditions and the possible treatments and medications. From your post and past experience I would bet that your claudication is being seriously mishandled. Remember that the AMA recently admitted that almost 50% of cases were misdiagnosed (in certain major diseases) and that the majority of treating physicians did not even know what the established treatment guidelines for the popular major diseases were. Chances are your situation is the same.

3. Take a few very deep breaths and be thankful that it is not worse.

4. Take some more deep breaths and then go back and read all the posts. You seem to be getting too resentful of the situation and developing both a "chip" and blinders. You will need to plan your approach to life very carefully and should not carry any unnecessary items such as "a bad attitude".

5. Consider what your appearance and demeanour should be. Maybe such things as keeping your head down and not looking people in the face might not have been such a good idea in a society that likes to "look you in the eye". There might have been other ways to handle the situation.

All that said, it is very easy to sit on this side of the fence and give advice, however, your situation is not unfamiliar to me. I had an uncle who I watched suffer with a fairly similar situation and I am familiar with how he handled it. I have a 23 year old niece with the worst case of Atopic Dermatitis ever imaginable, and I have watched how she handled it in Public School, college and now work. I am also very familiar with what people subject to racial and other prejudices go through and while not the same as your situation is not all that much different. everything that you posted is applicable to many black people especially those with afflictions and not so good looks.

[Guest banality]

I'm afraid my "bad" attitude isn't going to change: I think the fact that my manager and HR got away with what they did has larger ramifications. This can happen to anybody. And being quiet about it just guarantees that managers will continue to engage in this behavior and regard it as a "successful" business tactic. The only hope to curb it is to be vocal about what happened and hope the dislike of the publicity will persuade organizations to take steps to do the right thing. I realize this makes me a "disgruntled employee" with no credibility, but by sharing my experience, perhaps I can provide validation to someone who hasn't lost their credibility yet: and they might be listened to when they speak.

I do realize my experience is not uncommon: many people have shared similar stories. That's what makes it all the more frustrating that the victim still comes off as suspicious in job interviews. The very fact the victim has to go through the job interviews means that they are forced to "explain themselves" while the perpetrator doesn't have to explain anything. It's massively unfair.

You are also correct about the claudication being mistreated. My condition is very rare, and every time I end up in a new health care plan, I have to wait for the new doctor to go through all the traditional false starts until he verifies what I was telling him up front. The problem is that they won't do the tests for claudication up front because they are expensive. There is no treatment for the underlying genetic condition: it's degenerative.

I do have experience teaching, but I made a deliberate decision not to pursue that profession, and it is frustrating that encounters with awful people may drive me back to that. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants hard work and achievement to pay off, rather than having to depend on the random good will of middle managers.

I agree with you that my perceived demeanor is a problem. However, when people comment on the red patches, it's very embarrassing. I feel like people are speculating about the tweezing. It doesn't help that hirsutism is a major target for comedians when they rip on "ugly" women. This is why I'd rather live in a world where I would be able to explain my demeanor too my boss without getting fired for it. I think that should be part of culture diversity. Interestingly, my former employer is supposed to be a leader in cultural diversity.

I am thankful my situation is not worse. For instance, my genetic condition could cause retinal bleeding at any time, and since I have no access to rapid medical treatment, I would almost certainly end up legally blind. There are many other ways my situation could be worse: my savings could be depleted already. As it is, I can probably hold out a couple more months. But still, my situation is bad. And I deserve a lot better.

One frustrating thing about public sector jobs: you have to fill out an application and take an exam for each job. It's really onerous for the jobseeker. I've applied for a few junior technology jobs, and nothing came of it. The process also takes many months.

I wish there was a way to raise public awareness about mistreatment of employees and violations of their rights without coming across as just one disgruntled individual - laden with sour grapes, shoulder chips, blinders, etc. Where are those TV superheroes when you need them to stand up for you, lol!

[Theresa Lynn]

I know that this sounds like a cop-out. (I don't mean it to be. I am petite and people think I am much taller than I am until we meet. I then get questionable comments and questions in interviews about my mental ability as if being short affects one's brain.) But have you considered doing any distance education teaching? You mentioned that you used to teach. I am a distance learning teaching for a fairly large distance education institution, and there are 100s now in the business. The pay is not too good, but if you combine it right, it might add up to something you can do until or on top of whatever else you can put together.

I wish you much luck.

I also can understand your frustrations with physicians as well.

Theresa

[Guest banality]

Thank you for the suggestion. I agree I would be much better off in a "behind the scenes" job where I don't have to deal with visual preconceptions at all.

I have often considered distance education since I have teaching experience as well as extensive web experience. I have tried to get contract work as an Instructional Designer, but it seems like this is one of those catch-22 jobs that you have to have direct experience in before you are eligible for consideration. Do you have any suggestions for getting into the field.

Also, thank you for sharing your experience and feelings about lookism. I'm also a small woman, which seems to throw me out of the category of full-fledged adulthood. I was actually grateful when I started to get some gray hair, because it was something that would confirm my actual age and (hopefully) experience.

Anyway, it really does help to hear about people who have encountered similar problems. It makes me hope that the votes will be there if laws are ever proposed to protect people with these sorts of disadvantages and vulnerabilities.

[GBurns]

You seem to like to create your own obstacles. The suggestion was made, that you might want to consider distance education teaching. and What do you do? You start limiting yoourself to being an "Instructional Designer" something for which you see a "catch-22" because you have no direct experience. Why not just try for "distance education teaching" and see what that gets you first? It will be much easier to transfer to or dabble in "Instructional Designer" AFTER you have secured a position with an institution. This is part of the "chip" and "bad attitude" of which I spoke. Get the cake first then add the icing when you have taken it home.

[Theresa Lynn]

Banality,

I don't know anything about instructional design. I am a former public school teacher, turned lawyer, CFP® certificant and graduate/law faculty member in tax and benefits.

I agree that a positive attitude is helpful, but sometimes it is hard to do at the time. We all have obstacles along the way, except that it seems like yours may be a bit more than the average. Perhaps getting a distance education position and then exploring instructional design consulting opportunities might be a good plan.

You might want to check out these sites:

Higher Education

Directory of Online Schools

Teachers Support Network

Chronicle of Higher Education

If you wish to converse further, feel free to email me privately.

Best wishes with your new endeavors (I think positively--the number of distance learning opportunities is mushrooming currently, so I believe that you will find the right one).

Theresa Lynn

[Guest banality]

I use the term "Instructional Designer" because that's a common job title in the area where I live: I've applied for a number of positions with different titles that combine technical skills and teaching/training experience - as well as pursuing both tracks separately. I own up to a massive chip on my shoulder, but I maintain that it's justified by experience.

[Guest banality]

Theresa Lynn -

Thank you for the list of consolidated resources. I'm looking for postings for distance learning instructors now. :-)

Edited to add: I have set up a resume account at all these sites, except "Directory of Online Schools". I couldn't find a job-match service associated with that site.

[Guest banality]

Veering back on topic: conservatives are trying to slip the derogatory term "Lawsuit Abuse" into the public consciousness in an attempt to get individuals to vote to deprive themselves of their right to sue.

Here is a response that claims the real Lawsuit Abuse is conducted by corporations, not individuals: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/co/co004623.php3

[Appleby]

banality,

When you get past or get over this, how about writing a book about how to triumph over adversity? Better yet. However, about starting the book now, when you still feel passionate about the matter? This could help to transfer your passion to the pages and to the readers. Yeah, I know everybody is writing a book, but then why not you too. It could be inspirational for people who find themselves in similar situations- and therapeutic for you… maybe I will see you on Oprah and other TV programs as you make the book tour

[Guest banality]

Hi, Appleby -

I do write quite a bit: juggling between coursework, the obligatory unfinished novel, and an equally obligatory unfinished dissertation. I also keep a record of everything that has happened to me in case I do ever have a positive forum to tell my story (which could include a book).

It's a nice fantasy to think of people identifying with my situation and respecting the way I've tried to deal with it. What I'd most like to do is create a world where it's safe to reveal the problems without stirring up massive disapproval and unwarranted character judgment. But I have enough of a grip on reality to realize that's highly unlikely. Mainly, most of the things I want to say are things people don't want to hear. :-p

Anyway, I'm already working on this suggestion - but I don't see any book tours in my future. I'll be lucky to get out of this life without being stoned to death!

[Theresa Lynn]

Banality,

I was wondering what topic or instructional areas in which you might be interested in teaching. Since I am involved in a number of professional groups, teach online, and am married to a faculty member of a conventional institution, I might have some ideas of where you might direct your efforts. We all need people who are content experts in certain areas. With the push to get more degrees and certifications, the teaching profession is a booming place to be. I have high confidence that the past obstacles will be in the past and that the rainbow of opportunity is just ahead!

I look forward to hearing more from you and brainstorming together.

Theresa Lynn

[Guest banality]

Hi, Theresa Lynn -

I have an M.A. and teaching experience in European and World History. I could also possibly teach Women's Studies. My recent professional experience has been in technical project analysis/coordination and in web programming (lightweight: html, javscript/html). I could probably teach an introductory web programming course for students interested in web-based training or multimedia. I've been taking night classes in web programming and multimedia for five years.

I have been giving your suggestions a lot of thought, and I think that as an ultimate goal, I'd like to pursue test design and measurement . I'm not sure if those are the correct terms, so please let me know if there is a better description for the field I'm talking about.

The reason I'm interested in testing is that I see well-constructed, low cost tests as a way of improving fairness in the workplace. If businesses offered tests for employees, the "slick salesmanship" factor would be taken out of hiring and promotion, and the political factor could be taken out of termination. I'm aware that there are issues involved in testing for government jobs, but I'm not sure what those issues are. I also want to work to make tests fair: to make sure multiple choice options aren't ambiguous, and to make sure the ultimate scoring factors in luck, good and bad. I also find it disturbing that in the technology field a lot of testing is currently conducted by vendors: this places too much burden of cost on job-seekers. I think lower level testing should be paid for by employers. Job-seekers can then invest in their careers once they've had a chance to get started in them.

Also, testing seems like the sort of behind-the-scenes job I would prefer, and people with my level of technical knowledge are probably rare.

Since I have no experience in this field, I'm sure I sound like I'm getting ahead of myself. But the discussion of Distance Education sparked some general soul searching. I think analyzing technology tests for fairness is something I'd enjoy and be good at. I'm not sure whether that field requires an advanced degree in education or something else.

[Theresa Lynn]

Banality,

You also might want to look at http://www.thejournal.com/ as a source for some good resources and educational providers. Univerisity of Phoenix is a major educational provider. Also check out ETS, now Chauncey Group, and I hear soon part of Thomson Corporation (Thomson Learning). The companies that administer and test the validity of the SATs, GREs, etc., might be able to use your talents.

Good luck! With your many talents, you should be able to find something that fits with your interests, talents, and needs.

Theresa Lynn

[Guest banality]

Thank you for all your advice and good will. :-)

Edited to add: I found an entry level job at Thomson that is ideal for my background. I will let you know what happens with that.

[Theresa Lynn]

You are very welcome...

[Guest Kevin A. Wiggins]

Banality:

I just read through this post and I am surprised that nobody addressed your original question: "do Benefits Managers ever worry about conflicting pressures of their employer, the law (the spirit as well as the letter), and the right thing to do?"

The answer is that Benefits Manager should be concerned about the conflicting pressures of their employer and the law. A few responses addressed documentation, but there is so much more than that. If you don't believe me, just look at the Enron situation. The fiduciaries of the Enron plan ignored the conflicting pressures of the employer and the law, and they got stuck. Now, post-Enron, more and more boards are pushing down fiduciary authority to people like benefits managers in the hopes of avoiding personal liability themselves. That means the personal liability will pass to those benefits managers. That makes the conflicts all the more difficult to deal with. I don't envy you at all in that regard. I do recommend that, if you find yourself in a truly sticky situation between your employer and the plan, and you think it could mean a lot of money, you keep it to yourself to keep your job, but consider hiring your own counsel (and don't tell your employer that you did).

As for the other matters, I wish you the best.

[GBurns]

I am happy for you and hope that it works out very well. It could be a case of "All good things come to he/she who waits".

Remember to guard the "chip" carefully, you really do not want anyone else to get it. And keep an eye on attitude in case he starts making faces behind your back.

[Guest banality]

Hi, Kevin -

The problem with the "hiring outside counsel" option is that isn't available to people below a certain income level. The question becomes: do you have to be wealthy to do the right thing? Or, conversely, can you really claim to have courage if you have positional power, financial stability, and a stable of sycophants behind you?

This is not just a speculative scenario. A good example is pharmaceutical exec Dr. Peter Rost: http://forbes.com/associatedpress/feeds/ap.../ap1540218.html. This man has managed to raise a high profile, dissenting opinion at more than one employer , and yet he has remained employed in a highly lucrative industry.

I want to add an additional "cross pressure problem": political representatives rarely help particular constituents unless they can deliver some bonus, such as an opportunity for good press. Let's say an average employee is trying to decide whether to do the right thing. In the current environment, it will not only be doubtful that they will be able to hire a lawyer to enforce their rights, they won't be able to get a political representative to address the problem of absent lawyers and overloaded state agencies.

To make matters worse, everyone at every level thinks it's ok to lie in their explanation of their lack of action: refusals to help come with pat excuses - "I have too many other cases right now", "I've helped to the greatest extent possible", "the requirements have changed", etc. All of these *could* be the truth, but the recipient of the brush-off usually knows darned well that they are being told that they don't matter. And this boils down to a new sort of class society: people who matter and people who don't.

The point is: how can society expect people to speak up for the right thing if all they can see around them is examples of how society crushes people who do the right thing. People who do the right thing are people without common sense, without discretion, too stubborn to learn their lesson, too much trouble... and a thousand other negative constructions. Under these conditions, the bullies, schemers, and outright criminals will prevail. Society celebrates these people as "winners" and has nothing but good things to say about them because everyone wants to "cultivate a relationship" with a winner.

If I could change just one thing about society, I would strengthen the laws that protect employees and make sure those rights are defended. That way people at every level of society would have the clear choice to do the right thing, without having to consider their ability to support their family or whether their friends will turn on them.

[GBurns]

We do not need any more laws to protect employees etc. What we really need is people to have some guts and stand up for what is right and to support those who do the right thing.

I learned long ago that whenever I stand up for truth, justice or the right thing, I am standing alone, ALL alone. I have been burned badly many times because I tend to forget the past lessons. I now try not to get involved and luckily my line of work tends to allow this, however, I still get sued at least every other year by someone trying to shut me up. I have not lost any but it costs money sometimes.

Even on this Board it happens. A moderator once told me that I should stop trying to police the Board and the Internet, when all that I was trying to do was to point out the inaccuracies in postings by a poster who used to have the habit of giving references and cites, to support his arguments, that were either non-existent, misleading or incorrect. I got the flak instead from fellow posters who were the ones getting the bad cites etc.

Can you imagine what would have happened if this was at a place of employment and jobs were at stake? I would have been physically drawn and quartered by fellow employees wanting to make sure that it was known that they were not my supporters.

Until people stand up en masse for each other, I support the need for labor unions and encourage all to do the same.

By the way, I am wondering if this Thread will be a new record for length, if not in number of posts then lines of postings.

[Guest banality]

Hi, GBurns -

I agree that when people take a stand, they not only tend to stand alone, they get burned just for taking a stand. Even if people don't disagree with you, they may feel your actions are putting them at risk or they may resent you because your courage makes them feel guilty.

I don't think people are ever going to change, so that's why I think the people who do stand up need formalize protection. Their actions need to be made less risky. Then they only have to worry about the people who don't agree with them, not the people who are afraid of the consequences of rocking the boat.

In regard to record-setting threads: this has been a very interesting discussion for me. I've only looked at a few other threads because I'm not a Benefits Manager. I was originally looking for ways to make contacts with Benefits Managers to see if there was a way advocacy groups could provide a viewpoint to counterbalance corporate propaganda in Benefits design/purchase. I saw a number of posts with a slice-and-dice tone that shocked me - that's why I came to this thread. I'm surprised no one has come to chide me for being massively off topic, particularly when we got into my personal story. However, I do want to talk about the conflicting pressures between employment, personal integrity, and social responsibility. And I'm happy to keep on talking about it if anyone else wants to!

[Theresa Lynn]

banality,

I have found this thread very interesting. I struggle with much of what you discuss. I have worked for a number of employers with ethical standards that do not measure up to my own. I also have turned down jobs where I felt that the ethical and moral code was lower than what I could accept. I also have worked with co-workers that abused me and others and the management refused to acknowledge the improper action, much less do anything about it. After many months of prayer for her to leave, she got an offer at two to three times my pay, but it was bliss. Those who abuse and use are rewarded for their assertiveness and lack of ethics and those who live their ethical standards are punished.

I would love to continue this discussion here or off line, as you might wish.

Theresa Lynn

[GBurns]

Theresa,

While it would be good that some of your more personal things be left to "off Forum" correspondence, please do not forget to make further contributions to this thread.

banality,

The reason why you have not been criticized, is probably because, in their hearts, most people agree with what is being discussed. Notice that as we continue the discussion, more and more people are "coming out". Things like these need to be exposed and too many people are not sure whether or not what happened to them also happens to others and Why etc.

You have not opened a can of worms you have instead opened minds and consciences. I thank you for having started this thread. It is not off topic (unless the Moderator deems it so) and probably deserves it own Topic since many of the issues and problems that are discussed otherwise really have their roots in these issues that we are discussing in this thread. In many cases it is this "attitude" towards work and bosses that creates the problems in the other areas that then have to be solved.

By the way look at the number of "Views". I invite these viewers to join in.

[Guest banality]

I'm glad that the conflict between integrity and loyalty in the workplace is one that continues to concern people. Sometimes I get disheartened by the idea that employers are actively trying to screen out people who show signs of integrity. I admit the sort of incidents that raise these concerns for me probably have more to do with the way I respond to questions that probe how I feel about these things - the conflicts and complexities involved confuse me, and such questions bring out indecisiveness, dissatisfaction, and other wishy washy qualities that you don't want to show during an interview.

I read a very interesting article on the Pentagon Papers today: the person who chose to leak the document, Daniel Ellsberg, talks about http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/opinion/...a2630c0f6b911ae

It's nice to hear people vouch for the difficulties involved in doing the right thing. I still wish there were more protections in place for people faced with these dilemmas of conscience.

[Guest banality]

>Those who abuse and use are rewarded for their assertiveness and lack of ethics and those who live their ethical standards are punished.

I wanted to add that I not only agree with this statement: I think it's a widely held perception. That's why it's so frustrating to me that actions in the workplace continue to support a situation that most people find morally repugnant.

[jsb]

Having re-read this string, I am struck by how aptly your list name (banality) describes the tenor of many of your comments. This has become an insipid collection of your self-defeatist, woe-is-me ramblings, which is a real shame for someone who, in stark contrast, seems to be a very bright and articulate person with much to offer. As an employer, I would not consider your looks or medical challenges to be among your flaws. However, until you lose the self-pity which you seem to wear so prominently, it is quite unlikely that you will find much satisfaction or acceptance no matter what you choose to do. Certainly I have no need for an employee with such a disagreeable countenance.

One of the most seriously deformed people I have met in my life is also one of the brightest lights shining on this earth. She has an indomitable spirit and exudes grace, compassion, and enthusiasm in whatever she does. Her faith in God and her fellow man are unmatched and her moral compass is straight and uncompromising. Many are put off by her appearance, and they are really quite the poorer for their closemindedness. She would admit there is nothing that she can do about another's attitudes except set an example in her own life. She is surrounded by loved ones and friends, and her sphere of influence continues to grow and positively impact those she encounters.

You have been candid in acknowledging some of the shortcomings you feel you have. Work on the ones that don't show up in the mirror. I promise that YOU can't change me or anyone else, but I'll bet that you can do something about you. I think you will find that acceptance from others will quickly follow.

"History has demonstrated that the most notable winners usually encountered heartbreaking obstacles before they triumphed. They finally won because they refused to become discouraged by their defeats. Disappointments acted as a challenge. Don't let difficulties discourage you." -- B.C. Forbes

[WDIK]

Although jsb's post may not be judged as the most "compassionate" in the thread, in my opinion it is the most valuable.

[GBurns]

banality,

See how the chip and the "attitude" eventually creates the problem.

[Theresa Lynn]

For what it is worth, I don't hear the negativity that jsb, GBurns, and WDIK seem to read in Banality's ability to "let down her guard" and reveal herself--flaws, gifts, and all. Perhaps we all need to be more open to listening without judgment when someone has the self-confidence and honesty to be oneself, like Banality. Perhaps we could all learn from her that we need not put up false walls and show false egos for fear of being criticized for one's honesty and candor. When we re-directed the discussion to looking at what Banality's goals were and how her gifts fit with those goals and actually listened--yes listened--we got to know a very gifted person. If we continue to make quick judgments based on words and not the messages that we explored behind them, we lose out on getting to know a valued individual who is now exploring opportunities ahead. We need to listen with an open mind, not with our own value judgments. For example, I confuse a lot of people because I am driven by how a project makes me feel (is it exciting, does it involve creativity, does it help others), not how much it pays...If you judge me based on "money" I am a failure in your eyes although I feel very blessed.

Thanks for letting me share.

Theresa Lynn