[Open wide: Gannett wants to know all about your kids]
Updated at 10:32 p.m. PT, to eliminate some of my rant overkill. In an unsettling letter, the company has begun warning employees that they must soon provide proof of eligibility for all dependents -- children, spouses and domestic partners -- covered by Gannett's healthcare plans. In the March 27 letter, human resources chief and proud Smith College graduate (more on that, below) Roxanne Horning tells employees they will need to turn over "copies of birth certificates, marriage licenses, adoption records or other documents" to verify any dependent's eligibility for coverage. Adding to the creepiness factor, the company has outsourced this to a seven-year-old outfit, Chapman Kelly, near Louisville, Ky.
Oddly, there's nothing in Horning's letter explaining why Gannett is suddenly doing this now, after decades of trusting employees to follow the rules on their own. She says this intrusive process "is a mainstream practice, especially for large employers." (How many Fortune 500 companies do this? She doesn't say.)
Horning (left) also says: "For companies that are self-insured and public -- like Gannett -- it is part of our fiduciary responsibility and in keeping with good corporate governance to ensure that claims are paid only for those who are eligible under the plans.'' (Again, I'm wondering: Why now? Has there been new research showing this is a bigger problem? Did Corporate suddenly get intelligence through sampling, showing it's a particular issue in Gannett? Finally, the letter doesn't say whether employees will need to repeat this process in a year's time.)
A reader sent me a copy of Horning's letter after I wrote yesterday about the Cadillac health benefits now enjoyed by former CEO Doug McCorkindale and his no-doubt eligible spouse. How much do you want to bet Chapman Kelly won't be calling on McCorky's house?
Now, what about Smith College?
I would have had a slightly easier time with this letter, but: I had read only days ago about Horning's role in making sure Gannett's charitable foundation is managed to its best use: supporting communities where the company owns newspapers and TV stations.
You see, Horning is a member of that elite group of executives allowed to earmark Gannett Foundation money for charity. In 2006, the foundation's tax return shows, she directed $5,000 to her alma mater: Smith, the exclusive private women's college in tony Northampton, Mass. Gannett doesn't own a single paper or TV station in Massachusetts.
[Image: Lawrence Oliver prepares to question Dustin Hoffman in the 1976 thriller, Marathon Man]
So Godwin's Law proves true once again. For those uninitiated check out the Wikipedia reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.
ReplyDeleteJim, are you really trying to equate Gannett management to Josef Mengele the Auschwitz Angel of Death? Do you really want to blow away your remaining credibility in providing a constructive place to discuss the direction of Gannett by this kind of nonsense? I've got to image that even the most ardent haters of Gannett aren't very comfortable with the association that you are trying for with the picture over this post.
Successful online journalism is about writing provocative headlines and using eye-catching artwork. As you have now demonstrated, it works!
ReplyDeleteSo answer the question. Can Gannett management be equated with Mengele? If not, how is this furthering the discussion other than being provocative and offensive.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who sees a comparision being made here between Mengele and Gannett management -- not me.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's the image that you chose that is making the comparison. I'm reacting to the comparison and asking you why you have decided to make the comparison. You are apparently not going to respond which I think speaks to you credibility and your character.
ReplyDeleteGolly: I'm not sure how I can answer this question in a way you'll understand or accept. But I'll try again.
ReplyDeleteIt's beyond contempt to suggest Gannett's management be equated with anyone as purely evil as Josef Mengele.
Once more, I'm using a provocative headline and equally provocative photo to grab reader attention; this is what bloggers do. Also, this photo from a FICTIONAL story, reflects the theme of health care, which is what this post is about. The cutline's "open wide'' boldface lead-in works with the photo, and suggests the notion of being interrogated -- another allusion to the subject of this post.
Some are obviously reading far more into this than intended.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's a simple representation of Gannett probing into areas that some would find uncomfortable and unwilling to share, and none of their business. However, if people elect to take benefits, then it is Gannett's business.
By the way, other companies have done this - including one that's headquartered in one of Gannett's largest markets. Frankly, it's no big deal and if it catches people cheating (which they will) and running up everyone's costs, then so much the better.
Do you not know that this picture came from the movie "Marathon Man"? Do you not know that this "dentist" is supposed to represent Mengele in the movie?
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe your aw shucks naivety in using this picture. Claim what you like but I suspect that in your quest to be "provocative" you decided that it might be fun to see how far you could push. For many, being provocative in this way is simply offensive.
To the sensitive person who is so disturbed by the headline and photo that led us all to read this blog post and the ensuing comments:
ReplyDeletePLEASE sit down and be quiet.
You're blocking my view of the screen. And I find that very offensive.
Golly II: Of COURSE I know that photo came from Marathon Man; that's why I provided the credit line, and a link to the movie rental service Netflix, at the bottom of the post.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I can understand why Gannett (like other companies) is asking for documentation to support the claim that dependants are indeed legitimate. I know for a fact that there are employees who are 'cheating' the system in the manner suggested and that is unfair to all employees and the stockholders. This kind of cheating drives up the costs of healthcare insurance even higher for the rest of us. Gannett is not (yet) a part of the massive welfare system in this country. Some people think that they are owed everything and can take advantage. Enough already. I do support this initiative. In addition, I would support immediate permanent termination of anyone caught cheating! Of course, I don't support the 'welfare' system that is applied to the executive drones at Gannett HQ who think they know everything but no very little. Evidence: look at the stock.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
This doesn't affect me all that much, as I have no dependents on my policy. That said, I wonder what they will do if they learn that someone has been cheating, aside from cutting off the ill-gotten benefits. Will they fire them? Sue them? Get a lien on their home? Repo their car?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they will actually save any money by doing this.
Actually, I think all of you are missing the biggest point. Isn't this a media company? Isn't there some assumption that journalists are - forgive me - honest?
ReplyDeleteHow can you trust people to cover communities - objectively I might add - if you can't trust them to be honest about the people they're asking their employer to insure as part of their own health care coverage? How does it look for the nation's largest newspaper company to call its employees' ethics into question and then ask readers and TV viewers to trust what they write and what they say?
Furthermore, if Gannett wasn't handing out million dollar bonuses (and golden parachutes) it wouldn't have to stoop so low and suspect the peons of shafting the bean counters.
As for all of you HATERS long accustomed to the status quo of having your corporate perks hidden behind closed doors - get used to it.
Again, Bravo Jim. Continue to shine your light on what may not be corporate malfeasance, but what certainly smells like it.
All I know is that two years ago at a benefits meeting for 2007 our HR manager said that Gannett would be conducting an eligibility audit to ensure that those who don't qualify for coverage (she used the example of children who dropped out of college or divorced spouses) weren't covered. At that meeting she said that those who do these kinds of confidential reviews find about 2% of those who are taking coverage aren't eligible.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many are actually covered, but assuming 50,000, that means 1000 ineligible at $10,000 a pop is a million of cost. I know my figures have to be wrong, somehow, but even if that's only close I hope they'd check it out.
The WSJ said this is a mainstream practice.
I hope your journalist-readers everywhere are checking out this new scheme. It's one thing for me to agree to show legal documents to a second party. It seems like quite another to be forced to send copies of the documents to a third party about which I know nothing and whose services I never sought out.
ReplyDeleteEven if it is legal, it feels squicky to me.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhile I usually support your posts -- especially those that highlight over-the-top perks enjoyed by under-performing executives -- I think you're off the mark on this one. If someone claims an eligible dependent on a health care enrollment form, he/she should have no reservation about proving that the dependent is indeed eligible. Although doing so may be a bit of a pain in the ass, if employees aren't lying on the enrollment forms, they have nothing to worry about other than the inconvenience.
P.S. I'd bet that more than half of the pro-management comments are coming direct from Tara or a minion. Anyone interested in a friendly, if unverifiable, wager?
This letter is outrageous. Are those of us who had children while employed with Gannett, who worked until we practically gave birth at our desks, who took parental leave when they were born - NOW we have to prove they are our children so they can get health insurance?!?! And you wonder why there is no employee loyalty? @#%$@Q them.
ReplyDeleteI've updated this post to make it less shout-y on my part, and to add some not-snarky questions I've got about why this seems to be happening now. Does anyone remember getting one of these letters last year, or the year before?
ReplyDeleteAnd, absolutely I wonder about all the costs. The company must find a way to get the most out of every dollar it spends on employee healthcare; we all get that. And in a company with 46,100 employee FAMILIES, there are no doubt plenty of folks with ineligible relatives on the plan.
But what if, as someone said above, it's as much as 2%. What's that going to save the company vs. what's that going to cost the company -- in even lower employee morale. And I say that because cost-control efforts like this too often drive a further wedge between employees and management. That's not an ideal situation when you're trying to transform.
Amen sister! We need to dump Martore the Martyr!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your blog, but "tony" Northampton? It's not a bad town, but clearly you have never been there. Either that, or you need help with the definition of "tony."
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your blog, but "tony" Northampton? Clearly, you've never been there. Either that, or you need work on what "tony" means.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Indeed, I've not only visited Northampton -- I once spent the night in a Smith College dormitory. (I get around!)
ReplyDeleteI can understand why Gannett is doing this. What I can't understand is why they wouldn't offer a better, more secure solution to the employees in getting the documentation to Chapman Kelly. We are being backed into a corner. Come on, in this day and age with mail theft, how can they even believe that we would all willingly hand over such sensitive documentation via USPS.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have management living the elite life, while rank and file is bearing the brunt of all the pain that is being pushed on them. Since the lack of vision of management is largely responsible for much of this pain, I think they should offer up equal or greater sacrifices that everyone else has, only proportionate to THEIR compensation. That would help the lowly ones on the pay scale, and perhaps impress the high and mighty with some understanding of how hard many of the changes are hitting employees.
ReplyDeleteI have worked for the "Arizona Republic" newspaper in production and have only received three measley raises in ten years! They recently even dropped "Blue Cross/Blue shield which was a better coverage. I don't believe they have any right to have in hand a copy of any document with taxes or birth certificate, etc. If somebody is getting away with sticking it to Gannett I applaud them. I remember when healthcare premiums were free and the coverage was grandiose. Now since the big corporations are getting it by the insurance companies they will stoop to as low as they can to pass the buck. Health insurance premiums are gonna go up more then inflation even if somebody isn't conning the system. especially when "Gannett" starts charging Employees for smoking like 80 dollars a month extra you must pay back the company. Also spousal surcharges which make you pay 150.00 extra a month if your working spouse is eligable someplace else for insurance. I think all these people that say "go after the cheaters", ought to work for the company and give back their hard earned wages just to show how great it is to work for "gannet". Next are the high cholesterol people and overweight people getting surcharged. Does sound like the "Healthcare Nazis".
ReplyDelete